{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_50436/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_50436","id":"gutenberg_50436","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50436","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - European","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Catholic Church -- Apologetic works","Catholic Church -- Doctrines -- Catholic authors","Christian civilization","Europe -- Civilization","Protestantism"],"text":"PROTESTANTISM\n\n AND\n\n CATHOLICITY\n\n COMPARED IN THEIR\n\n EFFECTS ON THE CIVILIZATION OF EUROPE.\n\n\n WRITTEN IN SPANISH\n\n BY THE REV. J. BALMES.\n\n TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH.\n\n Second Edition.\n\n\n BALTIMORE:\n PUBLISHED BY JOHN MURPHY & CO.\n No. 178 MARKET STREET.\n PITTSBURG: GEORGE QUIGLEY.\n _Sold by Booksellers generally._\n 1851.\n\n\n ENTERED, according to the Act of Congress, in the year eighteen\n hundred and fifty, by JOHN MURPHY & CO., in the Clerk's Office of the\n District Court of Maryland.\n\n\n\n\nAUTHOR'S PREFACE.\n\n\nAmong the many and important evils which have been the necessary\nresult of the profound revolutions of modern times, there appears a\ngood extremely valuable to science, and which will probably have a\nbeneficial influence on the human race,--I mean the love of studies\nhaving for their object man and society. The shocks have been so rude,\nthat the earth has, as it were, opened under our feet; and the human\nmind, which, full of pride and haughtiness, but lately advanced on a\ntriumphal car amid acclamations and cries of victory, has been alarmed\nand stopped in its career. Absorbed by an important thought, overcome\nby a profound reflection, it has asked itself, \"What am I? whence do I\ncome? what is my destination?\" Religious questions have regained their\nhigh importance; and when they might have been supposed to have been\nscattered by the breath of indifference, or almost annihilated by the\nastonishing development of material interests, by the progress of the\nnatural and exact sciences, by the continually increasing ardour of\npolitical debates,--we have seen that, so far from having been stifled\nby the immense weight which seemed to have overwhelmed them, they have\nreappeared on a sudden in all their magnitude, in their gigantic form,\npredominant over society, and reaching from the heavens to the abyss.\n\nThis disposition of men's minds naturally drew their attention to the\nreligious revolution of the sixteenth century; it was natural that they\nshould ask what this revolution had done to promote the interests of\nhumanity. Unhappily, great mistakes have been made in this inquiry.\nEither because they have looked at the facts through the distorted\nmedium of sectarian prejudice, or because they have only considered\nthem superficially, men have arrived at the conclusion, that the\nreformers of the sixteenth century conferred a signal benefit on the\nnations of Europe, by contributing to the development of science, of\nthe arts, of human liberty, and of every thing which is comprised in\nthe word _civilization_.\n\nWhat do history and philosophy say on this subject? How has man,\neither individually or collectively, considered in a religious,\nsocial, political, or literary point of view, been benefited by the\nreform of the sixteenth century? Did Europe, under the exclusive\ninfluence of Catholicity, pursue a prosperous career? Did Catholicity\nimpose a single fetter on the movements of civilization? This is the\nexamination which I propose to make in this work. Every age has its\npeculiar wants; and it is much to be wished that all Catholic writers\nwere convinced, that the complete examination of these questions is\none of the most urgent necessities of the times in which we live.\nBellarmine and Bossuet have done what was required for their times; we\nought to do the same for ours. I am fully aware of the immense extent\nof the questions I have adverted to, and I do not flatter myself that I\nshall be able to elucidate them as they deserve; but, however this may\nbe, I promise to enter on my task with the courage which is inspired\nby a love of truth; and when my strength shall be exhausted, I shall\nsit down with tranquillity of mind, in expectation that another, more\nvigorous than myself, will carry into effect so important an enterprise.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.\n\n\nThe work of Balmes on the comparative influence of Protestantism\nand Catholicity on European civilization, which is now presented to\nthe American public, was written in Spanish, and won for the author\namong his own countrymen a very high reputation. A French edition\nwas published simultaneously with the Spanish, and the work has\nsince been translated into the Italian and English languages, and\nbeen widely circulated as one of the most learned productions of the\nage, and most admirably suited to the exigencies of our times. When\nProtestantism could no longer maintain its position in the field of\ntheology, compelling its votaries by its endless variations to espouse\nopen infidelity, or to fall back upon the ancient church, it adopted\na new mode of defence, in pointing to its pretended achievements as\nthe liberator of the human mind, the friend of civil and religious\nfreedom, the patron of science and the arts; in a word, the active\nelement in all social ameliorations. This is the cherished idea and\nboasted argument of those who attempt to uphold Protestantism as a\nsystem. They claim for it the merit of having freed the intellect of\nman from a degrading bondage, given a nobler impulse to enterprise\nand industry, and sown in every direction the seed of national and\nindividual prosperity. Looking at facts superficially, or through the\ndistorted medium of prejudice, they tell us that the reformers of the\n16th century contributed much to the development of science and the\narts, of human liberty, and of every thing which is comprised in the\nword _civilization_. To combat this delusion, so well calculated to\nensnare the minds of men in this materialistic and utilitarian age, the\nauthor undertook the work, a translation of which is here presented\nto the public. \"What do history and philosophy say on this subject?\nHow has man, either individually or collectively, considered in a\nreligious, social, political, or literary point of view, been benefited\nby the reform of the 16th century? Did Europe, under the exclusive\ninfluence of Catholicity, pursue a prosperous career? Did Catholicity\nimpose a single fetter on the movements of civilization?\" Such is the\nimportant investigation which the author proposed to himself, and\nit must be admitted that he has accomplished his task with the most\nbrilliant success? Possessed of a penetrating mind, cultivated by\nprofound study and adorned with the most varied erudition, and guided\nby a fearless love of truth, he traverses the whole Christian era,\ncomparing the gigantic achievements of Catholicity, in curing the evils\nof mankind, elevating human nature, and diffusing light and happiness,\nwith the results of which Protestantism may boast; and he proves, with\nthe torch of history and philosophy in his hand, that the latter, far\nfrom having exerted any beneficial influence upon society, has retarded\nthe great work of civilization which Catholicity commenced, and which\nwas advancing so prosperously under her auspicious guidance. He does\nnot say that nothing has been done for civilization by _Protestants_;\nbut he asserts and proves that _Protestantism_ has been greatly\nunfavorable, and even injurious to it.\n\nBy thus exposing the short-comings, or rather evils of Protestantism,\nin a social and political point of view, as Bossuet and others had\nexhibited them under the theological aspect, Balmes has rendered a\nmost important service to Catholic literature. He has supplied the\nage with a work, which is peculiarly adapted to its wants, and which\nmust command a general attention in the United States. The Catholic,\nin perusing its pages, will learn to admire still more the glorious\ncharacter of the faith which he professes: the Protestant, if sincere,\nwill open his eyes to the incompatibility of his principles with the\nhappiness of mankind: while the scholar in general will find in it a\nvast amount of information, on the most vital and interesting topics,\nand presented in a style of eloquence seldom equalled.\n\n\"The reader is requested to bear in mind that the author was a native\nof Spain, and therefore he must not be surprised to find much that\nrelates more particularly to that country. In fact, the fear that\nProtestantism might be introduced there seems to have been the motive\nwhich induced him to undertake the work. He was evidently a man of\nstrong national as well as religious feeling, and he dreaded its\nintroduction both politically and religiously, as he considered that it\nwould be injurious to his country in both points of view. He thought\nthat it would destroy the national unity, as it certainly did in other\ncountries.\n\n\"A very interesting part of the work is that where he states the\nrelations of religion and political freedom; shows that Catholicity\nis by no means adverse to the latter, but, on the contrary, highly\nfavorable to it; and proves by extracts from St. Thomas Aquinas\nand other great Catholic divines, that they entertained the most\nenlightened political views. On the other hand, he shows that\nProtestantism was unfavorable to civil liberty, as is evidenced by the\nfact, that arbitrary power made great progress in various countries\nof Europe soon after its appearance. The reason of this was, that the\nmoral control of religion being taken away, physical restraint became\nthe more necessary.\" The author, on this subject, naturally expresses\na preference for monarchy, it being a cherished inheritance from his\nforefathers; but, it will be noticed that the principles which he lays\ndown as essential to a right administration of civil affairs, regard\nthe substance and not the form of government; are as necessary under a\nrepublican as under the monarchical system; and, if duly observed, they\ncannot fail to ensure the happiness of the people. This portion of the\nvolume will be read with peculiar interest in this country, and ought\nto command an attentive consideration.\n\nIn preparing this edition of the work from the English translation by\nMessrs. Hanford and Kershaw, care has been taken to revise the whole of\nit, to compare it with the original French, and to correct the various\nerrors, particularly the mistakes in translation. A biographical notice\nof the illustrious writer has also been prefixed to the volume, to give\nthe reader an insight into his eminent character, and the valuable\nservices he has rendered to his country and to society at large.\n\nBALTIMORE, November 1, 1850.\n\n\n\n\nNOTICE OF THE AUTHOR.\n\n\nJames Balmes was born at Vich, a small city in Catalonia, in Spain,\non the 28th of August, 1810. His parents were poor, but noted for\ntheir industry and religion, and they took care to train him from his\nchildhood to habits of rigid piety. Every morning, after the holy\nsacrifice of mass, his mother prostrate before an altar dedicated to\nSt. Thomas of Aquin, implored this illustrious doctor to obtain for\nher son the gifts of sanctity and knowledge. Her prayers were not\ndisappointed.\n\nFrom seven to ten years of age, Balmes applied himself with great\nardor to the study of Latin. The two following years were devoted to a\ncourse of rhetoric, and three years more were allotted to philosophy;\na ninth year was occupied with the prolegomena of theology. Such was\nthe order of studies in the seminary of Vich. While thus laboring to\nstore his mind with knowledge, Balmes preserved an irreproachable line\nof conduct. Called to the ecclesiastical state, he submitted readily\nto the strict discipline which this vocation required, and he was seen\nnowhere but under the parental roof, at the church, in some religious\ncommunity, or in the episcopal library. At the age of fourteen he was\nadmitted to a benefice, the revenue of which, though small, enabled\nhim to complete his education. In 1826, he went to the University\nof Cervera, which at that time was the centre of public instruction\nin that part of Spain. It numbered four colleges, in all of which\nan enlightened piety prevailed, affording the young Balmes a most\nfavorable opportunity of developing his rare qualities. Here, the frame\nand habit of his mind were observable to all, in his deep and animated\nlook, in his grave and modest demeanor, and in his method of study. He\nwould read a few pages over a table, his head resting upon his hands;\nthen, wrapt in his mantle, he would spend a long time in reflection.\n\"The true method of study,\" he used to say, \"is to read little, to\nselect good authors, and to think much. If we confined ourselves to\na knowledge of what is contained in books, the sciences would never\nadvance a step. We must learn what others have not known. During my\nmeditations in the dark, my thoughts ferment, and my brain burns like a\nboiling cauldron.\"\n\nDevoted to the acquisition of knowledge, he cultivated retirement as\na means of facilitating the attainment of his object. His thirst for\nlearning was so intense, that it held him under absolute sway, and he\nfound it necessary at a later period to offer a systematic resistance\nto its exclusive demands. Pursuing his favorite method of study,\nBalmes remained four years at the University of Cervera, reading no\nother works than the Sum of St. Thomas, and the commentaries upon it\nby Bellarmine, Suarez and Cajetan. If he made any exception from this\nrule, it was in favor of Chateaubriand's _G\u00e9nie du Christanisme_.\n\"Every thing,\" said he, \"is to be found in St. Thomas; philosophy,\nreligion, politics: his writings are an inexhaustible mine.\" Having\nthus strengthened his mind by a due application to philosophical and\ntheological studies, he proceeded to enlarge his sphere of knowledge\nby reading a greater variety of authors. In taking up a work, he first\nlooked at the table of contents, and when it suggested an idea or fact\nwhich seemed to open before him a new path, he read that part of the\nvolume which developed this idea or fact; the rest was overlooked.\nIn this way, he accumulated a rich store of varied erudition. At\nthe age of twenty-two he knew by memory the tabular contents of an\nextraordinary number of volumes; he had learned the French language;\nhe spoke and wrote Latin better than his native tongue, and had been\nadmitted successively to the degrees of bachelor and licentiate in\ntheology. The virtues of his youth, far from having been weakened\nby these studies, had acquired greater strength and maturity. As he\napproached the solemn period of his ordination, he became still more\nremarkable for the gravity and modesty of his deportment. He prepared\nhimself for his elevation to the priesthood by a retreat of one hundred\ndays. After his promotion to the sacerdotal dignity, which took place\nin his native city, he returned to the University of Cervera, where he\ncontinued his studies, and performed the duties of assistant professor.\nHere also he began to manifest his political views; but, always with\nthat discretion and moderation for which the Spanish clergy have been\nwith few exceptions distinguished during the last twenty years. At that\nperiod Spain was agitated by two conflicting parties, that of Maria\nChristina and the other of Don Carlos. Balmes avoided all questions\nwhich were rather calculated to encourage the spirit of faction than\npromote the general interest of the country. In 1835 he evinced this\ncircumspection in a remarkable degree, when the doctorate which had\nbeen conferred upon him, required him to deliver an address in honor\nof the reigning monarch. Maria Christina was then the queen regent,\nand civil war was about to commence in the mountains of Catalonia; but\nBalmes performed his task without allusion to politics, and without\noffending the adherents of either party.\n\nAfter two years of study at Cervera, where he applied himself to\ntheology and law, our author returned to Vich, where he determined\nto spend four years more in retirement, for the purpose of maturing\nhis character and knowledge. In this solitude, he devoted himself to\nhistory, poetry and politics, but principally to mathematics, of which\nhe obtained a professorship in 1837. During all these literary labors,\nBalmes was actuated by a lively faith, and a sincere, unassuming piety.\nReligious meditation, intermingled with scientific reflections, was\nthe constant occupation of his mind; he did not neglect, however, the\nexterior practices of devotion. Besides the celebration of the holy\nsacrifice, he frequently visited the blessed sacrament, and paid his\nhomage to the B. Virgin in some solitary chapel. The _Following of\nChrist_, the _Sum_ of the angelic doctor, and the Holy Scriptures,\nwere always in his hands, and he took pleasure in reading the ascetic\nwriters of his own country. In this way did he prepare himself, until\nthe age of thirty, to become one of the most solid and gifted minds\nof our time, and to act the important part to which he was called by\nDivine Providence.\n\nThe first literary effort of Balmes before the public, was a prize\nessay which he wrote on clerical celibacy. This was soon followed by\nanother production of his pen, entitled \"Observations on the Property\nof the Clergy, in a social, political, and commercial point of view,\"\nwhich was elicited by the clamoring of the revolutionary army under\nEspartero for the spoliation of the clergy. The learning, philosophy\nand eloquence of the writer in this work, excited the wonder and\nadmiration of the most distinguished statesmen in the country. Some\nmonths after, he published his \"Political Considerations on the\nCondition of Spain,\" in which he had the courage to defend the rights\nof both parties in the country, and to suggest means of a conciliatory\nnature for restoring public order and tranquillity.\n\nAmidst these political efforts, Balmes did not lay aside his peculiar\nfunctions as a minister of God. The edification of the faithful, the\nreligious instruction of youth, and the defence of the faith against\nthe assaults of heresy and rationalism, were constant objects of his\nattention. During the same year, 1840, he translated and published\nthe \"Maxims of St. Francis of Sales for every day in the year;\" he\nalso composed a species of catechism for the instruction of young\npersons, which was very extensively circulated. At the same time he\nundertook the preparation of the present work, in order to counteract\nthe pernicious influence exerted among his countrymen by Guizot's\nlectures on European civilization, and to neutralize the facilities\noffered under the regime of Espartero for the success of a Protestant\nPropagandism in Spain. The occasion and object of this work rendered it\nexpedient that it should be published simultaneously in Spanish and in\nFrench, and with this view our author visited France, and afterwards,\nto extend his observations, passed into England.\n\nOn his return to Barcelona, towards the close of 1842, Balmes became a\ncollaborator in the editing of the _Civilizacion_, a monthly periodical\nof great merit, devoted to literary reviews, and to solid instruction\non the current topics of the day. His connection with this work lasted\nonly eighteen months. He then commenced a review of his own, entitled\nthe _Sociedad_, a philosophical, political, and religious journal,\nwhich acquired a great reputation during the one year of its existence.\nDriven soon after into retirement by the disturbances of the times,\nBalmes composed another philosophical work, _El Criterio_, which is a\ncourse of logic adapted to every capacity.\n\nFrom the national uprising that overthrew the government of Espartero,\nthere arose a general feeling of patriotic independence, which called\nfor the cessation of civil strife, and the harmonizing of the two\nparties that divided the nation. Many of the adherents of Maria\nChristina, who were the nobility and the bourgeoisie, recognized the\nexcesses of the revolutionary faction which they had called to their\naid, while the Carlists were not all in favor of absolute monarchy, and\nnumbered an imposing majority among the lower classes. All these men of\nwise and moderate views longed to see a remedy applied to the wounds\nof their afflicted country; and with one accord they turned their\neyes upon Balmes, as the only individual capable of conducting this\nimportant affair. He had already, in his _Political Considerations_,\nindicated the principal idea of his policy for putting an end to the\nnational evils; it was a matrimonial alliance between the Queen and\nthe son of Don Carlos. Under these circumstances he commenced in\nFebruary, 1844, a new journal, entitled _Pensamiento de la Nacion_,\nthe object of which was to denounce the revolutionary spirit as the\nenemy of all just and peaceful government, and to inspire the Spanish\npeople with a proper reverence for the religious, social and political\ninheritance received from their ancestors, and with a due respect for\nthe reasonable ameliorations of the age. In this spirit the different\nquestions of the day were discussed with energy and calmness, and\nespecially the project of an alliance between the Queen and the son\nof Don Carlos, which Balmes considered of the utmost importance.\nThis measure, such as he proposed it, was, to use the language of\nhis biographer, \"the reconciliation of the past and the future, of\nauthority and liberty, of monarchy and representative government.\"\nSuch was the patriotism, dignity and force, with which our author\nconducted his hebdomadal, that it won the esteem of a large portion of\nthe most distinguished men among the Carlists, while it also acquired\nfavor among an immense number in the opposite party. To support its\nviews, a daily journal, the _Conciliador_, was started by a body of\nyoung but fervid and brilliant writers, and nothing it would seem was\nwanting to insure a triumph for the friends of Spain. Prudence, energy,\nmoderation, reason and eloquence, with a majority of the people on\ntheir side, deserved and should have commanded success; but they could\nnot prevail against diplomatic influence and court intrigue. Balmes\nlearned with equal surprise and affliction, in the retirement of his\nnative mountains, that the government had resolved to offer the Queen\nin marriage to the infant Don Francisco, and the infanta to the Duke\nof Montpensier. This was a severe stroke to the sincere and ardent\npatriotism of Balmes. He might have resisted this policy with the power\nand eloquence of his pen, but he preferred a silent resignation to the\nheat of political strife, and the _Pensamiento de la Nacion_, although\na lucrative publication, was discontinued on the 31st of December, 1846.\n\nDuring that same year, our author collected into one volume his\nvarious essays on politics, as well for his own vindication as for\nthe diffusion of sound instruction on the condition of Spain. The\nfollowing year he completed his \"Elementary course of Philosophy.\"\nBut his physical strength was not equal to these arduous labors. To\nre-establish in some degree his declining health, he travelled in Spain\nand France, and remained several weeks in Paris. The intellectual and\nmoral corruption which was gnawing at the very vitals of the French\nnation, and threatened all Europe with its infection, filled him with\nincreased anxiety. He predicted the dissolution of society, and a\nreturn to barbarism, unless things would take some unexpected turn\nthrough the special interposition of Providence. This last hope was\nthe only resource left, in his opinion, for the salvation of society\nand civilization, and he exulted when he beheld Pius IX opening a new\ncareer for Italy, and consecrating the aspirations and movements of all\nwho advocated legitimate reform and rational liberty. The political\nameliorations, however, of the sovereign Pontiff appeared to the\nopponents of liberalism in Spain, at variance with the great opposition\nwhich Balmes had always exhibited to the revolutionary spirit. Hence,\nit became necessary for him to pay the just tribute of his admiration\nto the illustrious individual who sat in the chair of Peter, and to\nproclaim the eminent virtues of the prince and the pontiff. This he\ndid with surpassing eloquence, in a brochure entitled _Pius IX_, the\nbrilliant style of which is only equalled by its wisdom of thought. In\nthis work, he sketches with graphic pen, the acts of the papal policy,\nshowing that the holy see is the best guide of men in the path of\nliberty and progress, that Pius IX shows a profound knowledge of the\nevils that afflict society, and possesses all the energy and firmness\nnecessary to apply their proper remedy. Balmes was full of hope for the\nfuture, in contemplating the course of the great head of the church,\nand he cherished this hope to the last moment of his life. His essay on\nthe policy of Pius IX was the last production of his pen. His career\nin literature was brief, but brilliant and effective. Eight years only\nhad elapsed since his appearance as a writer, and he had labored with\neminent success in every department of knowledge. The learned divine,\nthe profound philosopher, the enlightened publicist, he has stamped\nupon his age the impress of his genius, and bequeathed to posterity\na rich legacy in his immortal works. In the moral as well as in the\nintellectual point of view, his merit may be summed up in those words\nof _Wisdom_: \"Being made perfect in a short space, he fulfilled a long\ntime.\" chap. iv.\n\nThis distinguished ecclesiastic, the boast of the Spanish clergy and\nthe Catalan people, died at Vich, his native city, on the 9th of July,\n1848, in the same spirit of lively faith and fervent piety which had\nalways marked his life. His funeral took place on the 11th, with all\nthe pomp that could be furnished by the civil and ecclesiastical\nauthorities. The municipality decreed that one of the public places\nshould be named after him.\n\nBalmes was little below the middle height, and of weak and slender\nframe. But the appearance of feeble health which he exhibited, was\ncombatted by the animation of his looks. His forehead and lips bore\nthe impress of energy, which was to be seen also in his eyes, black,\ndeep-set, and of unusual brightness. The expression of his countenance\nwas a mixture of vivacity, openness, melancholy and strength of mind.\nA careful observer of all his sacerdotal duties, he found in the\npractices of piety, the vigor which he displayed in his intellectual\nlabors. The distribution of his time was extremely methodical, and his\npleasures consisted only in the society of his friends. To the prospect\nof temporal honors and the favor of the great, he was insensible;\nneither did he seek after ecclesiastical dignities or literary\ndistinctions. His aim was the diffusion of truth, not the acquisition\nof a great reputation. These qualities, however, with his eminent\ntalents, varied erudition, and invaluable writings, have won for him a\nuniversal fame.\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS.\n\n CHAPTER I.\n THE NAME AND NATURE OF PROTESTANTISM, _Page_ 25\n\n CHAPTER II.\n THE CAUSES OF PROTESTANTISM.\n\n What ought to be attributed to the genius of its founders--Different\n causes assigned for it--Errors on this subject--Opinions of Guizot--Of\n Bossuet--True cause of Protestantism to be found in the social\n condition of European nations, 28\n\n CHAPTER III.\n EXTRAORDINARY PHENOMENON IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.\n\n Divinity of the Catholic Church proved by its relations with the human\n mind--Remarkable acknowledgment of M. Guizot--Consequences of that\n acknowledgment, 38\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n PROTESTANTISM AND THE HUMAN MIND.\n\n Protestantism contains a principle of dissolution--It tends naturally\n to destroy all faith--Dangerous direction given to the human\n mind--Description of the human mind, 42\n\n CHAPTER V.\n INSTINCT OF FAITH IN THE SCIENCES.\n\n Instinct of faith--This instinct extends to all the\n sciences--Newton, Descartes--Observations on the history of\n philosophy--Proselytism--Present condition of the human mind, 46\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS WANTS OF NATIONS--MATHEMATICS--MORAL SCIENCES.\n\n Important error committed by Protestantism, with regard to the\n religious government of the human mind, 50\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n INDIFFERENCE AND FANATICISM.\n\n Two opposite evils, fruits of Protestantism--Origin of fanaticism--The\n Church has prepared the history of the human mind--Private\n interpretation of the Bible--Passage from O'Callaghan--Description of\n the Bible, 53\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n FANATICISM--ITS DEFINITION--FANATICISM IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.\n\n Connexion between fanaticism and religious feeling--Impossibility of\n destroying it--Means of diminishing it--The Church has used these\n means, and with what result?--Observations on the pretended Catholic\n fanatics--Description of the religious excitement of the founders of\n orders in the Church, 57\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n INCREDULITY AND RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENCE IN EUROPE THE FRUITS\n OF PROTESTANTISM.\n\n Lamentable symptoms of these from the beginning of\n Protestantism--Remarkable religious crisis in the latter part of the\n seventeenth century--Bossuet and Leibnitz--The Jansenists--Their\n influence--Dictionary of Bayle--The epoch when that work\n appeared--State of opinions among the Protestants, 60\n\n CHAPTER X.\n CAUSES OF THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF PROTESTANTISM.\n\n Important question with regard to the continuance of\n Protestantism--Religious indifference with respect to man collectively\n and individually--European societies with relation to Mahometanism and\n idolatry--How Catholicity and Protestantism are capable of defending\n the truth--Intimate connexion between Christianity and European\n civilization, 64\n\n CHAPTER XI.\n THE POSITIVE DOCTRINES OF PROTESTANTISM ARE REPUGNANT TO THE INSTINCT\n OF CIVILIZATION.\n\n Doctrines of Protestantism divided into positive and negative--Singular\n phenomenon: one of the principal dogmas of the founders of\n Protestantism repugnant to European civilization--Eminent service which\n Catholicity has done to civilization by defending free will--Nature of\n error--Nature of truth, 68\n\n\n CHAPTER XII.\n EFFECTS WHICH THE INTRODUCTION OF PROTESTANTISM INTO SPAIN WOULD HAVE\n PRODUCED.\n\n Present state of religious ideas in Europe--Victories of\n religion--State of science and literature--Condition of modern\n society--Conjectures on the future influence of Catholicity--Is\n it probable that Protestantism will be introduced into\n Spain?--England--Her connexion with Spain--Pitt--Nature of religious\n ideas in Spain--Situation of Spain--How she may be regenerated, 70\n\n\n CHAPTER XIII.\n PROTESTANTISM AND CATHOLICITY IN THEIR RELATION TO SOCIAL\n PROGRESS--PRELIMINARY COUP D'\u0152IL.\n\n Commencement of the parallel--Liberty--Vague meaning of the\n word--European civilization chiefly due to Catholicity--East\n and West--Conjectures on the destinies of Catholicity amid the\n catastrophies that may threaten in Europe--Observations on\n philosophical studies--Fatalism of a certain modern historical school,\n 79\n\n\n CHAPTER XIV.\n DID THERE EXIST, AT THE TIME WHEN CHRISTIANITY APPEARED, ANOTHER\n PRINCIPLE OF REGENERATION?\n\n Condition, religious, social, and scientific, of the world at\n the appearance of Christianity--Roman law--The influence of\n Christian ideas thereon--Evils of the political organization of the\n empire--System adopted by Christianity; her first care was to change\n ideas--Christianity and Paganism with regard to the teaching of moral\n doctrines--Protestant preaching, 84\n\n\n CHAPTER XV.\n DIFFICULTIES WHICH CHRISTIANITY HAD TO OVERCOME IN THE WORK OF SOCIAL\n REGENERATION--SLAVERY--COULD IT HAVE BEEN DESTROYED MORE SPEEDILY THAN\n IT WAS BY CHRISTIANITY?\n\n The Church was not only a great and productive school, but she was\n also a regenerating association--What she had to do--Difficulties\n which she had to overcome--Slavery--By whom was it abolished?--Opinion\n of M. Guizot--Immense number of the slaves--Caution necessary in the\n abolition of slavery--Was immediate abolition possible?--Refutation of\n the opinion of M. Guizot, 90\n\n\n CHAPTER XVI.\n IDEAS AND MANNERS OF ANTIQUITY RESPECTING SLAVERY--THE CHURCH BEGINS\n BY IMPROVING THE CONDITION OF SLAVES.\n\n The Catholic Church not only employs her doctrines, her maxims, and\n her spirit of charity, but also makes use of practical means in\n the abolition of slavery--Point of view in which this historical\n fact ought to be considered--False ideas of the ancients on the\n subject--Homer, Plato, Aristotle--Christianity began forthwith to\n combat these errors--Christian doctrines on the connexion between\n master and slave--The Church employs herself in improving the\n condition of slaves, 94\n\n\n CHAPTER XVII.\n MEANS USED BY THE CHURCH TO ENFRANCHISE SLAVES.\n\n 1st. She zealously defends the liberty of the\n enfranchised--Manumission in the churches--Effects of this\n practice--2d. Redemption of captives--Zeal of the Church in practising\n and extending the redemption of captives--Prejudices of the Romans on\n this point--The zeal of the Church for this object contributes, in an\n extraordinary degree, to the abolition of slavery--The Church protects\n the liberty of the free, 102\n\n\n CHAPTER XVIII.\n CONTINUATION OF THE SAME SUBJECT.\n\n 3d. System of the Church with regard to slaves belonging to\n Jews--Motives which actuated the Church in the enfranchisement of\n her own slaves--Her indulgence to them--Her generosity towards\n the freed--The slaves of the Church considered as consecrated to\n God--Salutary effects of this way of viewing them--4th. Liberty is\n granted to those who wish to embrace the monastic state--Effects of\n this practice--Conduct of the Church with regard to the ordination of\n slaves--Abuses introduced in this respect checked--Discipline of the\n Spanish Church on this point, 106\n\n\n CHAPTER XIX.\n DOCTRINES OF ST. AUGUSTIN AND ST. THOMAS OF AQUIN ON THE SUBJECT OF\n SLAVERY--RECAPITULATION.\n\n Doctrine of St. Augustin on this subject--Importance of this\n doctrine with respect to the abolition of slavery--Refutation of\n M. Guizot--Doctrine of St. Thomas on the same subject--Marriage\n of slaves--Regulation of canon law on that subject--R\u00e9sum\u00e9 of the\n means employed by the Church in the abolition of slavery--Refutation\n of M. Guizot--The abolition of slavery exclusively due to\n Catholicity--Protestantism had no share therein, 111\n\n\n CHAPTER XX.\n CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TWO KINDS OF CIVILIZATION.\n\n Picture of modern civilization--Civilizations not\n Christian--Civilization is composed of three elements: the individual,\n the family, and the society--The perfectness of these three elements\n depends on the perfectness of doctrines, 115\n\n\n CHAPTER XXI.\n OF THE INDIVIDUAL--OF THE FEELING OF INDIVIDUALITY OUT OF\n CHRISTIANITY.\n\n Distinction between the individual and the citizen--Of the\n individuality of barbarians according to M. Guizot--Whether\n in antiquity individuality belonged exclusively to the\n barbarians--Twofold principle of the feeling of personal\n independence--This feeling infinitely modified--Picture of barbarian\n life--True character of individuality among the barbarians--Avowal of\n M. Guizot--The feeling of individuality, according to the definition\n of M. Guizot, belongs in a certain way to all the ancient nations,\n 118\n\n\n CHAPTER XXII.\n HOW THE INDIVIDUAL BECAME ABSORBED BY THE ANCIENT SOCIETY.\n\n Respect for _man_ unknown to the ancients--What has been seen\n in modern revolutions--Tyranny of public power over private\n interests--Explanation of a twofold phenomenon, which presents itself\n to us in antiquity and in modern societies not Christian--Opinion of\n Aristotle--Remarkable characteristic of modern democracy, 126\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIII.\n OF THE PROGRESS OF INDIVIDUALITY UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY.\n\n The feeling of true independence was possessed by the faithful of the\n primitive Church--Error of M. Guizot on this point: 1st, dignity of\n conscience sustained by the Christian society; 2d, feeling of duty;\n language of St. Cyprian; 3d, development of the interior life; 4th,\n defence of free will by the Catholic Church--Conclusion, 131\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIV.\n OF THE FAMILY--MONOGAMY--MARRIAGE-TIE INDISSOLUBLE.\n\n Woman ennobled by Catholicity alone--Practical means employed by\n the Church to raise woman--Christian doctrine on the dignity of\n woman--Monogamy--Different conduct of Catholicity and Protestantism on\n this point--Firmness of Rome with respect to marriage--Effects of that\n firmness--Doctrine of Luther--Indissolubility of marriage--Of divorce\n among Protestants--Effects of Catholic doctrine with regard to this\n sacrament, 135\n\n\n CHAPTER XXV.\n THE PASSION OF LOVE.\n\n Pretended rigor of Catholicity with respect to unhappy marriages--Two\n systems of governing the passions--Protestant system--Catholic\n system--Examples--Passion of gambling--Explosion of the passions\n in time of public troubles--Of the passion of love--Its\n inconstancy--Marriage alone is not a sufficient control--What is\n wanted to make it a control--Of the unity and fixity of Catholic\n doctrine--Conclusion, 140\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVI.\n OF VIRGINITY IN ITS SOCIAL ASPECT.\n\n Of the ennoblement of woman by virginity--Conduct of Protestantism on\n this point--Close analysis of the heart of woman--Of virginity with\n respect to population--England--Serious thoughts required for the mind\n of woman--Salutary influence of monastic customs--General method of\n appreciation, 146\n\n CHAPTER XXVII.\n OF CHIVALRY, AND THE MANNERS OF THE BARBARIANS IN THEIR INFLUENCE ON\n THE CONDITION OF WOMAN.\n\n The life of feudal lords according to M. Guizot--The passions and\n faith in chivalry--Chivalry did not ennoble woman, it supposed her\n to be ennobled--Of the respect of the Germans for woman--Analysis\n of a passage of Tacitus--Reflections on that historian--It is\n difficult thoroughly to understand the manners of the Germans--Action\n of Catholicity--Important distinction between Christianity and\n Catholicity--That the Germans of themselves were incapable of giving\n dignity to woman, 150\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVIII.\n OF THE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE IN GENERAL.\n\n What the public conscience is--Influence of the feelings on the\n public conscience in general--Education contributes to form the\n conscience--State of the public conscience in modern times--What has\n been able to form the public conscience in Europe--Successive contests\n maintained by Christian morality, 157\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIX.\n OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE ACCORDING TO\n MONTESQUIEU--HONOR--VIRTUE.\n\n Institution of censors according to Montesquieu--Two kinds of\n prejudice in the author of the _Esprit des Lois_--He assigns\n honor as the principle of monarchies, and virtue as that of\n republics--Explanation of the feeling of honor--What is required\n to strengthen this feeling--The censorial power replaced by the\n religious--Examples--Contrasts, 161\n\n\n CHAPTER XXX.\n ON THE DIFFERENT INFLUENCE OF PROTESTANTISM AND CATHOLICITY ON THE\n PUBLIC CONSCIENCE.\n\n Catholicity considered as a creed--As an institution--Ideas, in\n order to be efficacious, must be realized in an institution--What\n Protestantism has done to destroy Christian morality--What it has\n done to preserve it--What is the real power of preaching among\n Protestants--Of the sacrament of penance with relation to the public\n conscience--Of the degree to which the Catholic religion raises\n morality--Of unity in the soul--Unity simplifies--Of the great\n number of moralists within the bosom of the Catholic Church--Of the\n peculiar force of ideas--Distinction between ideas with respect to\n their peculiar force--Whether the human race is a faithful depositary\n of the truth--How the truth has been preserved among the Jews--The\n native power of Schools--Institutions are required, not only to\n teach, but also to apply doctrines--Of the press with relation to the\n preservation of ideas--Of intuition--Of discourses, 165\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXI.\n OF GENTLENESS OF MANNERS IN GENERAL.\n\n Wherein gentleness of manners consists--Difference between gentle\n and effeminate manners--Influence of the Catholic Church in\n softening manners--Pagan and Christian societies--Slavery--Paternal\n authority--Public games--Reflections on Spanish bull-fights, 172\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXII.\n OF THE AMELIORATION OF MANNERS BY THE ACTION OF THE CHURCH.\n\n Elements adapted to perpetuate harshness of manners in the bosom of\n modern society--Conduct of the Church in this respect--Remarkable\n canons and facts--St. Ambrose and the Emperor Theodosius--The Truce of\n God--Very remarkable regulations of the ecclesiastical authority on\n this subject, 175\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXIII.\n OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC BENEFICENCE IN EUROPE.\n\n Difference between Protestantism and Catholicity with respect to\n public beneficence--Paradox of Montesquieu--Remarkable canons of the\n Church--Injury done by Protestantism to the development of public\n beneficence--The value of philanthropy, 184\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXIV.\n OF TOLERANCE IN MATTERS OF RELIGION.\n\n The question of intolerance has been examined with bad faith--What\n tolerance is--Tolerance of opinions--Of error--Tolerance in the\n individual--With religious men--With unbelievers--Two kinds of\n religious men--Two kinds of unbelievers--Tolerance in society--What\n is its origin?--Source of the tolerance which prevails in society at\n present, 189\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXV.\n OF THE RIGHT OF COERCION IN GENERAL.\n\n Intolerance is a general fact in history--Dialogues with the\n partisans of universal tolerance--Does there exist a right\n of punishing doctrines?--Researches into the origin of that\n right--Disastrous influence of Protestantism and infidelity in this\n matter--Of the importance which Catholicity attaches to the sin of\n heresy--Inconsistency of certain timid Voltairians--Another reflection\n on the right of punishing doctrines--R\u00e9sum\u00e9, 196\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXVI.\n OF THE INQUISITION IN SPAIN.\n\n Institutions and legislation founded on intolerance--Causes of the\n rigor displayed in the early times of the Inquisition--Three epochs in\n the history of the Inquisition in Spain: against the Jews and Moors;\n against the Protestants; against the unbelievers--Severities of the\n Inquisition--Causes of those severities--Conduct of the Popes in that\n matter--Mildness of the Roman Inquisition--The intolerance of Luther\n with respect to the Jews--The Moors and Moriscoes, 203\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXVII.\n SECOND PERIOD OF THE INQUISITION IN SPAIN.\n\n New Inquisition attributed to Philip II.--Opinion of M.\n Lacordaire--Prejudice against Philip II.--Observations on the work\n called _Inquisition D\u00e9voil\u00e9e_--Rapid _coup d'\u0153il_ at the\n second epoch of the Inquisition--Trial of Carranza--Observation on\n this trial, and on the personal qualities of the illustrious\n accused--Why there is so much partiality against Philip II.--Reflections\n on the policy of that monarch--Singular anecdote of a preacher who was\n compelled to retract--Reflections on the influence of the spirit of the\n age, 210\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXVIII.\n RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THEMSELVES.\n\n Conduct of Protestantism with respect to religious\n institutions--Whether these institutions have been of importance\n in history--Sophism on the subject of the real origin of religious\n institutions--Their correct definition--Of association among the early\n faithful--The faithful dispersed in the deserts--Relations between the\n Papacy and religious institutions--Of an essential want of the human\n heart--Of Christian pensiveness--Of the need of associations for the\n practice of perfection--Of vows--A vow is the most perfect act of\n liberty--True notion of liberty, 219\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXIX.\n RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN HISTORY--THE EARLY SOLITARIES.\n\n Character of religious institutions in a historical point of view--The\n Roman empire--The barbarians--The early Christians--Condition of the\n Church when Christianity ascended the throne of the C\u00e6sars--Life of\n the fathers of the desert--Influence of the solitaries on philosophy\n and manners--The heroism of penance saves morality--The most\n corrupting climate chosen for the triumph of the most austere virtues,\n 229\n\n\n CHAPTER XL.\n RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE EAST.\n\n Influence of monasteries in the East--Why civilization triumphed\n in the West and perished in the East--Influence of the Eastern\n monasteries on Arabian civilization, 234\n\n\n CHAPTER XLI.\n RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE HISTORY OF THE WEST.\n\n Peculiar character of religious institutions in the West--St.\n Benedict--Struggle of the monks against the decline of things--Origin\n of monastic property--The possessions of the monks serve to\n create respect for property--Population becomes spread over the\n country--Science and letters in cloisters Gratian--arouses the study\n of law, 238\n\n\n CHAPTER XLII.\n OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS DURING THE SECOND HALF OF THE MIDDLE AGES IN\n THE WEST--THE MILITARY ORDERS.\n\n Character of the military orders--Opinion of the Crusades--The\n foundation of the military orders is a continuation of the Crusades,\n 242\n\n\n CHAPTER XLIII.\n CONTINUATION OF THE SAME SUBJECT--EUROPE IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.\n\n Transformation of the monastic spirit in the thirteenth\n century--Religious institutions arise every where--Character of\n European opposed to that of other civilizations--Mixture of various\n elements in the spirit of the thirteenth century--Semi-barbarous\n society--Christianity and barbarism--A delusion common in the study\n of history--Condition of Europe at the beginning of the thirteenth\n century--Wars become more popular--Why the intellectual movement\n began in Spain sooner than in the rest of Europe--Ebullition of\n evil during the course of the twelfth century--Tanch\u00e8me--Eon--The\n Manichees--Vaudois--Religious movement at the beginning of the\n thirteenth century--The mendicant and preaching orders--The character\n of these orders--Their influence--Their relations with the Papacy,\n 244\n\n\n CHAPTER XLIV.\n RELIGIOUS ORDERS FOR THE REDEMPTION OF CAPTIVES.\n\n Multitude of Christians reduced to slavery--Religious orders for the\n redemption of captives were necessary--The Order of the Trinity and\n that of Mercy--St. Peter Armengol, 256\n\n\n CHAPTER XLV.\n UNIVERSAL ADVANCE OF CIVILIZATION IMPEDED BY PROTESTANTISM.\n\n Effects of Protestantism on the progress of civilization in the world,\n beginning with the sixteenth century--What enabled civilization,\n during the middle ages, to triumph over barbarism--Picture of Europe\n at the beginning of the sixteenth century--The civilizing missions\n of the 16th century interrupted by the schism of Luther--Why the\n action of the Church on barbarous nations has lost power during\n three centuries--Whether the Christianity of our days is less\n adapted to propagate the faith than that of the early ages of the\n Church--Christian missions in the early times of the Church--What the\n real mission of Luther has been, 260\n\n\n CHAPTER XLVI.\n THE JESUITS.\n\n Their importance in the history of European civilization--Causes of\n the hatred which has been excited against them--Character of the\n Jesuits--Contradiction of M. Guizot on this subject--Whether it be\n true, as M. Guizot says, that the Jesuits have destroyed nations in\n Spain--Facts and dates--Unjust accusations against the Company of\n Jesus, 268\n\n\n CHAPTER XLVII.\n THE FUTURE OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS--THEIR PRESENT NECESSITY.\n\n Present state of religious institutions--Picture of society--Inability\n of industry and commerce to satisfy the heart of man--Condition\n of minds with respect to religion--Religious institutions will\n be necessary to save existing society--Nothing fixed in that\n society--Means are wanting for social organization--The march of\n European nations has been perverted--Physical means of restraining the\n masses--Moral means are required--Religious institutions reconcilable\n with the advancement of modern times, 274\n\n\n CHAPTER XLVIII.\n RELIGION AND LIBERTY.\n\n Rousseau--The Protestants Divine law--Origin of power--False\n interpretation of the divine law--St. John Chrysostom--On paternal\n authority--Relations between paternal authority and civil power,\n 281\n\n\n CHAPTER XLIX.\n THE ORIGIN OF SOCIETY, ACCORDING TO CATHOLIC THEOLOGIANS.\n\n Doctrines of theologians on the origin of society--The character\n of Catholic theologians compared to that of modern writers--St.\n Thomas--Bellarmin--Suarez--St. Alphonsus de Liguori--Father\n Concina--Billuart--The _Compendium_ of Salamanca, 288\n\n\n CHAPTER L.\n OF DIVINE LAW, ACCORDING TO CATHOLIC DOCTORS.\n\n On the divine law--Divine origin of civil power--In what manner\n God communicates this power--Rousseau--On pacts--The right of life\n and death--The right of war--Power must necessarily emanate from\n God--Puffendorf--Hobbes, 298\n\n\n CHAPTER LI.\n THE TRANSMISSION OF POWER, ACCORDING TO CATHOLIC DOCTORS.\n\n _Direct_ or _indirect_ communication of civil power--The\n distinction between the two opinions important in some respects; in\n others, not so--Why Catholic theologians have so zealously maintained\n the doctrine of mediate communication, 305\n\n\n CHAPTER LII.\n ON THE FREEDOM OF LANGUAGE UNDER THE SPANISH MONARCHY.\n\n Influence of doctrines on society--Flattery lavished on power--Danger\n of this flattery--Liberty of speech on this point in Spain during the\n last three centuries--Mariana--Saavedra--In the absence of religion\n and morality, the most rigorous political doctrines are incapable\n of saving society--Why the conservative schools of our days are\n powerless--Seneca--Cicero--Hobbes--Bellarmin, 311\n\n\n CHAPTER LIII.\n OF THE FACULTIES OF THE CIVIL POWER.\n\n Of the faculties of civil power--Calumnies of the enemies of the\n Church--Definition of _law_ according to St. Thomas--General reason\n and general will--The venerable Palafox--Hobbes--Grotius--The\n doctrines of certain Protestants favorable to despotism--Justification\n of the Catholic Church, 317\n\n\n CHAPTER LIV.\n ON RESISTANCE TO THE CIVIL POWER.\n\n Of resistance to the civil power--Parallel between Protestantism\n and Catholicity on this point--Unfounded apprehensions of certain\n minds--Attitude of revolutions in this age--The principle\n inculcated by Catholicity on the obligation of obeying the lawful\n authorities--Preliminary questions--Difference between the two\n powers--Conduct of Catholicity and Protestantism with regard to the\n separation of the two powers--The independence of the spiritual\n power a guarantee of liberty to the people--Extremes which meet--The\n doctrine of St. Thomas on obedience, 324\n\n\n CHAPTER LV.\n ON RESISTANCE TO DE FACTO GOVERNMENTS.\n\n Governments existing merely _de facto_--Right of resistance to\n these governments--Napoleon and the Spanish nation--Fallacy of the\n doctrine establishing the obligation of obedience to mere _de facto_\n governments--Investigation of certain difficulties--Accomplished\n facts--How we are to understand the respect due to accomplished facts,\n 330\n\n\n CHAPTER LVI.\n HOW IT IS ALLOWED TO RESIST THE CIVIL POWER.\n\n On resistance to lawful authority--The doctrines of the Council\n of Constance on the assassination of a king--A reflection on the\n inviolability of kings--Extreme cases--Doctrine of St. Thomas of\n Aquin, Cardinal Bellarmin, Suarez, and other theologians--The Abb\u00e9\n de Lamennais' errors--He is wrong in imagining that his doctrine,\n condemned by the Pope, is the same as St. Thomas of Aquin's--A\n parallel between the doctrines of St. Thomas and those of the Abb\u00e9\n de Lamennais--A word on the temporal power of the Popes--Ancient\n doctrines on resistance to power--Language of the Counsellors of\n Barcelona--The doctrine of certain theologians on the case of the\n Sovereign Pontiff's falling into heresy in his private capacity--Why\n the Church has been calumniously accused of being sometimes favorable\n to despotism, and sometimes to anarchy, 336\n\n\n CHAPTER LVII.\n ON POLITICAL SOCIETY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.\n\n The Church and political forms--Protestantism and liberty--Language of\n M. Guizot--The state of the question better defined--Europe at the end\n of the fifteenth century--Social aristocracy, and democracy, 343\n\n\n CHAPTER LVIII.\n ON MONARCHY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.\n\n The idea entertained of monarchy at this period--The application of\n this idea--Difference between monarchy and despotism--The nature of\n monarchy at the commencement of the sixteenth century--Its relations\n with the Church, 346\n\n\n CHAPTER LIX.\n ON ARISTOCRACY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.\n\n The nobility and the clergy--The differences between these two\n aristocracies--The nobility and monarchy--Differences between them--An\n intermediate class between the throne and the people--The causes of\n the fall of the nobility, 348\n\n\n CHAPTER LX.\n ON DEMOCRACY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.\n\n The opinion entertained of democracy--The prevailing doctrines\n of that epoch--The doctrines of Aristotle neutralised by the\n teaching of Christianity--On castes--A passage from M. Guizot on\n castes--Influence of the celibacy of the clergy in preventing an\n hereditary succession--The consequences resulting from a married\n clergy--Catholicity and the people--Development of the industrial\n classes in Europe--The Hanseatic Confederation--_Establishment of\n the trades-corporations of Paris_--Industrial movement in Italy and\n Spain--Calvinism and the democratic element--Protestantism and the\n democrats of the sixteenth century, 350\n\n\n CHAPTER LXI.\n VALUE OF DIFFERENT POLITICAL FORMS--CHARACTER OF MONARCHY IN EUROPE.\n\n Value of political forms--Catholicity and liberty--Monarchy was\n essential--Character of European monarchy--Difference between\n Europe and Asia--Quotation from Count de Maistre--An institution\n for the limiting of power--Political liberty not indebted to\n Protestantism--Influence of Councils--The aristocracy of talent\n encouraged by the Church, 356\n\n\n CHAPTER LXII.\n HOW MONARCHY WAS STRENGTHENED IN EUROPE.\n\n Monarchy in the sixteenth century is strengthened in Europe--Its\n preponderance over free institutions--Why the word _liberty_ is a\n scandal to some people--Protestantism contributed to the destruction\n of popular institutions, 361\n\n\n CHAPTER LXIII.\n TWO SORTS OF DEMOCRACY.\n\n Two sorts of democracy--Their parallel march in the history\n of Europe--Their characters--Their causes and effects--Why\n absolutism became necessary in Europe--Historical\n facts--France--England--Sweden--Denmark--Germany, 364\n\n\n CHAPTER LXIV.\n CONTEST BETWEEN THE THREE SOCIAL ELEMENTS.\n\n Contest between monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy--How monarchy\n came to prevail--Fatal effects of the weakening of the political\n influence of the clergy--Advantages which might have arisen from this\n influence to popular institutions--Relations of the clergy with all\n powers and classes of society, 370\n\n\n CHAPTER LXV.\n POLITICAL DOCTRINES BEFORE THE APPEARANCE OF PROTESTANTISM.\n\n Parallel between the political doctrines of the eighteenth century,\n those of modern publicists, and those which prevailed in Europe before\n the appearance of Protestantism--Protestantism has prevented the\n homogeneity of European civilization--Historical proofs, 374\n\n\n CHAPTER LXVI.\n OF POLITICAL DOCTRINES IN SPAIN.\n\n Catholicity and politics in Spain--Real state of the question--Five\n causes contributed to the overthrow of popular institutions in\n Spain--Difference between ancient and modern liberty--The _Communeros_\n of Castille--The policy of her kings--Ferdinand the Catholic and\n Ximenes--Charles V.--Philip II., 377\n\n\n CHAPTER LXVII.\n POLITICAL LIBERTY AND RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.\n\n Political liberty and religious intolerance--Europe was developed\n under the exclusive influence of Catholicity--Picture of Europe from\n the eleventh to the fourteenth century--Condition of the social\n problem at the end of the fifteenth century--Temporal power of the\n Popes--Its character, origin, and effects, 382\n\n\n CHAPTER LXVIII.\n UNITY IN FAITH RECONCILED WITH POLITICAL LIBERTY.\n\n It is false that unity of faith is opposed to political\n liberty--Impiety is allied with liberty or despotism, according to\n circumstances--Modern revolutions--Difference between the revolution\n of the United States and that of France--Pernicious effects of the\n French revolution--Liberty impossible without morality--Remarkable\n passage from St. Augustin on forms of government, 388\n\n\n CHAPTER LXIX.\n INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY.\n\n Catholicity in its relations with intellectual development--What\n is the influence of the principle of submission to\n authority--What are the effects of this principle with\n respect to all the sciences--Parallel between ancients and\n moderns--God--Man--Society--Nature, 392\n\n\n CHAPTER LXX.\n HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT.\n\n Historical investigation of the influence of Catholicity on the\n development of the human mind--Refutation of one of M. Guizot's\n opinions--John Erigena--Roscelin and Abelard--St. Anselm, 398\n\n\n CHAPTER LXXI.\n RELIGION AND THE HUMAN INTELLECT IN EUROPE.\n\n Religion and the human intellect in Europe--Difference between the\n intellectual development of the nations of antiquity and those\n of Europeans--Causes that have accelerated this development in\n Europe--Origin of the spirit of subtilty--Service which the Church\n rendered to the human mind by her opposition to the subtilties of the\n innovators--Parallel between Roscelin and St. Anselm--Reflections on\n St. Bernard--St. Thomas of Aquin--Advantage of his dictatorship in the\n schools--Advent of St. Thomas in the middle ages of immense advantage\n to me human mind, 404\n\n\n CHAPTER LXXII.\n PROGRESS OF THE HUMAN MIND FROM THE ELEVENTH CENTURY TO THE PRESENT\n TIME.\n\n Progress of the human mind from the eleventh century to our own\n times--Different phases--Protestantism and Catholicity in their\n relations to learning, to criticism, to the learned languages, to the\n foundation of universities, to the progress of literature and the\n arts, to mysticism, to high philosophy, to metaphysics, to ethics, to\n religious philosophy, and to the philosophy of history, 412\n\n\n CHAPTER LXXIII.\n SUMMARY OF THE WORK--DECLARATION OF THE AUTHOR.\n\n Summary of the work--The author submits it to the judgment of the\n Roman Church, 419\n\n\n NOTES\n\n\n APPENDIX\n\n\n INDEX\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF NOTES.\n\n\n NOTE PAGE\n\n 1 421. Gibbon and Bossuet's History of the Variations.\n\n 2 421. Intolerance of Luther and the other Coryph\u00e6i of\n Protestantism.\n\n 3 421. Origin of the name Protestantism.\n\n 4 422. Observations on names.\n\n 5 422. Of abuses in the Church.\n\n 6 423. Of the unity and harmonious action of Catholicism--Happy\n idea of St. Francis of Sales.\n\n 7 423. Acknowledgments of the most distinguished Protestants with\n regard to its weakness--Luther, Melancthon, Beza, Calvin,\n Grotius, Papin, Puffendorf and Leibnitz--Of a posthumous\n work by Leibnitz on religion.\n\n 8 424. On human knowledge--Louis Vives.\n\n 9 425. On mathematics--Eximeno, a Spanish Jesuit.\n\n 10 425. Heresies of the early ages--their character.\n\n 11 425. Superstition and fanaticism of Protestantism--Luther's devil,\n Zwinglius's phantom, Melancthon's prognostics, Mathias\n Harlem, the Tailor of Leyden, King of Sion; Hermann, Nicholas\n Hacket, and others, visionaries and fanatics.\n\n 12 427. Visions of Catholics--St. Theresa, her visions.\n\n 13 428. Bad faith of the founders of Protestantism--Passages proving\n this--Ravages committed by incredulity after that\n time--Gruet--Remarkable passages from Montaigne.\n\n 14 429. Extravagance of the early heresies, a proof of the state of\n knowledge in those times.\n\n 15 430. Canons and other documents which shew the solicitude of the\n Church to improve the lot of slaves, and the various means\n which she used to complete the abolition of slavery.\n \u00a7 1. Canons intended to improve the lot of slaves.\n \u00a7 2. Canons intended to defend the freed, and to protect\n those who were recommended to the Church.\n \u00a7 3. Canons and other documents relating to the redemption\n of captives.\n \u00a7 4. Canons relating to the protection of the freed.\n\n 436. \u00a7 5. Canons concerning the slaves of Jews.\n \u00a7 6. Canons concerning the enfranchisement of the slaves of\n the Church.\n \u00a7 7. Conduct of the Church with regard to modern\n slavery--Apostolic letters of St. Gregory XVI.--Slave\n trade--Doctrine, conduct, and influence of the Church\n with regard to the abolition of the trade, and of\n slavery in the Colonies--Passage from Robertson.\n\n 16 442. Doctrines of Plato and Aristotle touching infanticide--Their\n doctrine on the rights of society.\n\n 17 444. Degradation of woman in ancient times, especially in Rome.\n\n 18 444. The Germans of Tacitus judged according to subsequent events.\n\n 19 445. Corruption of ancient manners.\n\n 20 445. Different opinions of religion and philosophy on the power of\n ideas--How far it is true that every idea requires an\n institution.\n\n 21 446. Christianity is still in our days the source of mildness of\n manners.\n\n 22 447. Influence of the Church on barbarian legislation--Councils of\n Toledo--What the indulgence of the criminal code among the\n barbarians proves.\n\n 23 449. Constant intervention of the Church in the administration of\n public beneficence--Regulations of the Council of Trent on\n this subject--Property of hospitals considered as that of the\n Church.\n\n 24 450. Reference to the following note.\n\n 25 450. Distinction between civil and religious intolerance--Error of\n Rousseau on this point--False doctrine of the _Contrat\n Social_.\n\n 26 452. Passages from old laws relative to the Inquisition--Pragmatic\n sanction of Ferdinand and Isabella--Laws of Philip II. and\n III.--Pragmatic sanction of Ferdinand and Isabella concerning\n the relations of the Spanish Inquisition with Rome--Passage\n from Don Antonio Perez, which mentions the anecdote of the\n preacher at Madrid--Letter from Phillip II. to Arias Montano,\n on the subject of the library of the Escurial.\n\n 26 456. (_Appendix._) A few words on Puigblanch, Villeneuve, and\n Llorente.\n\n 27 458. Religious institutions in an historical point of view--Last\n _coup-d'\u0153il_ at their origin and development--Details with\n respect to the vow of chastity which virgins and widows made\n in the early ages of the Church.\n\n 28 459. Remarkable texts explaining the passage of St. Paul in the\n 13th chapter of his Epistle to the Romans--Cicero--Horace.\n\n 29 462. A remarkable fact.\n\n 30 463. Quotations from P. Fr. John de Ste.-Marie, and from\n P. Zeballos.\n\n 31 470. St. Thomas reminds princes of their duties.\n\n 32 471. The opinion of D. Felix d'Amat, bishop of Palmyra, on the\n obedience due to _de facto_ governments.\n\n 33 471. Remarkable passages from St. Thomas and Suarez, on the\n disputes which may arise between governors and the\n governed--Father Marquez on the same subject.\n\n 34 475. Charter of _Hermandad_ between the kingdoms of Leon and\n Galicia and that of Castille, for the preservation and\n defence of their _fueros_ and liberties.\n\n 35 476. A remarkable passage from Capmany on the organization of the\n industrial classes--The origin and salutary effects of the\n institution of trades-corporation.\n\n 36 480. Reflections of Count de Maistre on the causes which render\n the celebration of General Councils less frequent.\n\n 37 480. Indication of historical sources for the confirmation of\n certain facts.\n\n 38 480. Texts of St. Thomas on political forms--Other texts of\n St. Thomas to prove that the law, and not the will of man,\n should govern--Opinions of P. Mariana--Opinions of the\n venerable Palafox on the subject of imposts, taken from his\n Memoir to the King--Severe language of the same author\n against tyranny and those who advise or excuse it--Passage\n from P. Marquez on the right of levying tributes in general;\n its particular application to Castile--The opinion of the\n same author relative to the right of the supreme authority to\n the property of its subjects--A case in which, according to\n him, that authority may dispose of this property.\n\n 39 484. Reference to historical sources to ascertain the march of the\n development of monarchical power in the different provinces\n of Spain.\n\n 40 484. A just observation of Count de Maistre on the conduct of the\n Popes compared to that of other sovereigns.\n\n 41 485. Passages in which St. Anselm expounds his views on religious\n subjects--Intellectual movement arising in the bosom of the\n Church without transgressing the bounds of faith--Another\n passage proving that the demonstration applied by Descartes\n to the existence of God had been discovered by\n St. Anselm--Corroborative Documents in support of a\n refutation of M. Guizot's errors on the doctrines of Abelard.\n\n\n\n\nPROTESTANTISM COMPARED WITH CATHOLICITY.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nNAME AND NATURE OF PROTESTANTISM.\n\n\nThere is a fact in existence among civilized nations, very important\non account of the nature of the things which it affects--a fact of\ntranscendent importance, on account of the number, variety, and\nconsequence of its influences--a fact extremely interesting, because it\nis connected with the principal events of modern history. This fact is\nProtestantism.\n\nLike a clap of thunder, it attracted at once the attention of all\nEurope; on one side it spread alarm, and on the other excited the most\nlively sympathy: it grew so rapidly, that its adversaries had not time\nto strangle it in its cradle. Scarcely had it begun to exist, and\nalready all hope of stopping, or even restraining it, was gone; when,\nemboldened by being treated with respect and consideration, it became\nevery day more daring; if exasperated by rigour, it openly resisted\nmeasures of coercion, or redoubled and concentrated its forces, to\nmake more vigorous attacks. Discussions, the profound investigations\nand scientific methods which were used in combating it, contributed to\ndevelop the spirit of inquiry, and served as vehicles to propagate its\nideas.\n\nBy creating new and prevailing interests, it made itself powerful\nprotectors; by throwing all the passions into a state of fury, it\naroused them in its favor. It availed itself, by turns, of stratagem,\nforce, seduction, or violence, according to the exigencies of times and\ncircumstances. It attempted to make its way in all directions; either\ndestroying impediments, or taking advantage of them, if they were\ncapable of being turned to account.\n\nWhen introduced into a country, it never rested until it had obtained\nguarantees for its continued existence; and it succeeded in doing so\neverywhere. After having obtained vast establishments in Europe--which\nit still retains--it was transported into other parts of the world, and\ninfused into the veins of simple and unsuspecting nations.\n\nIn order to appreciate a fact at its just value, to embrace it in\nall its relations, and to distinguish properly between them, it is\nnecessary to examine whether the constituting principle of the fact can\nbe ascertained, or at least whether we can observe in its appearance\nany characteristic trait capable of revealing its inward nature.\nThis examination is very difficult when we have to do with a fact of\nthe kind and importance of that which now occupies our attention. In\nmatters of this sort, numbers of opinions accumulate in the course of\ntime, in favor of all which arguments have been sought. The inquirer,\nin the midst of so many and such various objects, is perplexed,\ndisconcerted, and confounded; and if he wish to place himself in a\nmore advantageous point of view, he finds the ground so covered with\nfragments, that he cannot make his way without risk of losing himself\nat every step.\n\nThe first glance which we give to Protestantism, whether we consider\nits actual condition, or whether we regard the various phases of its\nhistory, shows us that it is very difficult to find any thing constant\nin it, any thing which can be assigned as its constituent character.\nUncertain in its opinions, it modifies them continually, and changes\nthem in a thousand ways. Vague in its tendencies, and fluctuating in\nits desires, it attempts every form, and essays every road. It can\nnever attain to a well-defined existence; and we see it every moment\nenter new paths, to lose itself in new labyrinths.\n\nCatholic controversialists have pursued and assailed it in every\nway; ask them what has been the result? They will tell you that they\nhad to contend with a new Proteus, which always escaped the fatal\nblow by changing its form. If you wish to assail the doctrines of\nProtestantism, you do not know where to direct your attacks, for\nthey are unknown to you, and even to itself. On this side it is\ninvulnerable, because it has no tangible body. Thus, no more powerful\nargument has ever been urged, than that of the immortal Bishop of\nMeaux--viz. \"You change; and that which changes is not the truth.\" An\nargument much feared by Protestantism, and with justice; because all\nthe various forms which are assumed to evade its force, only serve to\nstrengthen it. How just is the expression of that great man! At the\nvery title of his book, Protestantism must tremble: The History of the\nVariations! A history of variations must be a history of error. (See\nnote [1] at the end of the vol.)\n\nThese unceasing changes, which we ought not to be surprised at finding\nin Protestantism, because they essentially belong to it, show us\nthat it is not in possession of the truth; they show us also, that\nits moving principle is not a principle of life, but an element of\ndissolution. It has been called upon, and up to this time in vain, to\nfix itself, and to present a compact and uniform body. How can that be\nfixed, which is, by its nature, kept floating about in the air? How can\na solid body be formed of an element, the essential tendency of which\nis towards an incessant division of particles, by diminishing their\nreciprocal affinity, and increasing their repellent force?\n\nIt will easily be seen that I speak of the right of private judgment in\nmatters of faith, whether it be looked upon as a matter of human reason\nalone, or as an individual inspiration from heaven.\n\nIf there be any thing constant in Protestantism, it is undoubtedly\nthe substitution of private judgment for public and lawful authority.\nThis is always found in union with it, and is, properly speaking,\nits fundamental principle: it is the only point of contact among the\nvarious Protestant sects,--the basis of their mutual resemblance. It is\nvery remarkable that this exists, for the most part, unintentionally,\nand sometimes against their express wishes.\n\nHowever lamentable and disastrous this principle may be, if the\ncoryph\u00e6i of Protestantism had made it their rallying point, and had\nconstantly acted up to it in theory and practice, they would have\nbeen consistent in error. When men saw them cast into one abyss after\nanother, they would have recognised a system,--false undoubtedly;\nbut, at any rate, a system. As it is, it has not been even that: if\nyou examine the words and the acts of the first Reformers, you will\nfind that they made use of this principle as a means of resisting\nthe authority which controlled them, but that they never dreamed of\nestablishing it permanently; that if they labored to upset lawful\nauthority, it was for the purpose of usurping the command themselves;\nthat is to say, that they followed, in this respect, the example\nof revolutionists of all kinds, of all ages, and of all countries.\nEverybody knows how far Luther carried his fanatical intolerance; he\nwho could not bear the slightest contradiction, either from his own\ndisciples or anybody else, without giving way to the most senseless\nfits of passion, and the most unworthy outrages. Henry VIII. of\nEngland, who founded there what is called the liberty of thinking, sent\nto the scaffold those who did not think as he did; and it was at the\ninstigation of Calvin that Servetus was burnt alive at Geneva.\n\nI insist upon this point, because it seems to me to be of great\nimportance. Men are but too much inclined to pride; and if they heard\nit constantly repeated, without contradiction, that the innovators\nof the sixteenth century proclaimed the freedom of thought, a secret\ninterest might be excited in their favor; their violent declamations\nmight be regarded as the expressions of a generous movement, and\ntheir efforts as a noble attempt to assert the rights of intellectual\nfreedom. Let it be known, never to be forgotten, that if these men\nproclaimed the principle of free examination, it was for the purpose of\nmaking use of it against legitimate authority; but that they attempted,\nas soon as they could, to impose upon others the yoke of their own\nopinions. Their constant endeavour was, to destroy the authority which\ncame from God, in order to establish their own upon its ruins. It is\na painful necessity to be obliged to give proofs of this assertion;\nnot because they are difficult to find, but because one cannot adduce\nthe most incontestable of them without calling to mind words and deeds\nwhich not only cover with disgrace the founders of Protestantism, but\nare of such a nature, that they cannot be mentioned without a blush on\nthe cheek, or written without a stain upon the paper.[2]\n\nProtestantism, when viewed in a mass, appears only a shapeless\ncollection of innumerable sects, all opposed to each other, and\nagreeing only in one point, viz. in protesting against the authority\nof the Church. We only find among them particular and exclusive names,\ncommonly taken from the names of their founders; in vain have they made\na thousand efforts to give themselves a general name expressive of a\npositive idea; they are still called after the manner of philosophical\nsects. Lutherans, Calvinists, Zuinglians, Anglicans, Socinians,\nArminians, Anabaptists, all these names, of which I could furnish an\nendless host, only serve to exhibit the narrowness of the circle in\nwhich these sects are enclosed; and it is only necessary to pronounce\nthem, to show that they contain nothing universal, nothing great.\n\nEverybody who knows any thing of the Christian religion must be\nconvinced by this fact alone, that these sects are not truly Christian.\nBut what occurred when Protestantism attempted to take a general name,\nis singularly remarkable. If you examine its history, you will see\nthat all the names which it attempted to give itself failed, if they\ncontained any positive idea, or any mark of Christianity; but that it\nadopted a name taken by chance at the Diet of Spires; a name which\ncarries with it its own condemnation, because it is repugnant to the\norigin, to the spirit, to the maxims, to the entire history of the\nChristian religion; a name which does not express that unity--that\nunion which is inseparably connected with the Christian name; a name\nwhich is peculiarly becoming to it, which all the world gives to it by\nacclamation, which is truly its own--viz. _Protestantism_.[3]\n\nWithin the vast limits marked out by this name, there is room for\nevery error and for every sect. You may deny with the Lutherans the\nliberty of man, or renew with the Arminians the errors of Pelagius. You\nmay admit with some that real presence, which you are free to reject\nwith the Calvinists and Zuinglians; you may join with the Socinians\nin denying the divinity of Jesus Christ; you may attach yourself to\nEpiscopalians, to Puritans, or, if you please, to the extravagances\nof the Quakers; it is of no consequence, for you always remain a\nProtestant, for you protest against the authority of the Church; your\nfield is so extensive, that you can hardly escape from it, however\ngreat may be your wanderings; it contains all the vast extent that we\nbehold on coming forth from the gates of the Holy City.[4]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nCAUSES OF PROTESTANTISM.\n\n\nWhat, then, were the causes of the appearance of Protestantism in\nEurope, of its development, and of its success? This is a question\nwell worthy of being examined to the bottom, because it will lead us\nto inquire into the origin of this great evil, and will put us in a\ncondition to form the best idea of this phenomenon, so often but so\nimperfectly described.\n\nIt would be unreasonable to look for the causes of an event of this\nnature and importance, in circumstances either trivial in themselves,\nor circumscribed by places and events of a limited kind. It is a\nmistake to suppose that vast results can be produced by trifling\ncauses; and if it be true that great events sometimes have their\ncommencement in little ones, it is no less certain that the commencing\npoint is not the cause; and that to be the commencement of a thing, and\nto be its real cause, are expressions of a widely different meaning.\nA spark produces a dreadful conflagration, but it is because it falls\nupon a heap of inflammable materials. That which is general must have\ngeneral causes; and that which is lasting and deeply rooted must have\nlasting and profound causes.\n\nThis law is true alike in the moral as in the physical order; but its\napplications cannot be perceived without great difficulty, especially\nin the moral order, where things of great importance are sometimes\nclothed in a mean exterior; where each effect is found allied with so\nmany causes at once, connected with them by ties so delicate, that,\npossibly, the most attentive and piercing eye may miss altogether, or\nregard as a trifle, that which perhaps has produced very great results:\ntrifling things, on the other hand, are frequently so covered with\nglitter, tinsel, and parade, that it is very easy to be deceived by\nthem. We are always too much inclined to judge by appearances.\n\nIt will appear from these principles, that I am not disposed to\ngive great importance to the rivalry excited by the preaching of\nindulgences, or to the excesses which may have been committed by some\ninferiors in this matter; these things may have been an occasion, a\npretext, a signal to commence the contest, but they were of too little\nimportance in themselves to put the world in flames. There would be,\nperhaps, more apparent plausibility in seeking for the causes of\nProtestantism in the characters and positions of the first reformers;\nbut this also would be unsatisfactory.\n\nPeople lay great stress on the violence and fury of the writings and\nspeeches of Luther, and show how apt this savage eloquence was to\ninflame men's minds, and drag them into the new errors by the deadly\nhatred against Rome with which it inspired them. Too much stress also\nis laid on the sophistical art, the order and elegance of the style\nof Calvin; qualities which served to give an appearance of regularity\nto the shapeless mass of new errors, and make them more acceptable\nto men of good taste. The talents and other qualities of the various\ninnovators are described in the same way with more or less truth.\n\nI will not deny to Luther, Calvin, and the other founders of\nProtestantism, the titles on which their sad celebrity is founded;\nbut I venture to assert that we cannot attribute to their personal\nqualities the principal influence upon the development of this evil,\nwithout palpably mistaking and underrating the importance of the evil\nitself, and forgetting the instructions of universal history.\n\nIf we examine these men with impartiality, we shall find that their\nqualities were not greater than those of other sectarian leaders, if\nso great. Their talents, their learning, and their knowledge, have\npassed through the crucible of criticism, and there is, even among\nProtestants, no well-instructed and impartial person who does not now\nconsider the extravagant eulogiums which have been lavished upon them,\nas the exaggerations of party. They are classed among the number of\nthose turbulent men who are well fitted to excite revolutions; but\nthe history of all times and countries, and the experience of every\nday, teach that men of this kind are not uncommon, and that they\narise everywhere when a sad combination of events affords them a fit\nopportunity.\n\nWhen causes more in proportion to Protestantism, by their extent\nand importance, are sought for, two are commonly pointed out: the\nnecessity of reform, and the spirit of liberty. \"There were numerous\nabuses,\" says one party; \"legitimate reform was neglected: this\nnegligence produced revolution.\" \"The human intellect was in fetters,\"\nsays another; \"the mind longed to break its chains; Protestantism\nwas only a grand effort for the freedom of human thought, a great\nmovement towards liberating the human mind.\" It is true, that these\ntwo opinions point out causes of great importance and of wide extent:\nboth are well adapted to make partisans. The one, by establishing the\nnecessity of reform, opens a wide field for the censure of neglected\nlaws and relaxed morals; this theme always finds sympathy in the heart\nof man,--indulgent towards its own defects, but stern and inexorable\ntowards the faults of others. With respect to the other opinion, which\nraises the cry of the movement of religious liberty and the freedom of\nthe human mind, it is sure to be widely adopted: there are always a\nthousand echoes to a cry which flatters our pride.\n\nI do not deny that a reform was necessary; to be convinced of this, I\nneed only glance at history, and listen to the complaints of several\ngreat men, justly regarded by the Church as among the most cherished\nof her sons. I read in the first decree of the Council of Trent, that\none of the objects of the Council was the reform of the Christian\nclergy and people; I learn from the mouth of Pius IV., when confirming\nthe said Council, that one of the objects for which it was assembled,\nwas the correction of morals, and the re-establishment of discipline.\nNotwithstanding all this, I am not inclined to give to abuses so\nmuch influence as has been attributed to them. I must also say, that\nit appears to me that we give a very bad solution of the question,\nwhen, to show the real cause of the evil, we insist on the fatal\nresults produced by these abuses. These words also, \"a new movement\nof liberty,\" appear to me altogether insufficient. I shall say, then,\nwith freedom, in spite of my respect for those who entertain the first\nopinion, and my esteem for the talents of those who refer all to the\nspirit of liberty, that I cannot find in either that analysis, at once\nphilosophical and historical, which, without wandering from the ground\nof history, examines facts, clears them up, shows their inward nature,\ntheir relations and connections.\n\nIf men have wandered so much in the definition and explanation of\nProtestantism, it is because they have not sufficiently observed that\nit is not only a fact common to all ages of the history of the Church,\nbut that its importance and its particular characteristics are owing\nto the epoch when it arose. This simple consideration, founded on\nthe constant testimony of history, clears up every thing; we have no\nlonger to seek in the doctrines of Protestantism for any thing singular\nor extraordinary; all its characteristics prove that it was born in\nEurope, and in the sixteenth century. I shall develop these ideas, not\nby fanciful reasonings or gratuitous suppositions, but by adducing\nfacts which nobody can deny.\n\nIt is indisputable that the principle of submission to authority in\nmatters of faith has always encountered a vigorous resistance in the\nhuman mind. I shall not point out here the causes of this resistance;\nI propose to do so in the course of this work; I shall content myself\nat present with stating this fact, and reminding those who may be\ninclined to call it in question, that the history of the Church has\nalways been accompanied by the history of heresies. This fact has\npresented different phases according to the changes of time and place.\nSometimes making a rude mixture of Judaism and Christianity, sometimes\ncombining the doctrines of Jesus Christ with the dreams of the East, or\ncorrupting the purity of faith by the subtilties and chicaneries of\nGrecian sophistry; this fact presents us with as many different aspects\nas there are conditions of the mind of man. But we always find in it\ntwo general characteristics, which clearly show that it has always had\nthe same origin, notwithstanding the variation in its object and in the\nnature of its results: these two characteristics are, hatred of the\nauthority of the Church, and the spirit of sect.\n\nIn all ages sects have arisen, opposing the authority of the Church,\nand establishing as dogmas the errors of their founders: it was\nnatural for the same thing to happen in the sixteenth century. Now,\nif that age had been an exception to the general rule, it seems to\nme, looking at the nature of the human mind, that we should have\nhad to answer this very difficult question, How is it possible that\nno sect appeared in that age? I say, then, error having once arisen\nin the sixteenth century, no matter what may have been its origin,\noccasion, and pretext--a certain number of followers having assembled\naround its banner--Protestantism forthwith presents itself before me\nin all its extent, with its transcendent importance, its divisions,\nand subdivisions; I see it, with boldness and energy, making a general\nattack on all the doctrines and discipline taught and observed\nby the Church. In place of Luther, Zuinglius, and Calvin, let us\nsuppose Arius, Nestorius, and Pelagius; in place of the errors of the\nformer, let them teach the errors of the latter; it will all lead\nto the same result. The errors will excite sympathy; they will find\ndefenders; they will animate enthusiasts; they will spread, they will\nbe propagated with the rapidity of fire, they will be diffused, they\nwill throw sparks in all directions; they will all be defended with\na show of knowledge and erudition; creeds will change unceasingly; a\nthousand professions of faith will be drawn up; the liturgy will be\naltered,--will be destroyed; the bonds of discipline will be broken; we\nshall have to sum up all in one word, Protestantism.\n\nHow did it happen that the evil in the sixteenth century was\nnecessarily so extensive, so great, and so important? It was because\nthe society of that time was different from any other that had preceded\nit; that which at other times would only have produced a partial fire,\nnecessarily caused in the sixteenth century a frightful conflagration.\nEurope was then composed of a number of immense states, cast, so to\nspeak, in the same mould, resembling each other in ideas, manners, laws\nand institutions, drawn together incessantly by an active communication\nwhich was kept up alternately by rival and common interests; knowledge\nfound in the Latin language an easy means of diffusion; in fine, most\nimportant of all, there had become general over all Europe a rapid\nmeans of disseminating ideas and feelings, a creation which had flashed\nfrom the human mind like a miraculous illumination, a presage of\ncolossal destinies, viz. the press.\n\nSuch is the activity of the mind of man, and the ardour with which it\nembraces all sorts of innovation, that when once the standard of error\nwas planted, a multitude of partisans were sure to rally round it. The\nyoke of authority once thrown off, in countries where investigation\nwas so active, where so many discussions were carried on, where ideas\nwere in such a state of effervescence, and where all the sciences\nbegan to germinate, it was impossible for the restless mind of man\nto remain fixed on any point, and a swarm of sects was necessarily\nproduced. There is no middle path; either civilized nations must remain\nCatholic, or run through all the forms of error. If they do not attach\nthemselves firmly to the anchor of truth, we shall see them make a\ngeneral attack upon it, we shall see them assail it in itself, in all\nthat it teaches, in all that it prescribes. A man of free and active\nmind will remain tranquil in the peaceful regions of truth, or he will\nseek for it with restlessness and disquietude. If he find only false\nprinciples to rest on,--if he feel the ground move under his feet,\nhe will change his position every moment, he will leap from error to\nerror, and precipitate himself from one abyss to another. To live amid\nerrors, and be contented with them, to transmit error from generation\nto generation, without modification or change, is peculiar to those\nwho vegetate in debasement and ignorance; there the mind of man is not\nactive, because it is asleep.\n\nFrom the point of view where we have now placed ourselves, we can see\nProtestantism such as it is. From this commanding position we see\nevery thing in its place, and it is possible for us to appreciate\nits dimensions, to perceive its relations, calculate its influence,\nand explain its anomalies. Men there assume their true position; as\nthey are seen in close proximity with the great mass of events, they\nappear in the picture as very small figures, for which others may\nbe substituted without inconvenience; which may be placed nearer or\nfarther off, and the features and complexion of which are not of any\nconsequence. Of what importance, then, are the energy of character, the\npassion, and boldness of Luther, the literary polish of Melancthon, and\nthe sophistical talents of Calvin? We are convinced, that to lay stress\nupon all this, is to lose our time, and explain nothing.\n\nWhat were these men, and the other coryph\u00e6i of Protestantism? Was\nthere any thing really extraordinary about them? We shall find men\nlike them everywhere. There are some among them who did not surpass\nmediocrity; and it may be said of almost all, that if they had not\nobtained an unhappy celebrity, they would hardly have been celebrated\nat all. Why, then, did they effect such great things? They found a mass\nof combustibles, and they set them on fire. Certainly this was not\ndifficult, and yet it was all they did. When I see Luther, mad with\npride, commit those extravagances which were the subject of so many\nlamentations on the part of his friends--when I see him grossly insult\nall who oppose him, put himself in a passion, and vomit forth a torrent\nof impure words against all those who do not humble themselves in his\npresence, I am scarcely moved by any other feeling than pity. This man,\nwho had the extraordinary mania of calling himself the _Notharius Dei_,\nbecame delirious; but he breathed, and his breath was followed by a\nterrible conflagration: it was because a powder-magazine was at hand on\nwhich he threw a spark. Nevertheless, like a man blinded by insanity,\nhe cried out, \"Behold my power! I breathe, and my breath puts the world\nin flames!\"\n\nBut, you will ask me, what was the real influence of abuses? If we take\ncare not to leave the point of view where we now are, we shall see\nthat they were an occasion, and that they sometimes afforded food, but\nthat they did not exercise all the influence which has been attributed\nto them. Do I wish, then, to deny, or to excuse them? Not at all.\nI can appreciate the complaints of some men, who are worthy of the\nmost profound respect; but while lamenting the evil, these men never\npretended to detail the consequences. The just man when he raises his\nvoice against vice, the minister of the sanctuary when he is burning\nwith zeal for the house of the Lord, express themselves in accents so\nloud and vehement, that they must not always be taken literally. Their\nwhole hearts are opened, and, inflamed as they are with a zealous love\nof justice, they make use of burning words. Men without faith interpret\ntheir expressions maliciously, exaggerating and misrepresenting them.\n\nIt appears to me to be clear, from what I have just shown, that the\nprincipal cause of Protestantism is not to be found in the abuses\nof the middle ages. All that can be said is, that they afforded\nopportunities and pretexts for it. To assert the contrary would be to\nmaintain that there were always numerous abuses in the Church from\nthe beginning, even in the time of her primitive fervor, and of that\nproverbial purity of which our opponents have said so much; for even\nthen there were swarms of sects who protested against her doctrines,\ndenied her divine authority, and called themselves the true Church. The\ncase is the same, and the inference cannot be denied. If you allege the\nextent and rapid propagation of Protestantism, I will remind you that\nsuch was also the case with other sects; I will repeat to you the words\nof St. Jerome, with regard to the ravages of Arianism: \"All the world\ngroans, and is full of astonishment at finding itself Arian.\" I will\nrepeat, again, that if you observe any thing remarkable and peculiar\nbelonging to Protestantism, it ought not to be attributed to abuses,\nbut to the epoch when it appeared.\n\nI believe I have said enough to give an idea of the influence which\nabuses could exert; yet, as it is a subject which has occupied much\nattention, and on which many mistakes have been made, it will be well\nto revert to it once more, to make our ideas on the subject still\nclearer. That lamentable abuses had crept in during the course of the\nmiddle ages, that the corruption of manners had been great, and that,\nconsequently, reform was required, is a fact which cannot be denied.\nThis fact is proved to us, with respect to the eleventh and twelfth\ncenturies, by irreproachable witnesses, such as St. Peter Damien, St.\nGregory VII., and St. Bernard. Some centuries later, even after many\nabuses had been corrected, they were still but too considerable, as\nis witnessed by the complaints of men who were inflamed with a desire\nof reform. We cannot forget the alarming words addressed by Cardinal\nJulian to Pope Eugenius IV., on the subject of the disorders of the\nclergy, especially those of Germany.\n\nHaving fully avowed the truth on this point, and my opinion that the\ncause of Catholicity does not require dissimulation or falsehood to\ndefend it, I shall devote a few words to examining some important\nquestions. Are we to blame the court of Rome or the bishops for these\ngreat abuses? I venture to think that they were to be attributed to\nthe evils of the time alone. Let us call to mind the events which had\ntaken place in the midst of Europe; the dissolution of the decrepit\nand corrupt empire of Rome; the irruption and inundation of northern\nbarbarians; their fluctuations, their wars, sometimes with each\nother, and sometimes with the conquered nations, and that for so many\nages; the establishment and absolute reign of feudalism, with all its\ninconveniences, its evils, its troubles, and disasters; the invasion of\nthe Saracens, and their dominion over a large portion of Europe; now,\nlet any reflecting man ask himself whether such revolutions must not of\nnecessity produce ignorance, corruption of morals, and the relaxation\nof all discipline. How could the ecclesiastical society escape being\ndeeply affected by this dissolution, this destruction of the civil\nsociety? Could she help participating in the evils of the horrible\nstate of chaos into which Europe was then plunged?\n\nBut were the spirit and ardent desire of reforming abuses ever wanting\nin the Church? It can be shown that they were not. I will not mention\nthe saints whom she did not cease to produce during these unhappy\nperiods; history proves their number and their virtues, which, so\nvividly contrasting with the corruption of the age, show that the\ndivine flames which descended on the Apostles had not been extinguished\nin the bosom of the Catholic Church. This fact proves much; but there\nis another still more remarkable, a fact less subject to dispute, and\nwhich we cannot be accused of exaggerating; a fact which is not limited\nto individuals, but which is, on the contrary, the most complete\nexpression of the spirit by which the whole body of the Church was\nanimated; I mean, the constant meeting of councils, in which abuses\nwere reproved and condemned, and in which sanctity of morals and the\nobservance of discipline were continually inculcated. Happily this\nconsoling fact is indisputable; it is open to every eye; and to be\naware of it, one only needs to consult a volume of ecclesiastical\nhistory, or the proceedings of councils. There is no fact more worth\nour attention; and I will add, that perhaps all its importance has not\nbeen observed.\n\nLet us remark what passes in other societies: we see that in proportion\nto the change of ideas and manners, laws everywhere undergo a rapid\nmodification; and if manners and ideas come to be directly opposed\nto laws, the latter, reduced to silence, are soon either abolished or\ntrodden under foot. Nothing of this sort has happened in the Church.\nCorruption has extended itself everywhere to a lamentable degree; the\nministers of religion have allowed themselves to be carried away by\nthe stream, and have forgotten the sanctity of their vocation; but the\nsacred fire did not cease to burn in the sanctuary; the law was there\nconstantly proclaimed and inculcated; and, wonderful spectacle! the men\nwho themselves violated it frequently assembled to condemn themselves,\nto censure their own conduct, and thus to render more public and more\npalpable the contrast which existed between their instructions and\ntheir actions. Simony and incontinence were the prevailing vices;\nif you open the canons of councils, you will find them everywhere\nanathematized. Nowhere do you find a struggle so prolonged, so\nconstant, so persevering, of right against wrong; you always see,\nthroughout so many ages, the law, opposed face to face to the irregular\npassions, maintain itself firm and immovable, without yielding a\nsingle step, without allowing them a moment of repose or peace until\nthey were subjugated. And this constancy and tenacity of the Church\nwere not useless. At the commencement of the sixteenth century, at the\ntime when Protestantism appeared, we find abuses comparatively less\nnumerous, morals perceptibly improved, discipline become more strict,\nand observed with sufficient regularity. The time when Luther declaimed\nwas not like that when St. Peter Damien and St. Bernard deplored the\nevils of the Church. The chaos was reduced to form; order, light, and\nregularity had made rapid progress; and an incontestable proof that\nthe Church was not then plunged in such ignorance and corruption as\nis alleged, is, that she produced the great assemblage of saints who\nshed so much lustre on the age, and the men who displayed their eminent\nwisdom at the Council of Trent. Let us remember that great reforms\nrequire much time; that they met with much resistance both from the\nclergy and laity; that for having undertaken them with firmness, and\nurged them with vigour, Gregory VII. has been charged with rashness.\nLet us not judge of men without regard to times and places; and let\nus not pretend to measure every thing according to our own limited\nideas; ages move in an immense orbit, and the variety of circumstances\nproduces situations so strange and complicated that we can hardly form\nan idea of them.\n\nBossuet, in his History of the Variations, after having differently\nclassed the spirit which guided certain men, before the thirteenth\ncentury, in their attempts at reform, and having cited the threatening\nwords of Cardinal Julian on the subject of abuses, adds: \"It is thus\nthat, in the fifteenth century, this cardinal, the greatest man of\nhis times, deplored these evils, and foresaw their fatal effects; by\nwhich he seems to have predicted those that Luther was about to bring\non all Christianity, and in the first place on Germany; and he was\nnot deceived when he thought that the neglect of reformation, and the\nincreased hatred against the clergy, was about to produce a sect more\ndangerous to the Church than the Bohemians.\" (_Hist. des Variat._\nliv. i.) It is inferred from these words that the illustrious Bishop\nof Meaux found one of the principal causes of Protestantism in the\nomission of a legitimate reform made in time. Nevertheless, we must\nnot suppose from this that Bossuet meant, in any degree, to excuse\nthe promoters of it, or that he had any idea of sanctioning their\nintentions; on the contrary, he ranked them as turbulent innovators,\nwho, far from promoting the real reform which was desired by wise and\nprudent men, only served to render it more difficult, by introducing,\nby the means of their erroneous doctrines, the spirit of disobedience,\nschism, and heresy.\n\nIn spite of the authority of Bossuet, I cannot persuade myself to look\nupon abuses as one of the principal causes of Protestantism; but it is\nnot necessary to repeat what I have said in support of this opinion. It\nmay not, however, be useless to repeat, that the authority of Bossuet\nis misapplied when used to justify the intentions of the reformers,\nsince the illustrious prelate is the first to declare them highly\nculpable, and to observe, that if abuses were in existence, their\nintention was not to correct them, but rather to make them a pretext\nfor abandoning the faith of the Church, throwing off the yoke of lawful\nauthority, breaking the bands of discipline, and introducing thereby\ndisorder and licentiousness.\n\nHow, indeed, can we attribute to the reformers the real spirit of\nreform, when almost all of them proved the contrary by the ignominy\nof their own conduct? If they had condemned, by the austerity of\ntheir morals, or by devoting themselves to a severe asceticism, the\nrelaxations of which they complained, there might be a question whether\ntheir extravagances were not the effects of exaggerated zeal, and if\nsome excess in the love of virtue had not drawn them into error. But\nthey did nothing of the kind. Let us hear on this point an eye-witness,\na man who certainly cannot be accused of fanaticism, since the\nconnection which he had with the leaders of Protestantism has rendered\nhim culpable in the eyes of many. Behold what Erasmus said, with his\nusual wit and bitterness: \"The reform, as far as it has gone, has been\nlimited to the secularization of a few nuns and the marriage of a few\npriests; and this great tragedy finishes with an event altogether\ncomic, since every thing is wound up, as in comedies, by a marriage.\"\n\nThis shows to conviction the true spirit of the innovators of the\nsixteenth century. It is clear that, far from wishing the reformation\nof abuses, they wished rather to increase them. This bare consideration\nof facts has led M. Guizot, on this point, into the path of truth,\nwhen he rejects the opinion of those who pretend, that the Reformation\nwas \"an attempt conceived and executed simply with the intention of\nreconstructing a pure and primitive Church. The Reformation,\" he said,\n\"was not a mere attempt at religious amelioration, or the fruit of a\nUtopian humanity and virtue.\" (_Histoire G\u00e9n\u00e9rale de la Civilisation en\nEurope_, douzi\u00e8me le\u00e7on.)\n\nWe shall have now no difficulty in appreciating at its just value\nthe explanation which the same writer gives of this phenomenon. \"The\nReformation,\" says M. Guizot, \"was a great attempt at the liberation of\nhuman thought--an uprising of the mind of man.\" This attempt, according\nto M. Guizot, arose out of the energetic movement given to the human\nmind, and the state of inaction into which the Roman Church had\nfallen; it arose from this, that the human mind advanced rapidly and\nimpetuously, while the Church remained stationary. Explanations of this\nkind, and this one in particular, are very apt to draw admirers and\nproselytes; these ideas are high, and placed on a level so lofty and\nextended, that they cannot be looked at closely by the generality of\nreaders; and, moreover, they appear in brilliant imagery, which blinds\nthe sight and prejudices the judgment.\n\nThat which restrains freedom of thought, as understood by M. Guizot\nand other Protestants is, authority in matters of faith: it was, then,\nagainst this authority that the uprising of the mind declared itself;\nor, in other words, the mind rebelled, because it advanced, while the\nChurch, immovable in her doctrines, was, according to the expression of\nM. Guizot, \"in a stationary state.\"\n\nWhatever may be the disposition of mind of M. Guizot towards the dogmas\nof the Catholic Church, he ought, as a philosopher, to have seen that\nit was a great mistake to point out as the distinctive characteristic\nof one period, that which had been at every time a glorious title\nfor the Church. For more than eighteen hundred years the Church has\nbeen stationary in her dogmas, and it is no equivocal proof that she\npossesses the truth: the truth is unchangeable, because it is one.\n\nWhat the Church was in the sixteenth century, she had been before, and\nshe has been since. She had nothing particular, she adopted no new\ncharacteristic. The reason, then, by which it is attempted to explain\nthis phenomenon, viz. the uprising of the mind, cannot advance the\nexplanation a single step; and if this be the reason why M. Guizot\ncompares the Church to governments grown old, we will tell him that\nshe has had this old age from her cradle. M. Guizot, as if he had\nhimself felt the weakness of his reasoning, presents his thoughts in\ngroups, and as it were _p\u00eale-m\u00eale_; he parades before his readers ideas\nof different kinds, without taking pains to classify or distinguish\nthem; one would be inclined to think that he meant to distract them\nby variety, and confound them by mixture. Judging, indeed, from the\ncontext of his discourse, the epithets _inert and stationary_, which\nhe applies to the Church, do not appear, according to his intention,\nto relate to matters of faith; and he gives us to understand that\nhe speaks rather of the pretensions of the Church with regard to\npolitics and state economy. He has taken pains, elsewhere, to repel as\ncalumnies, the charges of tyranny and intolerance which have been so\noften made against the court of Rome.\n\nWe find here an incoherence of ideas which was not to be expected in so\nclear a mind; and as many persons may scarcely be inclined to believe\nhow far this incoherence extends, it is necessary to give his words\nliterally: they will show us into what inconsistencies great minds can\nfall when they are placed in a false position.\n\n\"The government of the human mind, the spiritual power,\" says M.\nGuizot, \"had fallen into an inert and stationary condition. The\npolitical influence of the Church, of the court of Rome, was much\ndiminished; European society no longer was ruled by it; it had passed\nunder the control of lay governments. Nevertheless, the spiritual\npower preserved all its pretensions, all its _\u00e9clat_, all its external\nimportance. There happened in this respect, what has more than once\nhappened to old governments. The greater part of the complaints made\nagainst it were hardly better founded.\"\n\nIt is evident that M. Guizot, in this passage, does not point out\nany thing which is at all connected with liberty, any thing which is\nnot quite of another kind: why does he not do so? The court of Rome,\nhe tells us, had seen its political influence diminished, and yet it\npreserved its pretensions; the direction of European society no longer\nbelonged to it, but Rome kept its pomp and its external importance. Is\nany thing here meant besides the rivalries of which political affairs\nhad been the subject? Did M. Guizot forget what he himself said some\npages before, viz. that it did not appear to him to be reasonable to\nassign the rivalry of kings with the ecclesiastical power as the cause\nof Protestantism, and that such a cause was not adequate to the extent\nand importance of the event?\n\nAlthough all this has no direct connection with freedom of thought,\nstill, if any one be inclined to attribute the uprising of the mind\nto the intolerance of the court of Rome, let him listen to M. Guizot:\n\"It is not true,\" says he, \"that in the sixteenth century the court of\nRome was very tyrannical; that abuses, properly so called, were then\nmore numerous, more crying, than they had been at other times; never,\nperhaps, on the contrary, had the ecclesiastical power been more easy,\nmore tolerant, more disposed to let things go their own way. Provided\nthat it was not itself called in question, provided that the rights\nwhich it had formerly enjoyed were allowed in theory, that the same\nexistence was secured, and the same tributes were paid to it, it would\nwillingly have allowed the human mind to remain at peace, if the human\nmind had done the same in respect to it.\"\n\nThus M. Guizot seems to have forgotten what he had urged with the view\nof showing that the Protestant Reformation was a great attempt at the\nliberation of human thought--a rebellion of the mind of man. He does\nnot allege any thing which was an obstacle to the freedom of man's\nthoughts; and he himself acknowledges that there was nothing to provoke\nthis rebellion, as, for example, intolerance or cruelty; he has himself\njust told us that the ecclesiastical government of the sixteenth\ncentury, far from being tyrannical, was easy and tolerant, and that,\nif left to itself, it would willingly have allowed the human mind to\nremain tranquil.\n\nIt is, then, evident, that the great attempt at the liberation of\nthe human mind is, in M. Guizot's mouth, only a vague, undefined\nexpression,--a brilliant veil with which he seems to have wished\nto cover the cradle of Protestantism, even at the risk of being\ninconsistent with his own opinions. He reverts to the political\nrivalries which he before rejected. Abuses have no importance in his\neyes; he cannot find in them the real cause; and he forgets what he had\njust asserted in the preceding lecture, viz. that if necessary reform\nhad been made in time, the religious revolution might have been avoided.\n\nHe tries to give a picture of the obstacles to the liberty of thought,\nand endeavours to rise to the general considerations which embrace\nall the importance and influences of the human mind; but he stops at\n_\u00e9clat_, at _external importance_, and _political rivalries_; he lowers\nhis flight to the level of tributes and services.\n\nThis incoherence of ideas, this weakness of reasoning, and\nforgetfulness of assertions previously made, will appear strange\nonly to those who are accustomed rather to admire the high flights\nof talented men than to study their aberrations. It is true that M.\nGuizot was in a position in which it was very difficult to avoid being\ndazzled and deceived. If it be true that we cannot observe attentively\nwhat passes on the ground around us without narrowing our view of\nthe horizon,--if this method leads the observer to form a collection\nof isolated facts rather than compare general maxims, it is not less\ncertain that, by extending our observations over a larger space, we\nrun the risk of many illusions. Too great generalization borders on\nhypothesis and fancy. The mind, when taking an immoderate flight in\norder to get a general view of things, no longer sees them as they\nreally are; perhaps sometimes even loses sight of them altogether.\nTherefore it is that the loftiest minds should frequently remember the\nwords of Bacon: \"We do not want wings, but lead.\" Too impartial not to\nconfess that abuses had been exaggerated,--too good a philosopher not\nto see that they could not have had so great an effect,--M. Guizot,\nwho was prevented by his sense of dignity and decency from joining the\ncrowd who incessantly raise the cry of cruelty and intolerance, has\nmade an effort to do justice to the Church of Rome; but, unfortunately,\nhis prejudices against the Church would not allow him to see things in\ntheir true light. He was aware that the origin of Protestantism must be\nsought in the human mind itself; but, knowing the age and epoch when he\nwas speaking, he thought it was necessary to propitiate his audience by\nfrequent appeals to liberty, in order that his discourse might be well\nreceived. This is the reason why, after having tempered the bitterness\nof his reproaches against the Church by a few soft words, he reserves\nall that is noble, grand, and generous for the ideas which produced the\nReformation, and throws on the Church all the shadows of the picture.\n\nWhile acknowledging that the principal cause of Protestantism is to\nbe found in the human mind, it is easy to abstain from these unjust\ncomparisons; and M. Guizot might have avoided the inconsistency to\nwhich we have alluded. He might have discovered the origin of the fact\nin the character of the human mind; he might, at the same time, have\nshown the greatness and importance of it, while simply explaining the\nnature and position of the societies in which it appeared. In fine, he\nmight have observed that it was no _extraordinary effort_, but a mere\nrepetition of what has happened in every age; and a phenomenon, the\ncharacter of which depended on the particular state of the atmosphere\nin which it was produced.\n\nThis way of considering Protestantism as an ordinary event, increased\nand developed by the circumstances in which it arose, appears to me to\nbe as philosophical as it is little attended to. I shall support it by\nanother observation, which will supply us with reasons and examples at\nthe same time.\n\nThe state of modern society for three hundred years has been such,\nthat all the events that have occurred have acquired a character of\ngeneralization, and consequently an importance, which distinguishes\nthem from all the events of a similar kind which occurred at other\ntimes and in a different social state. If we examine the history of\nantiquity, we shall see that all the events therein occurring were\nisolated in some sort from each other; this was what rendered them\nless beneficial when they were good, and less injurious when they were\nbad. Carthage, Rome, Sparta, Athens, all these nations more or less\nadvanced in the career of civilization, each followed its own path, and\nprogressed in a different way. Ideas, manners, political constitutions,\nsucceeded each other, without our being able to perceive any influence\nof the ideas of one nation on those of another, or of the manners\nof one nation on those of another; we do not find any evidence of a\ntendency to bring nations to one common centre.\n\nWe also remark that, except when forced to intermix, ancient nations\ncould be a long time in close proximity without losing their\npeculiarities, or suffering any important change by the contact.\n\nObserve how different is the state of things in Europe in modern times.\nA revolution in one country affects all others; an idea sent forth\nfrom the schools agitates nations and alarms governments. Nothing is\nisolated, every thing is general, and acquires by expansion a terrible\nforce. It is impossible to study the history of one nation without\nseeing all the others make their appearance on the stage; and we cannot\nstudy the history of a science or an art without discovering a thousand\nconnections with objects which do not belong to science or to art.\n\nAll nations are connected, objects are assimilated, relations increase.\nThe affairs of one nation are interesting to all the others, and\nthey wish to take part in them. This is the reason why the idea of\n_non-intervention_ in politics is, and always will be, impracticable;\nit is, indeed, natural for us to interfere in that in which we are\ninterested.\n\nThese examples, although taken from things of a different kind, appear\nto me very well calculated to illustrate my idea of the religious\nevents of that period. Protestantism, it is true, is thereby stripped\nof the philosophic mantle by which it has been covered from its\ninfancy; it loses all right to be considered as full of foresight,\nmagnificent projects, and high destinies, from its cradle, but I do not\nsee that its importance and extent are thereby diminished; the fact\nitself, in a word, is unimpaired, but the real cause of the imposing\naspect in which it has presented itself to the world is explained.\n\nEvery thing, in this point of view, is seen in its just dimensions;\nindividuals are scarcely perceived, and abuses appear only what they\nreally are--opportunities and pretexts; vast plans, lofty and generous\nideas, and efforts at independence of mind, are only gratuitous\nsuppositions. Thence ambition, war, the rivalry of kings, take their\nposition as causes more or less influential, but always in the second\nrank. All the causes are estimated at their real value; in fine, the\nprincipal causes being once pointed out, it is acknowledged that the\nfact was sure to be accompanied in its development by a multitude of\nsubordinate agents. There remains still an important question in this\nmatter, viz. what was the cause of the hatred, or rather the feeling of\nexasperation, on the part of sectarians against Rome? Was it owing to\nsome great abuse, some great wrong on the part of Rome? There is but\none answer to make, viz. that in a storm, the waves always dash with\nfury against the immovable rock which resists them.\n\nSo far from attributing to abuses all the influence which has been\nassigned to them on the birth and development of Protestantism, I am\nconvinced, on the contrary, that all imaginable legitimate reforms,\nand the greatest degree of willingness on the part of the Church\nauthorities to comply with every exigence, would not have been able to\nprevent that unhappy event.\n\nHe has paid little attention to the extreme inconstancy and fickleness\nof the human mind, and studied its history to little purpose, who does\nnot recognise in the event of the sixteenth century one of those great\ncalamities which God alone can avert by a special intervention of his\nprovidence.[5]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nEXTRAORDINARY PHENOMENON IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.\n\n\nThe proposition contained in the concluding lines of the last\nchapter suggests a corollary, which, if I am not mistaken, offers\na new demonstration of the divine origin of the Catholic Church.\nHer existence for eighteen centuries, in spite of so many powerful\nadversaries, has always been regarded as a most extraordinary thing.\nAnother prodigy, too little attended to, and of not less importance\nwhen the nature of the human mind is taken into account, is, _the unity\nof the Church's doctrines, pervading, as it does, all her various\ninstructions, and the number of great minds which this unity has always\nenclosed within her bosom_.\n\nI particularly call the attention of all thinking men to this point;\nand although I cannot hope to develop this idea in a suitable manner,\nI am sure they will find in it matter for very serious reflection.\nThis method of considering the Church may perhaps recommend itself to\nthe taste of some readers on another account, viz. because I shall lay\naside Revelation, in order to consider Catholicity, not as a Divine\nreligion, but as a school of philosophy.\n\nNo one who has studied the history of letters can deny that the Church\nhas, in all ages, possessed men illustrious for science. The history of\nthe Fathers of the first ages of the Church is nothing but the history\nof the most learned men in Europe, in Africa, and in Asia; the list\nof learned men who preserved, after the irruption of the Barbarians,\nsome remains of ancient knowledge, is composed of churchmen. In modern\ntimes you cannot point out a branch of human knowledge, in which a\nconsiderable number of Catholics have not figured in the first rank.\nThus there has been, for eighteen hundred years, an uninterrupted\nchain of learned men, who were Catholics, that is, men united in the\nprofession of the doctrines taught by the Catholic Church. Let us\nlay aside for a moment the divine characteristics of Catholicity, to\nconsider it only as a school or sect; I say, that in the fact which I\nhave pointed out, we find a phenomenon so extraordinary, that its equal\ncannot be found elsewhere, and that no effort of reason can explain it,\naccording to the natural order of human things.\n\nIt is certainly not new in the history of the human mind for a\ndoctrine, more or less reasonable, to be professed for a time by a\ncertain number of learned and enlightened men; this has been shown\nin schools of philosophy both ancient and modern. But for a creed to\nmaintain itself for many ages, by preserving the adhesion of men of\nlearning of all times and of all countries--of minds differing among\nthemselves on other points--of men opposed in interests and divided by\nrivalries, is a phenomenon new, unique, and not to be found anywhere\nbut in the Catholic Church. It always has been, and still is, the\npractice of the Church, while one in faith and doctrine, to teach\nunceasingly--to excite discussion on all subjects--to promote the study\nand examination of the foundations on which faith itself reposes--to\nscrutinize for this purpose the ancient languages, the monuments of the\nremotest times, the documents of history, the discoveries of scientific\nobservation, the lessons of the highest and most analytic sciences, and\nto present herself with a generous confidence in the great lyceums,\nwhere men replete with talents and knowledge concentrate, as in a\nfocus, all that they have learned from their predecessors, and all that\nthey themselves have collected: and nevertheless we see her always\npersevere with firmness in her faith and in the unity of her doctrines;\nwe see her always surrounded by illustrious men, who, with their\nbrows crowned with the laurels of a hundred literary contests, humble\nthemselves, tranquil and serene, before her, without fear of dimming\nthe brightness of the glory which surrounds their heads.\n\nWe ask those who see in Catholicity only one of the innumerable\nsects by which the earth has been covered, to point out elsewhere a\nsimilar fact; to explain to us how the Church has been able to show\nus a phenomenon, constantly existing, so opposed to the ever-varying\nspirit of the human mind; let them tell us by what secret talisman\nthe Sovereign Pontiffs have been able to do what other men have found\nimpossible. Those men, who bowed their heads at the command of the\nVatican, who have laid aside their own opinions to adopt those of a\nman called the Pope, were not simple and ignorant men. Look at them\nattentively; you will see in the boldness of their mien their knowledge\nof their own intellectual power; you will read in their bright and\npenetrating eyes the flame of genius which burns in their breasts. They\nare the same men who have filled the highest places in the academies\nof Europe; who have spread their fame over the world, and whose names\nhave been handed down to future generations. Examine the history of all\nages, search all the countries of the world, and if you find anywhere\nsuch an extraordinary combination of knowledge in union with faith, of\ngenius in submission to authority, and of discussion without breach\nof unity, you will have made an important discovery, and science will\nhave to explain a new phenomenon. But you know well that you cannot\ndo so. This is the reason why you have recourse to new stratagems in\norder to cast a shade on the brightness of this fact; for you feel that\nimpartial reason and common sense must draw from it the conclusion that\nthere is in the Catholic Church something which is not to be found\nelsewhere.\n\nThese facts, say our adversaries, are certain; the reflections which\nthey suggest are dazzling at first sight; but if we examine the subject\nthoroughly, we shall see the difficulties they raise disappear. This\nphenomenon, which we have seen realized in the Catholic Church, and\nwhich is not found elsewhere, only proves that there has always been\nin the Church a fixed system, which has been developed with uniform\nregularity. The Church knew that union is the source of strength; that\nunion cannot exist without unity of doctrine; and that unity cannot\nbe preserved without submission to authority. This simple observation\nestablished, and constantly maintained, the principle of submission.\nSuch is the explanation of the phenomenon. The idea, we grant, is\nprofoundly wise, the scheme is grand, the system is extraordinary;\nbut they do not prove any thing in favor of the Divine origin of\nCatholicism.\n\nThis is the best reply which they can make; it is easy to show that\nthe difficulty remains entire. Indeed, if it be true that there has\nexisted a society on earth which has been for eighteen centuries guided\nby one fixed and constant principle--a society which has known how\nto bind to this principle eminent men of all ages and countries, the\nfollowing questions must be asked of our adversaries:--Why has the\nChurch alone possessed this principle, and monopolized this idea? If\nother sects have been in possession of it, why have they not acted on\nit? All the philosophic sects have disappeared, one after another; the\nChurch alone remains. Other religions, in order to preserve some sort\nof unity, have been compelled to shun the light, to avoid discussion,\nto hide themselves in the thickest shades. Why has the Church preserved\nher unity while seeking the light, while publishing her books in open\nday, while lavishing all sorts of instruction, and founding everywhere\ncolleges, universities, and establishments of every description, where\nall the splendor of knowledge and erudition has been concentrated?\n\nIt is not enough to say that there was a plan--a system; the difficulty\nlies in the existence of this plan and this system; it consists in\nexplaining how they were conceived and executed. If we had to do with\na small number of men, in limited circumstances, times, and countries,\nfor the execution of a limited project, there would be nothing\nextraordinary; but we have to do with a period of eighteen hundred\nyears, with all the countries of the world, with circumstances the\nmost varied, the most different, and the most opposed to each other;\nwe have to do with a multitude of men who did not meet together, or\nact in concert. How is all this to be explained? If it were a plan and\na system devised by man, we should ask, What was the mysterious power\nof Rome which enabled her to unite around her so many illustrious men\nof all times and of all countries? How did the Roman Pontiff, if he be\nonly the chief of a sect, manage to fascinate the world to this extent?\nWhat magician ever did such wonders? Men have long declaimed against\nhis religious despotism; why has no one been found to wrest the sceptre\nfrom his grasp? why has not a pontifical throne been raised capable of\ndisputing the pre-eminence with his, and of maintaining itself with\nequal splendor and power? Shall we attribute it to his temporal power?\nThis power is very limited. Rome was not able to contend in arms with\nany of the other European powers. Shall we attribute it to the peculiar\ncharacter, to the knowledge or the virtues of the men who have occupied\nthe Papal throne? There has been, during these eighteen hundred years,\nan infinite variety in the characters and in the talents and virtues of\nthe Popes. For those who are not Catholics, who do not see in the Roman\nPontiff the vicar of Jesus Christ,--the rock on which He has built His\nChurch,--the duration of this authority must be the most extraordinary\nphenomenon; and it is certainly one of the questions most worthy of\nbeing examined by the science which devotes itself to the history of\nthe human mind; how there existed for many centuries an uninterrupted\nseries of learned men, always faithful to the doctrines of the Roman\nSee?\n\nM. Guizot himself, in comparing Protestantism with the Roman Church,\nseems to have felt the force of this truth; and its light appears to\nhave made him confused in his remarks. Let us listen again to this\nwriter, whose talents and renown have dazzled, on this point, so\nmany readers, who do not examine the solidity of proofs when they\nare clothed in brilliant images, and who applaud all kinds of ideas\nwhen they are conveyed to them in a torrent of enchanting eloquence;\nmen who, pretending to intellectual independence, subscribe, without\ninquiry, to the decisions of the leaders of their school; who receive\ntheir doctrines with submission, and dare not even raise their heads to\nask for the titles of their authority. M. Guizot, like all the great\nmen among Protestants, was aware of the immense void which exists amid\nits various sects, and of the force and vigour which is contained in\nCatholicity; he has not been able to free himself from the rule of\ngreat minds,--a rule which is explicitly confirmed by the writings of\nthe greatest men of the Reformation. After pointing out the inconstant\nprogress of Protestantism, and the error which it has introduced into\nthe organization of intellectual society, M. Guizot proceeds thus:\n\"People have not known how to reconcile the rights and necessities of\ntradition with those of liberty; and the cause of it undoubtedly has\nbeen, that the Reformation did not fully understand and accept either\nits principles or its effects.\" What sort of a religion must that\nbe which does not fully understand and accept its principles or its\neffects?\n\nDid a more formal condemnation of the Reformation ever issue out of the\nmouth of man? could any thing of the kind ever be said of the sects\nof philosophers, ancient or modern? Can the Reformation, then, after\nthis, pretend to direct men or society? \"Thence arises,\" continues\nM. Guizot, \"a certain air of inconsistency and narrowness of spirit,\nwhich has often given advantages over it to its opponents. The latter\nknew very well what they did and what they wished; they ascended to\nthe principles of their conduct, and avowed all their consequences.\nThere never was a government more consistent, more systematic than\nthat of the Church of Rome.\" But whence was the origin of a system so\nconsistent? When we consider the fickleness and inconstancy of the\nhuman mind, do not this system, this consistency, and these fixed\nprinciples, speak volumes to the philosopher and man of good sense?\n\nWe have observed those terrible elements of dissolution which have\ntheir source in the mind of man, and which have acquired so much force\nin modern society; we have seen with what fatal power they destroy\nand annihilate all institutions, social, political, and religious,\nwithout ever succeeding in making a breach in the doctrines of\nCatholicity,--without altering that system, so fixed and so consistent.\nIs there no conclusion to be drawn from all this in favour of\nCatholicity? To say that the Church has done that which no schools, or\ngovernments, or societies, or religions could do, is it not to confess\nthat she is wiser than every thing human? And does it not clearly prove\nthat she does not owe her origin to human thought, and that she is\nderived from the bosom of the Creator? This society--formed, you say,\nby men--this government, directed by men, has endured for eighteen\nhundred years; it extends to all countries, it addresses the savage in\nthe forest, the barbarian in his tent, the civilized man in the most\npopulous cities; it reckons among its children the shepherd clothed\nin skins, the laborer, the powerful nobleman; it makes its laws heard\nalike by the simple mechanic at his work, and the man of learning in\nhis closet absorbed in the profoundest speculations. This government\nhas always had, according to M. Guizot, a full knowledge of its actions\nand its wishes; it has always been consistent in its conduct. Is not\nthis avowal its most convincing apology, its most eloquent panegyric;\nand shall it not be considered a proof that it contains within itself\nsomething more than human?\n\nA thousand times have I beheld this prodigy with astonishment; a\nthousand times have my eyes been fixed upon that immense tree which\nextends its branches from east to west, from north to south; I see\nbeneath its shade a multitude of different nations, and the restless\ngenius of man reposing in tranquillity at its feet.\n\nIn the East, at the period when this divine religion first appeared,\nI see, amidst the dissolutions of all sects, the most illustrious\nphilosophers crowd to hear her words. In Greece, in Asia, on the banks\nof the Nile, in all the countries where, a short time before, swarmed\ninnumerable sects, I see appear on a sudden a generation of great men,\nabounding in learning, in knowledge, in eloquence, and all agreeing in\nthe unity of Catholic doctrine.\n\nIn the West, a multitude of barbarians throw themselves on an empire\nfalling to decay; a dark cloud descends upon an horizon charged with\ncalamities and disasters; there, in the midst of a people submerged in\nthe corruption of morals, and having lost even the remembrance of their\nancient grandeur, I see the only men who can be called worthy heirs of\nthe Roman name, seek, in the retirement of their temples, an asylum\nfor the austerity of their morals; it is there that they preserve,\nincrease, and enrich the treasure of ancient knowledge. But my\nadmiration reaches its height, when I observe that sublime intellect,\nworthy heir of the genius of Plato, which, after having sought the\ntruth in all the schools, in all the sects, and with indomitable\nboldness run through all human errors, feels itself subjugated by\nthe authority of the Church, and transforms the freethinker into the\ngreat Bishop of Hippo. In modern times the series of great men who\nshone in the times of Leo X. and Louis XIV. passes before my eyes.\nI see the illustrious race still continue throughout the calamities\nof the eighteenth century; and in the nineteenth I see fresh heroes,\nwho, after having followed error in all directions, come to hang their\ntrophies at the gates of the Catholic Church. What, then, is this\nprodigy? Has a sect or religion like it ever before been seen? These\nmen study every thing, dispute on every thing, reply to every thing,\nknow every thing; but always agreeing in unity of doctrine, they bend\ntheir noble and intellectual brows in respectful obedience to faith. Do\nwe not seem to behold another planetary system, where globes of fire\nrevolve in their vast orbits in the midst of immensity, always drawn\nto their centre by a mysterious attraction? That central force, which\nallows no aberration, takes from them nothing of their extent, or of\nthe grandeur of their movement; but it inundates them with light, while\ngiving to their motion a more majestic regularity.[6]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nPROTESTANTISM AND THE MIND.\n\n\nThis fixedness of idea, this unanimity of will, this wisdom and\nconstancy of plan, this progress with a firm step towards a definite\nobject and end; and, in fine, this admirable unity, acknowledged in\nfavor of Catholicism by M. Guizot himself, have not been imitated by\nProtestantism, either in good or evil. Protestantism, indeed, has not\na single idea, of which it can say: \"This is my own.\" It has attempted\nto appropriate to itself the principle of private judgment in matters\nof faith; and if several of its opponents have been too willing to\naccord it, it was because they were unable to find therein any other\nconstitutive element; it was also because they felt that Protestantism,\nin boasting of having given birth to such a principle, labored to\nthrow disgrace on itself, like a father who boasts of having unworthy\nand depraved sons. It is false, however, that Protestantism produced\nthis principle of private judgment, since it was itself the offspring\nof that principle. That principle, before the Reformation, was formed\nin the bosom of all sects; it is the real germ of all errors; in\nproclaiming it, Protestants only yielded to a necessity which is common\nto all the sects separated from the Church.\n\nThere was therein no plan, no foresight, no system. The mere resistance\nto the authority of the Church included the necessity of unlimited\nprivate judgment, and the establishment of the understanding as supreme\njudge; even had the coryph\u00e6i of Protestantism wished from the first to\noppose the consequences and applications of this right, the barrier was\nbroken, and the torrent could not have been confined.\n\n\"The right of examining what we ought to believe,\" says a celebrated\nProtestant, (_Germany_, by Mad. de Sta\u00ebl, part iv. chap. 2), \"is the\nfoundation of Protestantism. The first Reformers did not think thus;\nthey thought themselves able to place the pillars of Hercules of the\nmind according to their own lights; but they were mistaken in hoping to\nmake those who had rejected all authority of this kind in the Catholic\nreligion submit to their decisions as infallible.\" This resistance on\ntheir part proves, that they were not led by any of those ideas, which,\nalthough erroneous, show, in some measure, nobleness and generosity of\nheart; and that it is not of them that the human mind can say: \"They\nhave erred, but it was in order to give me more liberty of action.\"\n\"The religious revolution of the sixteenth century,\" says M. Guizot,\n\"did not understand the true principles of intellectual liberty; it\nliberated the human mind, and yet pretended to govern it by law.\"\n\nBut it is in vain for man to struggle against the nature of things:\nProtestantism endeavored, without success, to limit the right of\nprivate judgment. It raised its voice against it, and sometimes\nappeared to attempt its total destruction; but the right of private\njudgment, which was in its own bosom, remained there, developed\nitself, and acted there in spite of it. There was no middle course for\nProtestantism to adopt: it was compelled either to throw itself into\nthe arms of authority, and thus acknowledge itself in the wrong, or\nelse allow the dissolving principle to exert so much influence on its\nvarious sects, as to destroy even the shadow of the religion of Jesus\nChrist, and debase Christianity to the rank of a school of philosophy.\n\nThe cry of resistance to the authority of the Church once raised, the\nfatal results might be easily imagined; it was thus easy to foresee\nthat that poisoned germ, in its development, must cause the ruin of all\nthe Christian truths; and what could prevent its rapid development in\na soil where fermentation was so active? Catholics were not wanting to\nproclaim loudly the greatness and imminence of the danger; and it must\nbe allowed that many Protestants foresaw it clearly. No one is ignorant\nthat the most distinguished men of the sect gave their opinions on\nthis point, even from the beginning. Men of the greatest talent never\nfound themselves at ease in Protestantism. They always felt that there\nwas an immense void in it; this is the reason why they have constantly\ninclined either towards irreligion or towards Catholic unity.\n\nTime, the best judge of opinions, has confirmed these melancholy\nprognostics. Things have now reached such a pass, that those only who\nare very ill instructed, or who have a very limited grasp of mind, can\nfail to see that the Christian religion, as explained by Protestants,\nis nothing more than an opinion--a system made up of a thousand\nincoherent parts, and which is degraded to the level of the schools\nof philosophy. If Christianity still seems to surpass these schools\nin some respects, and preserves some features which cannot be found\nin what is the pure invention of the mind of man, it ought not to be\na matter of astonishment. It is owing to that sublimity of doctrine\nand that sanctity of morality which, more or less disfigured, always\nshines while a trace is preserved of the words of Jesus Christ. But\nthe feeble light which struggles with darkness after the sun has sunk\nbelow the horizon, cannot be compared to that of day: darkness advances\nand spreads; it extinguishes the expiring reflection, and night comes\non. Such is the doctrine of Christianity among Protestants. A glance\nat these sects shows us that they are not purely philosophical, but it\nshows us at the same time that they have not the characters of true\nreligion. Christianity has no authority therein; and is there like a\nbeing out of its proper element,--a tree deprived of its roots: its\nface is pale and disfigured like that of a corpse. Protestantism talks\nof faith, and its fundamental principle destroys it; it endeavors to\nexalt the gospel, and its own principle, by subjecting that gospel to\nprivate judgment, weakens its authority. If it speak of the sanctity\nand purity of Christian morality, it is reminded that some of its\ndissenting sects deny the divinity of Jesus Christ; and that they all\nmay do so according to the principle on which it rests. The Divinity\nof Jesus Christ once doubted, the God-made man is reduced to the rank\nof a great philosopher and legislator; He has no longer the authority\nnecessary to give to His laws the august sanction which renders them\nso holy in the eyes of men; He can no longer imprint upon them the\nseal which raises them above all human thoughts, and His sublime\ninstructions cease to be lessons flowing from the lips of uncreated\nWisdom.\n\nIf you deprive the human mind of the support of authority of some\nkind or other, on what can it depend? Abandoned to its own delirious\ndreams, it is forced again into the gloomy paths which led the\nphilosophers of the ancient schools to chaos. Reason and experience\nare here agreed. If you substitute the private judgment of Protestants\nfor the authority of the Church, all the great questions respecting\nGod and man remain without solution. All the difficulties are left;\nthe mind is in darkness, and seeks in vain for a light to guide it in\nsafety: stunned by the voices of a hundred schools, who dispute without\nbeing able to throw any light on the subject, it relapses into that\nstate of discouragement and prostration in which Christianity found it,\nand from which, with so much exertion, she had withdrawn it. Doubt,\npyrrhonism, and indifference become the lot of the greatest minds; vain\ntheories, hypothetical systems, and dreams take possession of men of\nmore moderate abilities; the ignorant are reduced to superstitions and\nabsurdities.\n\nOf what use, then, would Christianity have been on the earth, and what\nwould have been the progress of humanity? Happily for the human race,\nthe Christian religion was not abandoned to the whirlwind of Protestant\nsects. In Catholic authority she has found ample means of resisting the\nattacks of sophistry and error. What would have become of her without\nit? Would the sublimity of her doctrines, the wisdom of her precepts,\nthe unction of her counsels, have been now any thing more than a\nbeautiful dream, related in enchanting language by a great philosopher?\nYes, I must repeat, without the authority of the Church there is no\nsecurity for faith; the divinity of Jesus Christ becomes a matter\nof doubt; His mission is disputed; in fact, the Christian religion\ndisappears. If she cannot show us her heavenly titles, give us full\ncertainty that she has come from the bosom of the Eternal, that her\nwords are those of God Himself, and that He has condescended to appear\non earth for the salvation of men, she has then lost her right to\ndemand our veneration. Reduced to the level of human ideas, she must,\nthen, submit to our judgment like other mere opinions; at the tribunal\nof philosophy she may endeavor to maintain her doctrines as more or\nless reasonable; but she will always be liable to the reproach of\nhaving wished to deceive us, by passing herself off as divine when she\nwas only human; and in all discussions on the truth of her doctrines,\nshe will have this fatal presumption against her, viz. that the account\nof her origin was an imposture.\n\nProtestants boast of their independence of mind, and reproach the\nCatholic religion with violating the most sacred rights, by demanding\na submission which outrages the dignity of man. Here extravagant\ndeclamation about the strength of our understanding is introduced with\ngood effect; and a few seductive images and expressions, such as \"_bold\nflights_\" and \"_glittering wings_,\" &c., are enough to delude many\nreaders.\n\nLet the human mind enjoy all its rights; let it boast of possessing\nthat spark of divinity called the intellect; let it pass over all\nnature in triumph, observing all the beings by which it is surrounded,\nand congratulate itself on its own immense superiority, in the midst\nof the wonders with which it has known how to embellish its abode;\nlet it point out, as proofs of its strength and grandeur, the changes\nwhich are everywhere worked by its presence; by its intellectual\nforce and boldness it has acquired the complete mastery over nature.\nLet us acknowledge the dignity and elevation of our minds to show\nour gratitude to our Creator, but let us not forget our weakness and\ndefects. Why should we deceive ourselves by fancying that we know what\nwe are really ignorant of? Why forget the inconstancy and variableness\nof our minds, and conceal the fact, that with respect to many things,\neven of those with which we are supposed to be acquainted, we have but\nconfused ideas? How delusive is our knowledge, and what exaggerated\nnotions we have of our progress in information? Does not one day\ncontradict what another had affirmed? Time runs its course, laughs at\nour predictions, destroys our plans, and clearly shows how vain are our\nprojects.\n\nWhat have those geniuses who have descended to the foundations of\nscience, and risen by the boldest flights to the loftiest speculations,\ntold us? After having reached the utmost limits of the space which it\nis permitted to the human mind to range over,--after having trodden the\nmost secret paths of science, and sailed on the vast ocean of moral\nand physical nature, the greatest minds of all ages have returned\ndissatisfied with the results. They have seen a beautiful illusion\nappear before their eyes,--the brilliant image which enchanted them\nhas vanished; when they thought they were about to enter a region\nof light, they have found themselves surrounded with darkness, and\nthey have viewed with affright the extent of their ignorance. It is\nfor this reason that the greatest minds have so little confidence\nin the strength of the human intellect, although they cannot but be\nfully aware that they are superior to other men. The sciences, in the\nprofound observation of Pascal, have two extremes which meet each\nother: the first is, the pure natural state of ignorance in which men\nare at their birth; the other extreme is, that at which great minds\narrive when, having reached the utmost extent of human knowledge, they\nfind that they know nothing, and that they are still in the same state\nof ignorance as at first. (_Pens\u00e9es_, 1 partie, art. 6.)\n\nCatholicism says to man, \"Thy intellect is weak, thou hast need of a\nguide in many things.\" Protestantism says to him, \"Thou art surrounded\nby light, walk as thou wilt; thou canst not have a better guide than\nthyself.\" Which of the two religions is most in accordance with the\nlessons of the highest philosophy?\n\nIt is not, therefore, surprising that the greatest minds among\nProtestants have all felt a certain tendency towards Catholicism, and\nhave seen the wisdom of subjecting the human mind, in some things,\nto the decision of an infallible authority. Indeed, if an authority\ncan be found uniting in its origin, its duration, its doctrines, and\nits conduct, all the characteristics of divinity, why should the mind\nrefuse to submit to her; and what has it to gain by wandering, at the\nmercy of its illusions, on the most serious subjects, in paths where it\nonly meets with recollections of errors, with warnings and delusions?\n\nIf the human mind has conceived too great an esteem for itself, let\nit study its own history, in order to see and understand how little\nsecurity is to be found in its own strength. Abounding in systems,\ninexhaustible in subtilties; as ready in conceiving a project as\nincapable of maintaining it; full of ideas which arise, agitate, and\ndestroy each other, like the insects which abound in lakes; now raising\nitself on the wings of sublime inspiration, and now creeping like a\nreptile on the face of the earth; as able and willing to destroy the\nworks of others, as it is impotent to construct any durable ones of\nits own; urged on by the violence of passion, swollen with pride,\nconfounded by the infinite variety of objects which present themselves\nto it; confused by so many false lights and so many deceptive\nappearances, the human mind, when left entirely to itself, resembles\nthose brilliant meteors which dart at random through the immensity of\nthe heavens, assume a thousand eccentric forms, send forth a thousand\nsparks, dazzle for a moment by their fantastic splendour, and disappear\nwithout leaving even a reflected light to illuminate the darkness.\n\nBehold the history of man's knowledge! In that immense and confused\nheap of truth, error, sublimity, absurdity, wisdom, and folly, are\ncollected the proofs of my assertions, and to that do I refer any one\nwho may be inclined to accuse me of having overcharged the picture.[7]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nINSTINCT OF FAITH IN THE SCIENCES.\n\n\nThe truth of what I have just advanced with respect to the weakness\nof our intellect, is proved by the fact that the hand of God has\nplaced at the bottom of our souls a preservative against the excessive\nchangeability of our minds, even in things which do not regard\nreligion. Without this preservative all social institutions would be\ndestroyed, or rather never would have had existence; without it the\nsciences would not have advanced a step, and when it had disappeared\nfrom the human heart, individuals and society would have been swallowed\nup by chaos. I allude to a certain tendency to defer to authority--to\nthe _instinct of faith_, if I may so call it--an instinct which we\nought to examine with great attention, if we wish to know any thing of\nthe human mind, and the history of its development.\n\nIt has often been observed that it is impossible to comply with the\nmost urgent necessities, or perform the most ordinary acts of life,\nwithout respecting the authority of the statement of others; it is easy\nto understand that, without this faith, all the treasures of history\nand experience would soon be dissipated, and that even the foundation\nof all knowledge would disappear.\n\nThese important observations are calculated to show how vain is the\ncharge against the Catholic religion, of requiring nothing but faith;\nbut this is not my only object here; I wish to present the matter under\nanother aspect, and place the question in such a position as to make\nthis truth gain in extent and interest, without losing any thing of its\nimmovable firmness. In looking over the history of human knowledge, and\nglancing at the opinions of our contemporaries, we constantly observe\nthat the men who boast the most of their spirit of inquiry and freedom\nof thought, only echo the opinions of others. If we examine with\nattention that great study which, under the name of science, has made\nso much noise in the world, we shall observe that it contains at bottom\na large portion of authority; and that if a perfectly free spirit of\ninquiry were to be introduced into it, even with respect to points\nof pure reason, the greatest part of the edifice of science would be\ndestroyed, and very few men would remain in possession of its secrets.\n\nNo branch of knowledge, whatever may be the clearness and exactitude\nof which it boasts, is an exception to this rule. Do not the natural\nand exact sciences, rich as they are in evident principles, rigorous\nin their deductions, abounding in observation and experience, depend,\nnevertheless, for a great many of their truths, upon other truths of a\nhigher nature; the knowledge of which necessarily requires a delicacy\nof observation, a power of calculation, a clear and penetrating _coup\nd'\u0153il_, which belongs to few?\n\nWhen Newton proclaimed to the scientific world the fruit of his\nprofound calculations, how many of his disciples could flatter\nthemselves that they were able to confirm them by their own\nconvictions? I do not except from this question many of those who, by\nlaborious efforts, had been able to comprehend something of this great\nman; they had followed the mathematician in his calculations, they\nhad a full knowledge of the mass of facts and experience which the\nnaturalist exposed to their view; they had listened to the reasons on\nwhich the philosopher rested his conjectures; in this way they thought\nthat they were _fully convinced_, and that they did not owe their\nassent to any thing but the force of reason and evidence. Well, take\naway the name of Newton, efface from the mind the profound impression\nmade by the authority of the man who made so extraordinary a discovery,\nand has employed so much genius in supporting it,--take away, I repeat\nit, the shade of Newton, and you will directly see, in the minds of his\ndisciples, their principles vacillate, their reasonings become less\nconvincing and exact, and their observations appear less in accordance\nwith the facts. Then, he who thought himself a perfectly impartial\nobserver, a perfectly independent thinker, will see and understand to\nhow great an extent he was enthralled by the force of authority, by\nthe ascendency of genius; he will find that, on a variety of points,\nhe _assented_ without being _convinced_; and that, instead of being\na perfectly independent philosopher, he was only an obedient and\naccomplished pupil.\n\nI appeal with confidence to the testimony, not of the ignorant, not\nof those who have only a smattering of scientific knowledge, but of\nreal men of learning, of those who have devoted much time to the\nvarious branches of study. Let them look into their own minds, let\nthem examine anew what they call their scientific convictions, let\nthem ask themselves, with perfect calmness and impartiality, whether,\neven on those subjects in which they consider themselves the most\nadvanced, their minds are not frequently controlled by the ascendency\nof some author of the first rank. I believe they will be compelled to\nacknowledge that, if they strictly applied the method of Descartes\neven to some of the questions which they have studied the most, they\nwould find that they believe rather than are convinced. Such always\nhas been, and such always will be, the case. It is a thing deeply\nrooted in the nature of our minds, and it cannot be prevented. Perhaps\nthe regulation is a matter of absolute necessity; perhaps it contains\nmuch of that instinct of preservation which God, with so much wisdom,\nhas diffused throughout society; perhaps it is intended to counteract\nthe many elements of dissolution which society contains within its\nbosom. Undoubtedly, it is often very much to be regretted that men\nservilely follow in the footsteps of others, and injurious consequences\nnot unfrequently are the result. But it would be still worse, if men\nconstantly held themselves in an attitude of resistance to all others,\nfor fear of deception. Woe to man and to society, if the philosophic\nmania of wishing to submit all matters to a rigorous examination were\nto become general in the world; and woe to science, if this rigorous,\nscrupulous, and independent scrutiny were extended to every thing.\n\nI admire the genius of Descartes, and acknowledge the signal services\nwhich he has rendered to science; but I have more than once thought\nthat, if his method of doubting became general for any time, society\nwould be destroyed. And it seems to me that, among learned men\nthemselves, among impartial philosophers, this method would do great\nharm; at least, it may be supposed that the number of men devoid of\nsense in the scientific world would be considerably increased.\n\nHappily there is no danger of this being the case. If it be true that\nthere is always in man a certain tendency towards folly, there is\nalso always to be found there a fund of good sense which cannot be\ndestroyed. When certain individuals of heated imaginations attempt to\ninvolve society in their delirium, society answers with a smile of\nderision; or if it allows itself to be seduced for a moment, it soon\nreturns to its senses, and repels with indignation those who have\nendeavored to lead it astray. Passionate declamation against vulgar\nprejudice, against docility in following others and willingness to\nbelieve all without examination, is only considered as worthy of\ncontempt by those who are intimately acquainted with human nature.\nAre not these feelings participated in by many who belong not to the\nvulgar? Are not the sciences full of gratuitous suppositions, and have\nthey not their weak points, with which, however, we are satisfied, as\nif they afforded a firm basis to rest upon?\n\nThe right of possession and prescription is also one of the\npeculiarities which the sciences present to us; and it is well worthy\nof remark that, without ever having borne the name, this right has been\nacknowledged by a tacit but unanimous consent. How can this be? Study\nthe history of the sciences, and you will find at every step this right\nacknowledged and established. How is it, amid the continual disputes\nwhich have divided philosophers, that we see an old opinion make a\nlong resistance to a new one, and sometimes succeed in preventing its\nestablishment? It is because the old opinion was in possession, and\nwas strengthened by the right of prescription. It is of no importance\nthat the words were not used, the result was the same; this is the\nreason why discoverers have so often been despised, opposed, and even\npersecuted.\n\nIt is necessary to make this avowal, although it may be repugnant to\nour pride, and may scandalize some sincere admirers of the progress of\nknowledge. These advances have been numerous; the field over which the\nhuman mind has exercised itself, and its sphere of action, are immense;\nthe works by which it has proved its power are admirable; but there is\nalways in all this a large portion of exaggeration, and it is necessary\nto make a considerable allowance, especially in the moral sciences.\nIt cannot justly be inferred, from these exaggerated statements, that\nour intellect is capable of advancing in every path with perfect ease\nand activity; no deduction can be drawn from it to contradict the fact\nwhich we have just established, viz. the mind of man is almost always\nin subjection, even imperceptibly, to the authority of other men.\n\nIn every age there appear a small number of privileged spirits, who,\nby nature superior to all the rest, serve as guides in the various\ncareers; a numerous crowd, who think themselves learned, follow them\nwith precipitation, and, fixing their eyes on the standard which has\nbeen raised, rush breathlessly after it; and yet, strange as it is,\nthey all boast of their independence, and flatter themselves that they\nare distinguishing themselves by pursuing the new path; one would\nimagine that they had discovered it, and that they were walking in it\nguided by their own light and inspirations. Necessity, taste, or a\nthousand other circumstances, lead us to cultivate this or that branch\nof knowledge; our own weakness constantly tells us that we have no\ncreative power; that we cannot produce any thing of our own, and that\nwe are incapable of striking out a new path; but we flatter ourselves\nthat we share some part of the glory belonging to the illustrious\nchief whose banner we follow; we sometimes will succeed in persuading\nourselves, in the midst of these reveries, that we do not fight under\nanybody's standard, and that we are only rendering homage to our own\nconvictions, when, in reality, we are the proselytes of others.\n\nHerein common sense shows itself to be wiser than our weak reason; and\nthus language, which gives such deep expression to things, where we\nfind, without knowing whence they come, so much truth and exactitude,\ngives us a severe admonition on the subject of these vain pretensions.\nIn spite of us, language calls things by their right names, and knows\nhow to class us and our opinions according to the leader that we\nfollow. What is the history of science but the history of the contests\nof a small number of illustrious men? If we glance over ancient and\nmodern times, and bring into view the various branches of knowledge,\nwe shall see a number of schools founded by a philosopher of the first\nrank, and then falling under the direction of another whose talents\nhave made him worthy to succeed the founder. Thus the thing goes on,\nuntil circumstances having changed, or the spirit of vitality being\ngone, the school dies a natural death, unless a man of bold and\nindependent mind appears, who takes the old school and destroys it, in\norder to establish his own doctrines on the ruins.\n\nWhen Descartes dethroned Aristotle, did he not immediately take his\nplace? Then philosophers pretended to independence--an independence\nwhich was contradicted by the very name they bore, that of Cartesians.\nLike nations who, in times of rebellion, cry out for liberty, dethrone\ntheir old king, and afterwards submit to the first man who has the\nboldness to seize the vacant throne.\n\nIt is thought in our age, as it has been in times gone by, that the\nhuman mind acts with perfect independence, owing to declamation against\nauthority in scientific matters, and the exaltation of the freedom of\nthought. The opinion has become general that, in these times, the\nauthority of any one man is worth nothing; it has been thought that\nevery man of learning acts according to his own convictions alone.\nMoreover, systems and hypotheses have lost all credit, and a great\ndesire for examination and analysis has become prevalent. This has\nmade people believe not only that authority in scientific matters is\ncompletely gone, but that it is henceforth impossible.\n\nAt first sight there appears to be some truth in this; but if we look\nattentively around us, we shall observe that the number of leaders\nis only somewhat increased, and the time of their command somewhat\nshortened. Our age is truly one of commotions, literary and scientific\nrevolutions, like those in politics, where nations imagine that they\npossess more liberty because the government is placed in the hands of\na greater number of persons, and because they find more facility in\ngetting rid of their rulers. They destroy those men to whom but a short\ntime before they have given the names of fathers and liberators; then,\nthe first transport being passed, they allow other men to impose upon\nthem a yoke in reality not less heavy. Besides the examples afforded\nus by the history of the past century, at the present day we see only\ngreat names succeed each other, and the leaders of the human mind take\neach other's places.\n\nIn the field of politics, where one would imagine the spirit of\nfreedom ought to have full scope, do we not see men who take the\nlead; and are they not looked upon as the generals of an army during\na campaign? In the parliamentary arena, do we see any thing but two\nor three bodies of combatants, performing their evolutions under\ntheir respective chiefs with perfect regularity and discipline? These\ntruths are well understood by those who occupy these high positions!\nThey are acquainted with our weakness, and they know that men are\ncommonly deceived by mere words. A thousand times must they have been\ntempted to smile, when, contemplating the field of their triumphs,\nand seeing themselves surrounded by followers who, proud of their own\nintelligence, admire and applaud them, they have heard one of the most\nardent of their disciples boast of his unlimited freedom of thought,\nand of the complete independence of his opinions and his votes.\n\nSuch is man, as shown to us by history and the experience of every\nday. The inspiration of genius, that sublime force which raises the\nminds of some privileged men, will always exercise, not only over the\nignorant, but even over the generality of men who devote themselves\nto science, a real fascination. Where, then, is the insult which the\nCatholic religion offers to reason when, presenting titles which prove\nher divinity, she asks for that faith which men grant so easily to\nother men in matters of various kinds, and even in things with which\nthey consider themselves to be the best acquainted? Is it an insult to\nhuman reason to point out to him a fixed and certain rule with respect\nto matters of the greatest importance, while, on the other hand, she\nleaves him perfectly free to think as he pleases on all the various\nquestions which God has left to his discretion? In this the Church\nonly shows herself to be in accordance with the lessons of the highest\nphilosophy. She shows a profound knowledge of the human mind, and she\ndelivers it from all the evils which are inflicted by its fickleness,\nits inconstancy, and its ambition, combined as these qualities are with\nan extraordinary tendency to defer to the opinions of individuals.\nWho does not see that the Catholic Church puts thereby a check on the\nspirit of proselytism, of which society has had so much reason to\ncomplain? Since there is in man this irresistible tendency to follow\nthe footsteps of another, does she not confer an eminent service on\nhumanity, by showing it a sure way of following the example of a God\nincarnate? Does she not thus take human liberty under her protection,\nand at the same time save from shipwreck those branches of knowledge\nwhich are the most necessary to individuals and to society?[8]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nDIFFERENCES IN THE RELIGIOUS WANTS OF NATIONS--MATHEMATICS--MORAL\nSCIENCES.\n\n\nThe progress of society, and the high degree of civilization and\nrefinement to which modern nations have attained, will no doubt be\nurged against the authority which seeks to exercise jurisdiction over\nthe mind. In this way men will attempt to justify what they call the\nemancipation of the human mind. For my own part, this objection seems\nto have so little solidity, and to be so little supported by facts,\nthat, from the progress of society, I should, on the contrary, conclude\nthat there is the more need of that living rule which is deemed\nindispensable by Catholics.\n\nTo say that society in its infancy and youth may have required\nthis authority as a check, but that this check has become useless\nand degrading since the human mind has reached a higher degree of\ndevelopment, is completely to mistake the connection which exists\nbetween the various conditions of our mind and the objects over which\nthis authority extends. The true idea of God, the origin, the end, and\nthe rule of human conduct, together with all the means with which God\nhas furnished us to attain to our high destiny, such are the subjects\nwith which faith deals, and with respect to which Catholics contend\nthat it is necessary to have an infallible rule. They maintain that\nwithout this it would be impossible to avoid the most lamentable\nerrors, and to protect truth from the effects of human passions.\n\nThis consideration will suffice to show, that private judgment would\nbe much less dangerous among nations still less advanced in the career\nof civilization. There is, indeed, in a young nation, a great fund of\nnatural candor and simplicity, which admirably disposes it to receive\nwith docility the instructions contained in the sacred volume. Such\na people will relish those things which are easily to be understood,\nand will bow with humility before the sublime obscurity of those pages\nwhich it has pleased God to cover with a veil of mystery. Moreover, the\ncondition of this people, as yet exempt from the pride of knowledge,\nwould create a sort of authority, since there would be found within its\nbosom only a small number of men able to examine divine revelation; and\nthus a centre for the distribution of instruction would be naturally\nformed.\n\nBut it is far otherwise with a nation far advanced in the career of\nknowledge. With the latter, the extension of knowledge to a greater\nnumber of individuals, by augmenting pride and fickleness, multiplies\nsects, and ends by revolutionizing ideas and corrupting the purest\ntraditions. A young nation is devoted to simple occupations; it remains\nattached to its ancient customs; it listens with respect and docility\nto the aged, who, surrounded by their children and grand-children,\nrelate with emotion the histories and the maxims which they have\nreceived from their ancestors. But when society has reached a great\ndegree of development, when respect for the fathers of families and\nveneration for gray hairs have become weakened; when pompous titles,\nscientific display, and grand libraries make men conceive a high idea\nof their intellectual powers; when the multitude and activity of\ncommunications widely diffuse those ideas, which, when put in motion,\nhave an almost magical power of affecting men's minds, then it is\nnecessary,--it is indispensable to have an authority, always living,\nalways ready to act whenever it is wanted,--to cover with a protecting\n\u00e6gis the sacred deposit of truths which are the same in all times and\nplaces; truths without the knowledge of which man would be left to the\nmercy of his own errors and caprices from the cradle to the grave;\ntruths on which society rests as its surest foundation; truths which\ncannot be destroyed without shaking to pieces the whole social edifice.\nThe literary and political history of Europe for the last three\nhundred years affords but too many proofs of this. Religious revolution\nbroke out at the moment when it was capable of doing the most harm: it\nfound society agitated by all the activity of the human mind, and it\ndestroyed the control when it was most necessary.\n\nUndoubtedly, it is necessary to guard against depreciating the mind of\nman by charging it with faults which it has not, or by exaggerating\nthose which it has; but it is no less improper to puff it up by\nexalting its strength too much. The latter would be injurious to it\nin several ways, and would be little likely to advance its progress;\nit would also, if properly understood, be little conformable to that\ngravity and discretion which ought to distinguish true science. Indeed,\nto merit the name, science ought to show the folly of being vain of\nwhat does not rightly belong to it; it ought to know its limits, and\nhave sufficient candor and generosity to acknowledge its weakness.\n\nThere is a fact in the history of science, which, by revealing the\nintrinsic weakness of the mind, palpably shows the flattery of those\nunmeasured eulogies which are sometimes lavished on it, and also\ndemonstrates to us how dangerous it would be to abandon it to itself\nwithout any guide. This fact is, the obscurity which increases in\nproportion as we approach the first principles of science; so that\neven in those sciences the truth, evidence, and exactness of which are\nconsidered the best established, it seems that no firm ground is to be\nobtained when we attempt to go to the bottom of them; and the mind, not\nfinding any security, recoils in the fear of meeting with something to\nthrow doubt and uncertainty on the truths of which it was convinced.\n\nI do not participate in the ill-humor of Hobbes against the\nmathematics. Devoted to their progress, and deeply convinced as I am of\nthe advantages which their study confers on the other sciences and on\nsociety, I shall not attempt to underrate their merit, or deny any of\ntheir great claims; but who can say that they are an exception to the\ngeneral rule? Have they not their weak points and their darksome paths?\n\nIt is true that, when we confine ourselves to the explanation of the\nfirst principles of these sciences, and the deduction from them of the\nmost elementary propositions, the mind is on firm ground, where no\nfear of making a false step occurs to it. I put aside at present the\nobscurity which would be found in ideology and metaphysics, if they\nwere to discuss certain points according to the writings of the most\ndistinguished philosophers. Let us confine ourselves to the circle to\nwhich the mathematics are naturally confined. Who that has studied\nthem is ignorant that you may reach a point in their theories, where\nthe mind finds nothing but obscurity? The demonstration is before\nour eyes; it has been developed in all its parts; and yet the mind\nwavers, feeling within itself a kind of uncertainty which it cannot\nwell describe. It sometimes happens that, after reasoning a long time,\nthe truth rushes upon us like the light of day; but it is not until we\nhave walked in darkness for a long period. When we fix our attention\nupon those thoughts which wander in our minds like moving lights, on\nthose almost imperceptible emotions which, on these occasions, arise,\nand then die away in the soul, we observe that the mind, in the midst\nof its fluctuations, seeks instinctively for the anchor which is to be\nfound in the authority of another. To reassure ourselves completely, we\nthen invoke the authority of some great mathematicians, and we rejoice\nthat the fact is placed beyond a doubt by the series of great men who\nhave always viewed it in the same light. But perhaps our ignorance and\npride will not admit the truth of these reflections. Let us, then,\nstudy these sciences, or at least read their history, and we shall\nbe convinced that they afford numerous proofs of the weakness of the\nintellect.\n\nDid not the extraordinary invention of Newton and Leibnitz find many\nopponents in Europe? Were there not required to establish it, both the\nsanction of time and the touchstone of experience, which made manifest\nthe truth of their principles and the exactness of their reasonings?\nDo you believe that, if this invention were again, for the first time,\nto make its appearance in the field of science, even fortified with\nall the proofs which have been brought forward to strengthen it, and\nsurrounded with all the light which so many explanations have shed upon\nit,--do you believe, I say, that it would not need a second time the\nright of prescription, to regain its tranquil and undisturbed empire?\n\nIt is easy to suppose that the other sciences have no little share in\nthis uncertainty arising from the weakness of the human mind; as I do\nnot imagine that this assertion will be called in question, I pass on\nto a few remarks on the peculiar character of the moral sciences.\n\nThe fact has not been sufficiently attended to, that there is no study\nmore deceptive than that of the moral sciences; I say deceptive,\nbecause this study, seducing the mind by an appearance of facility,\ndraws it into difficulties which it is no easy matter to overcome. It\nmay be compared to those tranquil waters which, although apparently\nbut shallow, are in reality unfathomably deep. Familiarized from our\ninfancy with the language of this science, surrounded by its continual\napplications, and having before our eyes its truths under a palpable\nform, we possess a certain facility of speaking readily on many parts\nof the subject; and we have the rashness to suppose that it would not\nbe difficult to master its highest principles and its most delicate\nrelations. But wonderful as it is, scarcely have we quitted the path\nof common sense, and attempted to go beyond those simple impressions\nwhich we have received from our mothers, when we find ourselves in a\nlabyrinth of confusion. If the mind gives itself up to subtilties, it\nceases to listen to the voice of the heart, which speaks to it with\nequal simplicity and eloquence; if it does not repress its pride,\nand attend to the wise counsels of good sense, it will be guilty\nof despising those salutary and necessary truths, which have been\npreserved by society to be transmitted from generation to generation:\nit is then, while groping its way in the dark, that it falls into the\nwildest extravagances, the lamentable effects of which are so often\nexemplified in the history of the sciences.\n\nIf we observe attentively, we shall find something of the same kind\nin all the sciences. The Creator has taken care to supply us with\nknowledge necessary for the purposes of life, and for the attainment\nof our destiny; but it has not pleased Him to gratify our curiosity by\ndiscovering to us what was not necessary. Nevertheless, in some things\nHe has communicated to the mind a power which renders it capable of\nconstantly adding to its knowledge; but, with respect to moral truths,\nit has been left sterile. What man is required to know, has been deeply\nengraven on his heart, in characters simple and intelligible; or is\ncontained in the sacred volume; and moreover, he has had pointed out\nto him, in the authority of the Church, a fixed rule, to which he can\napply to have his doubts explained. With respect to the rest, man\nhas been placed in such a position, that if he attempt to enter into\nmatters which are too subtle, he only wanders backwards and forwards\nin the same road, at the extremities of which he finds on the one side\nskepticism, on the other pure truth.\n\nPerhaps some modern ideologists will urge, in opposition to this,\nthe result of their own analytical labours. \"Before men began to\nanalyze facts,\" they will say, \"and while they indulged in fanciful\nsystems, and satisfied themselves with verbal disputes without critical\nexamination, all this might be true; but now that we have explained\nall the ideas of moral good and evil, in so perfect a way, and have\nseparated the prejudice in them from the true philosophy; now that\nthe whole system of morality is based upon the simple principles of\npleasure and pain, and we have given the clearest ideas of these\nthings, such, for example, as the sensations produced in us by an\norange; to maintain your assertion, is to be ungrateful towards\nscience, and to underrate the fruit of our labours.\"\n\nI am aware of the labours of some moral ideologists, and I know with\nwhat deceptive simplicity they develop their theories, by giving to\nthe most difficult things an easy turn, which affects to make them\nintelligible to the most limited minds. This is not the place to\nexamine these analytical investigations, and their results. I shall,\nhowever, remark that, in spite of their promised simplicity, it\ndoes not appear that either society or science makes much progress\nthrough their means, and that these opinions, although but a short\ntime broached, are already superannuated. This is not a matter of\nastonishment to us; for it was easy to perceive that, in spite of\ntheir positiveness, if I may be allowed to use the expression, these\nideologists are as hypothetical as many of their predecessors, who\nare loaded by them with sarcasms and contempt. They are a poor,\nnarrow-minded school, devoid of the truth, and not even adorned by the\nbrilliant dreams of great men; a proud and deluded school, who fancy\nthey explain a fact, when they only obscure it; and prove a thing, when\nthey only assert it; and imagine that they analyze the human heart,\nwhen they take it to pieces.\n\nIf such is the human mind; if such is its inability in matters of\nscience, whether physical or moral, that it has not advanced a single\nstep beyond the limit prescribed by a beneficent Providence; what\nservice has Protestantism rendered to modern society, by impairing the\nforce of authority, that power which could alone present an effectual\nbarrier to man's unhappy wanderings?[9]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nINDIFFERENCE AND FANATICISM.\n\n\nIn rejecting the authority of the Church, and in adopting this\nresistance as its only principle, Protestantism was compelled to seek\nits whole support in man; thus to mistake the true character of the\nhuman mind, and its relations with religious and moral truth, was to\nthrow itself, according to circumstances, into the opposite extremes of\nfanaticism and indifference.\n\nIt may seem strange that these opposite errors should emanate from\nthe same source; and yet nothing is more certain. Protestantism, by\nappealing to man alone in religious matters, had only two courses to\nadopt; either to suppose men to be inspired by Heaven for the discovery\nof truth, or to subject all religious truths to the examination of\nreason. To submit religious truths to the judgment of reason was\nsooner or later to produce indifference; on the other hand, private\ninspiration must engender fanaticism.\n\nThere is a universal and constant fact in the history of the human\nmind--viz. its decided inclination to invent systems in which the\nreality of things is completely laid aside, and where we only see\nthe workings of a spirit which has chosen to quit the ordinary path\nin order to give itself up to its own inspirations. The history\nof philosophy is little else than a perpetual repetition of this\nphenomenon, which the human mind shows, in some shape or other, in all\nthings which admit of it. When the mind has conceived a peculiar idea,\nit regards it with that blind and exclusive predilection which is found\nin the love of the father for his children. Under the influence of this\nprejudice, the mind developes its ideas and accommodates facts to suit\nit; that which at first was only an ingenious and extravagant idea,\nbecomes the germ of important doctrines; and if it arise in a person of\nan ardent disposition, fanaticism, the cause of so much madness, is the\nconsequence.\n\nThe danger is very much increased when the new system applies to\nreligious matters, or is immediately connected with them. The\nextravagances of a diseased mind are then looked upon as inspirations\nfrom Heaven; the fever of delirium as a divine flame; and a mania of\nbeing singular as an extraordinary vocation. Pride, unable to brook\nopposition, rises against all that it finds established; it insults\nall authority; it attacks all institutions; it despises everybody; it\nconceals the grossest violence under the mantle of zeal, and ambition\nunder the name of apostleship. The dupe of himself rather than an\nimpostor, the wretched maniac sometimes becomes deeply persuaded that\nhis doctrines are true, and that he has received the commands of\nHeaven. As there is something extraordinary and striking in the fiery\nlanguage of the madman, he communicates to those who listen to him a\nportion of his insanity, and makes, in a short time, a considerable\nnumber of proselytes. The men capable of playing the first part in\nthis scene of madness are not numerous, it is true; but unhappily the\nmajority of men are foolish enough to be easily led away. History and\nexperience sufficiently prove that the crowd are easily attracted, and\nthat to form a party, however criminal, extravagant, or ridiculous, it\nis only necessary to raise a standard.\n\nI wish to take this opportunity of making an observation which I have\nnever seen pointed out--viz. that the Church, in her contest with\nheresy, has rendered an important service to the science which devotes\nitself to the examination of the true character, tendency, and power\nof the human mind. The zealous guardian of all great truths, she has\nalways known how to preserve them unimpaired; she was fully acquainted\nwith the weakness of the mind of man, and its extreme proneness to\nfolly and extravagance; she has followed it closely in all its steps,\nhas watched it in all its movements, and has constantly resisted it\nwith energy, when it attempted to pollute the pure fountain of which\nshe is the guardian. During the long and violent contests which she\nhas had with it, the Church has made manifest its incurable folly; she\nhas exhibited it on every side, and has shown it in all its forms.\nThus it is that, in the history of heresies, she has made an abundant\ncollection of facts, and has painted an extremely interesting picture\nof the human mind, where its characteristic physiognomy is faithfully\nrepresented; a picture which will doubtless be of great service in the\ncomposition of the important work which is yet unwritten--viz. the true\nhistory of the human mind.[10]\n\nCertain it is that the ravings and extravagances of fanaticism have not\nbeen wanting in the history of Europe for the last three hundred years.\nTheir monuments still remain; in whatever direction we turn our steps,\nwe find bloody traces of the fanatical sects produced by Protestantism,\nand engendered by its fundamental principle. Nothing could confine this\ndevastating torrent, neither the violent character of Luther, nor the\nfurious efforts which he made to oppose every one who taught doctrines\ndifferent from his own. Impiety succeeded impiety, extravagance\nextravagance, fanaticism fanaticism. The pretended Reformation was soon\ndivided into as many sects as there were found men with the ingenuity\nto invent and the boldness to maintain a system of their own. This was\nnecessarily the case; for besides the danger of leaving the human mind\nwithout a guide on all questions of religion, there was another cause\nfruitful in fatal results, I mean the private interpretation of the\nsacred books.\n\nIt was then found that the best things may be abused, and that these\ndivine volumes, which contain so much instruction for the mind, and so\nmuch consolation for the heart, are full of danger to the proud. How\ngreat will this be, if you add to the obstinate resolution of resisting\nall authority in matters of faith, the false persuasion that the\nmeaning of the Scriptures is everywhere clear, and that, in all cases,\nthe inspirations of Heaven may be expected to solve every doubt? What\nwill happen to those who turn over their pages with a longing desire\nto find some text which, more or less tortured, may seem to authorize\ntheir sophisms, subtilties, and absurdities?\n\nThere never was a greater mistake than that which was committed by the\nProtestant leaders, when they placed the Bible in the hands of all\nfor self-interpretation; never was the nature of that sacred volume\nmore completely lost sight of. It is true that Protestantism had no\nother method to pursue, and that every objection which it could make\nto the private interpretation of the sacred text would be a striking\ninconsistency, an apostasy from its own principles, and a denial\nof its own origin; but at the same time, this is its most decided\ncondemnation. What claim, indeed, can that religion have to truth and\nsanctity whose fundamental principle contains the germ of sects the\nmost fanatical--the most injurious to society?\n\nIt would be difficult to collect into so narrow a space, in opposition\nto this essential error of Protestantism, so many facts and convincing\nproofs of this, as are contained in the following lines, written by\na Protestant, O'Callaghan, which, I have no doubt, my readers will\nthank me for quoting here. \"Led away,\" says O'Callaghan, \"by their\nspirit of opposition to the Church of Rome, the first Reformers\nloudly proclaimed the right of interpreting the Scriptures according\nto each one's private judgment; but in their eagerness to emancipate\nthe people from the authority of the Pope, they proclaimed this right\nwithout explanation or restriction: and the consequences were fearful.\nImpatient to undermine the papal jurisdiction, they maintained without\nexception, that each individual has an incontestable right to interpret\nthe Scriptures for himself; and as this principle, carried to the\nfullest extent, was not sustainable, they were obliged to rely for\nsupport upon another, viz. that the Bible is an easy book, within the\ncomprehension of all minds, and that the divine revelations contained\nin it are always clear to all; two propositions which, whether we\nconsider them together or apart, cannot withstand a serious attack.\n\n\"The private judgment of Muncer found in the Scriptures that titles\nof nobility and great estates are impious usurpations, contrary to\nthe natural equality of the faithful, and he invited his followers\nto examine if this were not the case. They examined into the matter,\npraised God, and then proceeded by fire and sword to extirpate the\nimpious and possess themselves of their properties. Private judgment\nmade the discovery in the Bible that established laws were a permanent\nrestriction on Christian liberty; and, behold, John of Leyden, throwing\naway his tools, put himself at the head of a mob of fanatics, surprised\nthe town of Munster, proclaimed himself king of Sion, and took fourteen\nwives at a time, asserting that polygamy is Christian liberty, and the\nprivilege of the saints. But if the criminal madness of these men in\nanother country is afflicting to the friends of humanity and of real\npiety, certainly the history of England, during a great part of the\nseventeenth century, is not calculated to console them. During that\nperiod an immense number of fanatics appeared, sometimes together\nand sometimes in succession, intoxicated with extravagant doctrines\nand mischievous passions, from the fierce ravings of Fox to the more\nmethodical madness of Barclay; from the formidable fanaticism of\nCromwell to the silly profanity of 'Praise God Barebones.' Piety,\nreason, and good sense seemed to be extinct on earth, and to be\nsucceeded by an extravagant jargon, a religious frenzy, and a zeal\nwithout discretion. All quoted the Scriptures, all pretended to have\nhad inspirations, visions, and spiritual ecstasies, and all, indeed,\nhad equal claims to them. It was strongly maintained that it was proper\nto abolish the priesthood and the royal dignity, because priests\nwere the ministers of Satan, and kings the delegates of the whore\nof Babylon, and that the existence of both were inconsistent with\nthe reign of the Redeemer. The fanatics condemned science as a Pagan\ninvention, and universities as seminaries of antichristian impiety.\nBishops were not protected by the sanctity of their functions, or kings\nby the majesty of the throne; both, as objects of contempt and hatred,\nwere mercilessly put to death by these fanatics, whose only book was\nthe Bible, without note or comment. During this time, the enthusiasm\nfor prayer, preaching, and the reading of the sacred books was at\nthe highest point; everybody prayed, preached, and read, but nobody\nlistened. The greatest atrocities were justified by the Scriptures; in\nthe most ordinary transactions of life, scriptural language was made\nuse of; national affairs, foreign and domestic, were discussed in the\nphraseology of Holy Writ. There were scriptural plots, conspiracies,\nand proscriptions; and all this was not only justified but even\nsanctified by quotations from the word of God. These facts, attested\nby history, have often astonished and alarmed men of virtue and piety,\n_but the reader, too much imbued with his own ideas, forgets the lesson\nto be learnt by this fatal experience; namely, that the Bible without\nnote or comment was not intended to be read by rude and ignorant men_.\n\n\"The majority of mankind must be content to receive the instructions\nof others, and are not enabled to trust themselves. The most important\ntruths in medicine, in jurisprudence, in physics, in mathematics, must\nbe received from those who drink at the fountain head. The same plan\nhas in general been pursued with respect to Christianity; and whenever\nthe departure from it has been wide enough, '_society has been shaken\nto its foundation_.'\"\n\nThese words of O'Callaghan do not require any comment. It cannot be\nsaid that they are hyperbolical or declamatory, as they are only a\nsimple and faithful narration of acknowledged facts. The recollection\nof these events should suffice to prove the danger of placing the\nsacred Scriptures, without note or comment, into the hands of all,\nas Protestantism does, under the pretence, that the authority of the\nChurch is useless for understanding the holy books; and that every\nChristian has only to listen to the dictates which generally emanate\nfrom his passions and heated imagination. By this error alone, if it\nhad committed no other, Protestantism is self-reproved and condemned;\nfor it is a religion which has established a principle destructive to\nitself. In order to appreciate the madness of Protestantism on this\npoint, and to see how false and dangerous is the position which it\nhas assumed with regard to the human mind, it is not necessary to be\na theologian, or a Catholic; it is enough to have read the Scriptures\nwith the eyes of a philosopher or a man of literature. Here is a\nbook which comprises, within a limited compass, the period of four\nthousand years, and advances further towards the most distant future,\nby embracing the origin and destiny of man and the universe--a book\nwhich, with the continued history of a chosen people, intermingles, in\nits narrations and prophecies, the revolutions of mighty empires--a\nbook which, side by side with the magnificent pictures of the power and\nsplendor of Eastern monarchs, describes, in simple colors, the plain\ndomestic manners, the candor, and innocence of a young nation--a book\nin which historians relate, sages proclaim their maxims of wisdom,\napostles preach, and doctors instruct--a book in which prophets,\nunder the influence of the divine Spirit, thunder against the errors\nand corruptions of the people, and announce the vengeance of the God\nof Sinai, or pour forth inconsolable lamentations on the captivity\nof their brethren, and the desolation and solitude of their country;\nwhere they relate, in wonderful and sublime language, the magnificent\nspectacles which are presented to their eyes; where, in moments of\necstasy, they see pass before them the events of society and the\ncatastrophes of nature, although veiled in mysterious figures and\nvisions of obscurity--a book, or rather a collection of books, where\nare to be found all sorts of styles and all varieties of narrative,\nepic majesty, pastoral simplicity, lyric fire, serious instruction,\ngrave historical narrative, and lively and rapid dramatic action; a\ncollection of books, in fine, written at various times and in various\nlanguages, in various countries, and under the most peculiar and\nextraordinary circumstances. Must not all this confuse the heads of\nmen who, puffed up with their own conceit, grope through these pages\nin the dark, ignorant of climates, times, laws, customs, and manners?\nThey will be puzzled by allusions, surprised by images, deceived by\nexpressions; they will hear the Greek and Hebrew, which was written in\nthose remote ages, now spoken in a modern idiom. What effects must all\nthese circumstances produce on the minds of readers who believe that\nthe Bible is an easy book, to be understood without difficulty by all?\nPersuaded that they do not require the instructions of others, they\nmust either resolve all these difficulties by their own reflections,\nor trust to that individual inspiration which they believe will not be\nwanting to explain to them the loftiest mysteries. Who, after this,\ncan be astonished that Protestantism has produced so many absurd\nvisionaries and furious fanatics?[11]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nFANATICISM--ITS DEFINITION.--FANATICISM IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.\n\n\nIt would be unjust to charge a religion with falsehood, merely because\nfanatics are to be found within its bosom. This would be to reject\nall, because none are to be found exempt from them. A religion, then,\nis not to be condemned because it has them, but because it produces\nthem, urges them on, and opens a field for them. If we observe closely,\nwe shall find at the bottom of the human heart an abundant source\nof fanaticism; the history of man affords us many proofs of this\nincontestable truth. Imagine whatever delusion you please, relate the\nmost extravagant visions, invent the most absurd system, if you only\ntake care to give to all a religious coloring, you may be sure that you\nwill have enthusiastic followers, who will heartily devote themselves\nto the propagation of your doctrines, and will espouse your cause\nblindly and ardently; in other words, you will have under your standard\na troop of fanatics.\n\nPhilosophers have devoted many pages to declamation against fanaticism;\nthey have, as it were, assumed the mission of banishing it from the\nearth. They have tired mankind with philosophical lectures, and have\nthundered against the monster with all the vigor of their eloquence.\nThey used the word, however, in so wide a sense as to include all kind\nof religion. But, if they had confined themselves to attacking real\nfanaticism, I believe they would have done much better if they had\ndevoted some time to the examination of this matter in an analytic\nspirit, and had treated it, after so doing, maturely, calmly, and\nwithout prejudice.\n\nInasmuch as these philosophers were aware that fanaticism is a natural\ninfirmity of the human mind, they could, if they were men of sense and\nwisdom, have had little hope of banishing the accursed monster from\nthe world by reasoning and eloquence; for I am not aware that, up to\nthe present time, philosophy has remedied any of the important evils\nthat afflict humanity. Among the numerous errors of the philosophy of\nthe eighteenth century, one of the principal was the mania for types;\nthere was formed in the mind a type of the nature of man, of society,\nin a word, of every thing; and every thing that could not be adjusted\nto this type, every thing that could not be moulded into the required\nform, was so subjected to the fury of philosophers, as to make it\ncertain, at least, that the want of pliability did not go unpunished.\n\nBut do I mean to deny the existence of fanaticism in the world? There\nis much of it. Do I deny that it is an evil? It is a very great one.\nCan it be extirpated? It cannot. How can its extent be diminished, its\nforce weakened, and its violence checked? By directing man wisely. Can\nthis be done by philosophy? We shall presently see. What is the origin\nof fanaticism? We must begin by defining the real meaning of the word.\nBy fanaticism is meant, taking the word in its widest signification,\nthe strong excitement of a mind powerfully acted on by a false or\nexaggerated opinion. If the opinion be true, if it be confined within\njust limits, there is no fanaticism; or, if there _be_ any, it is only\nwith respect to the means employed in defending the opinion. But in\nthat case there is an erroneous judgment, since it is believed that\nthe truth of the opinion authorizes the means; that is to say, there\nis already error or exaggeration. If a true opinion be sustained by\nlegitimate means, if the occasion be opportune, whatever may be the\nexcitement or effervescence of mind, whatever may be the energy of the\nefforts and the sacrifices made, then there is enthusiasm of mind and\nheroism of action, but no fanaticism. Were it otherwise, the heroes of\nall times and countries might be stigmatized as fanatics.\n\nFanaticism, in this general sense, extends to all the subjects which\noccupy the human mind; thus there are fanatics in religion, in\npolitics, even in science and literature. Nevertheless, according\nto etymology and custom, the word is properly applied to religious\nmatters only; therefore the word, when used alone, means fanaticism\nin religion, whilst, when applied to other things, it is always\naccompanied by a qualifying epithet; thus we say political fanatics,\nliterary fanatics, &c.\n\nThere is no doubt that in religious matters men have a strong tendency\nto give themselves to a dominant idea, which they desire to communicate\nto all around them, and propagate everywhere. They sometimes go so far\nas to attempt this by the most violent means. The same fact appears,\nto a certain extent, in other matters; but it acquires in religious\nthings a character different from what it assumes elsewhere. It is\nthere that the human mind acquires increased force, frightful energy,\nand unbounded expansion; there are no more difficulties, obstacles, or\nfetters; material interests entirely disappear; the greatest sufferings\nacquire a charm; torments are nothing; death itself is a seductive\nillusion.\n\nThis phenomenon varies with individuals, with ideas, with the manners\nof the nation in whose bosom it is produced; but at bottom it is always\nthe same. If we examine the matter thoroughly, we shall find that the\nviolences of the followers of Mahomet, and the extravagant disciples of\nFox, have a common origin.\n\nIt is with this passion as with all others; when they produce great\nevils, it is because they deviate from their legitimate objects, or\nbecause they strive at those objects by means which are not conformable\nto the dictates of reason and prudence. Fanaticism, then, rightly\nunderstood, is nothing but misguided religious feeling; a feeling which\nman has within him from the cradle to the tomb, and which is found to\nbe diffused throughout society in all periods of its existence. Vain\nhave been the efforts made up to this time to render men irreligious;\na few individuals may give themselves up to the folly of complete\nirreligion; but the human race always protests against those who\nendeavor to stifle the sentiment of religion. Now this feeling is so\nstrong and active, it exercises so unbounded an influence on man,\nthat no sooner has it been diverted from its legitimate object, and\nquitted the right path, than it is seen to produce lamentable results;\nthen it is that two causes, fertile in great disasters, are found in\ncombination, complete blindness of the understanding and irresistible\nenergy of the will.\n\nIn declaiming against fanaticism, many Protestants and philosophers\nhave thought proper to throw a large share of blame on the Catholic\nChurch; certainly they ought to have been more moderate in this respect\nif their philosophy had been good. It is true the Church cannot boast\nof having cured all the follies of man; she cannot pretend to have\nbanished fanaticism so completely as not to have some fanatics among\nher children; but she may justly boast that no religion has taken more\neffectual means of curing the evil. It may, moreover, be affirmed,\nthat she has taken her measures so well, that when it does make its\nappearance, she confines it within such limits that it may exist for a\ntime, but cannot produce very dangerous results.\n\nIts mental errors and delirious dreams, which, if encouraged, lead men\nto the commission of the greatest extravagances and the most horrible\ncrimes, are kept under control when the mind possesses a salutary\nconviction of its own weakness and a respect for infallible authority.\nIf they be not extinguished at their birth, at least they remain in a\nstate of isolation, they do not injure the deposit of true doctrine,\nand the ties which unite all the faithful as members of the same body\nare not broken. With respect to revelations, visions, prophecies, and\necstasies, as long as they preserve a private character and do not\naffect the truths of faith, the Church, generally speaking, tolerates\nthem and abstains from interference, leaving the discussion of the\nfacts to criticism, and allowing the faithful an entire liberty of\nthinking as they please; but if the affair assumes a more important\naspect, if the visionary calls in question points of doctrine, she\nimmediately shows her vigilance. Attentive to every voice raised\nagainst the instructions of her Divine Master, she fixes an observant\neye on the innovator. She examines whether he be a man deceived in\nmatters of doctrine or a wolf in sheep's clothing; she raises her\nwarning voice, she points out to all the faithful the error or the\ndanger, and the voice of the Shepherd recalls the wandering sheep; but\nif he refuse to listen to her, and prefer to follow his own caprices,\nshe separates him from the flock, and declares him to resemble the\nwolf. From that moment all those who are sincerely desirous of\ncontinuing in the bosom of the Church, can no more be infected with the\nerror.\n\nUndoubtedly, Protestants will reproach Catholics with the number of\nvisionaries who have existed in the Church; they will recall the\nrevelations and visions of a great number of saints who are venerated\non our altars; they will accuse us of fanaticism,--a fanaticism, they\nwill say, which, far from being limited in its effects to a narrow\ncircle, has been able to produce the most important results. \"Do\nnot the founders of religious orders alone,\" they will say, \"afford\nus a spectacle of a long succession of fanatics, who, self-deluded,\nexercised upon others, by their words and example, the greatest\nfascination that was ever seen?\"\n\nAs this is not the place to enlarge upon the subject of religious\ncommunities, which I propose to do in another part of this work,\nI shall content myself with the observation, that even supposing\nthat all the visions and revelations of our saints and the heavenly\ninspirations with which the founders of religious orders believed\nthemselves to have been favored were delusions, our opponents would\nnot be in any way justified in throwing on the Church the reproach of\nfanaticism. And, first, it is easy to see that, as far as individual\nvisions are concerned, as long as they are thus limited, there may\nbe delusion, or, if you will, fanaticism; but this fanaticism will\nnot be injurious to any one, or create confusion in society. If a\npoor woman believe herself to be peculiarly favoured by Heaven, if\nshe fancy that she hears the words of the Blessed Virgin, that she\nconverses with angels who bring her messages from God, all this may\nexcite the credulity of some and the raillery of others, but certainly\nit will not cost society a drop of blood or a tear. As to the founders\nof religious orders, in what way are they subject to the charge of\nfanaticism? Let us pass in silence the profound respect which their\nvirtues deserve, and the gratitude which humanity owes them for the\ninestimable benefits conferred; let us suppose that they were deceived\nin all their inspirations; we may certainly call this delusion, but\nnot fanaticism. We do not find in them either frenzy or violence;\nthey are men diffident in themselves, who, when they believe that\nthey are called by Heaven to a great design, never commence the work\nwithout having prostrated themselves at the feet of the Sovereign\nPontiff; they submit to his judgment the rules for the establishment\nof their orders, they ask his instruction, listen to his decision with\ndocility, and do nothing without having obtained his permission. How,\nthen, do these founders of orders resemble the fanatics, who, putting\nthemselves at the head of a furious multitude, kill, destroy, and leave\neverywhere behind them traces of blood and ruin? We see in the founders\nof religious orders men who, deeply impressed with an idea, devote\nthemselves to realize it, however great may be the sacrifice. Their\nconduct constantly shows a fixed idea, which is developed according to\na preconcerted plan, and is always highly social and religious in its\nobject: above all, this is submitted to authority, maturely examined\nand corrected by the counsels of prudence. An impartial philosopher,\nwhatever may be his religious opinions, may find in all this more or\nless illusion and prejudice, or prudence and address; but he cannot\nfind fanaticism, for there is nothing there which resembles it.[12]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nINFIDELITY AND INDIFFERENCE IN EUROPE, THE FRUITS OF PROTESTANTISM.\n\n\nThe fanaticism of sects, which is excited, kept alive, and nourished in\nEurope, by the private judgment of Protestantism, is certainly an evil\nof the greatest magnitude; yet it is not so mischievous or alarming as\nthe infidelity and religious indifference for which modern society is\nindebted to the pretended Reformation. Brought on by the scandalous\nextravagances of so many sects of _soi-disant_ Christians, infidelity\nand religious indifference, which have their root even in the very\nprinciple of Protestantism, began to show themselves with alarming\nsymptoms in the sixteenth century; they have acquired with time great\ndiffusion, they have penetrated all the branches of science and\nliterature, have produced an effect on languages, and have endangered\nall the conquests which civilization had gained during so many ages.\n\nEven during the sixteenth century, and amid the hot disputes and\nreligious wars which Protestantism had enkindled, infidelity spread in\nan alarming manner; and it is probable that it was even more common\nthan it appeared to be, as it was not easy to throw off the mask at\na period so near to the time when religious convictions had been\nso deeply rooted. It is very likely that infidelity was propagated\ndisguised under the mantle of the Reformation, and that sometimes\nenlisting under the banner of one sect and sometimes of another, it\nlabored to weaken them all, in order to set up its own throne on the\ngeneral ruin of faith.\n\nIt does not require a great effort of logic to pass from Protestantism\nto Deism; from Deism to Atheism, there is but a step; and there must\nhave been, at the time when these errors were broached, a large number\nof persons with reasoning powers enough to carry them out to the\nfullest extent. The Christian religion, as explained by Protestants,\nis only a kind of philosophic system more or less reasonable; as,\nwhen fully examined, it has no divine character. How, then, can it\ngovern a reflecting and independent mind? Yes, one glance at the first\nexhibitions of Protestantism must have been enough to incline all those\nto religious indifference who, naturally disinclined to fanaticism,\nhad lost the anchor of the Church's authority. When we consider the\nlanguage and conduct of the sectarian leaders of that time, we are\nstrongly inclined to suspect that they laughed at all Christian faith;\nthat they concealed their indifference or their Atheism under strange\ndoctrines which served as a standard, and that they propagated their\nwritings with very bad faith, while they disguised their perfidious\nintention of preserving in the minds of their partisans sectarian\nfanaticism.\n\nThus, listening to the dictates of good sense, the father of the\nfamous Montaigne, although he had seen as yet only the preludes of\nthe Reformation, said, \"that this beginning of evil would easily\ndegenerate into execrable Atheism.\" A very remarkable testimony,\nwhich has been preserved to us by his son himself, who was certainly\nneither weak nor hypocritical. (_Essais de Montaigne_, liv. ii. chap.\n12.) When this man pronounced so wise a judgment on the real tendency\nof Protestantism, did he imagine that his own son would confirm the\njustness of his prediction? Everybody knows that Montaigne was one of\nthe first skeptics that became famous in Europe. It was requisite, at\nthat time, for men to be cautious in declaring themselves Atheists or\nindifferentists, among Protestants themselves; and it may readily be\nimagined that all unbelievers had not the boldness of Gruet; yet we may\nbelieve the celebrated theologian of Toledo, Chacon, who said at the\nbeginning of the last third of the sixteenth century, \"that the heresy\nof the Atheists, of those who believed nothing, had great strength in\nFrance and in other countries.\"\n\nReligious controversy continued to occupy the attention of all the\nsavants of Europe, and during this time the gangrene of infidelity made\ngreat progress. This evil, from the middle of the seventeenth century,\nassumed a most alarming aspect. Who is not dismayed at reading the\nprofound thoughts of Pascal on religious indifference? and who has not\nfelt, in reading them, the emotion which is caused in the soul by the\npresence of a dreadful evil?\n\nThings were now much advanced, and unbelievers were not far from being\nin a position, to take their rank among the schools who disputed for\nthe upper hand in Europe. With more or less of disguise, they had\nalready for a long time shown themselves under the form of Socinianism;\nbut that did not suffice, for Socinianism bore at least the name of a\nreligious sect, and irreligion began to feel itself strong enough to\nappear under its own name. The last part of the seventeenth century\npresents a crisis which is very remarkable with respect to religion;--a\ncrisis which perhaps has not been well examined, although it exhibits\nsome very remarkable facts; I allude to a lassitude of religious\ndisputes, marked by two tendencies diametrically opposed to each other,\nand yet very natural: one towards Catholicity and the other towards\nAtheism.\n\nEvery one knows how much disputing there had been up to this time\non religion; religious controversies were the prevailing taste, and\nit may be said that they formed the principal occupation not only\nof ecclesiastics, both Catholic and Protestant, but even of the\nwell-educated laity. This taste penetrated the palaces of kings and\nprinces. The natural result of so many controversies was to disclose\nthe radical error of Protestantism: then the mind, which could not\nremain firm on such slippery ground, was obliged, either to adopt\nauthority, or abandon itself to Atheism or complete indifference. These\ntendencies made themselves very perceptibly felt; thus it was that at\nthe very time when Bayle thought Europe sufficiently prepared for his\ninfidelity and skepticism, there was going on an animated and serious\ncorrespondence for the reunion of the German Protestants with the\nCatholic Church. Men of education are acquainted with the discussions\nwhich took place between the Lutheran Molanus, abbot of Lockum, and\nChristopher, at first Bishop of Tyna, and afterwards of Newstad. The\ncorrespondence between the two most remarkable men at that time in\nEurope of both communions, Bossuet and Leibnitz, is another monument\nof the importance of these negotiations. The happy moment was not yet\ncome; political considerations, which ought to have vanished in the\npresence of such lofty interests, exercised a mischievous influence\non the great soul of Leibnitz, and he did not preserve, throughout\nthe progress of the discussions and negotiations, the sincerity, good\nfaith, and elevation of view, which he had evinced at the commencement.\nThe negotiation did not succeed, but the mere fact of its existence\nshows clearly enough the void which was felt in Protestantism; for we\ncannot believe that the two most celebrated men of that communion,\nMolanus and Leibnitz, would have advanced so far in so important a\nnegotiation, unless they had observed among themselves many indications\nof a disposition to return to the bosom of the Church. Add to this,\nthe declaration of the Lutheran university of Helmstad in favor of\nthe Catholic religion, and the fresh attempts at a reunion made by a\nProtestant prince, who addressed himself to Pope Clement XI., and you\nhave strong reasons for believing that the Reformation felt itself\nmortally wounded. If God had been willing to permit that so great a\nresult should appear to have been effected in any way by human means,\nthe deep convictions prevalent among the most distinguished Protestants\nmight perhaps have greatly contributed to heal the wounds which had\nbeen inflicted upon religious unity by the revolutionists of the\nsixteenth century.\n\nBut the profound wisdom of God had decided otherwise. In allowing men\nto pursue their own opposite and perverse inclinations, He was pleased\nto chastise them by means of their own pride. The tendency towards\nunity was no longer dominant in the next century, but gave place to a\nphilosophic skepticism, indifferent towards all other religions, but\nthe deadly enemy of the Catholic. It may be said that at that time\nthere was a combination of the most fatal influences to hinder the\ntendency towards unity from attaining its object. Already were the\nProtestant sects divided and subdivided into numberless parties, and\nalthough Protestantism was thereby weakened, yet, nevertheless, it\nwas diffused over the greater part of Europe; the germ of doubt in\nreligious matters had inoculated the whole of European society. There\nwas no truth which had escaped attack; no error or extravagance which\nhad not had apostles and proselytes; and it was much to be feared that\nmen would fall into that state of fatigue and discouragement which is\nthe result of great efforts made without success, and into that disgust\nwhich is always produced by endless disputes and great scandals.\n\nTo complete the misfortune, and to bring to a climax the state of\nlassitude and disgust, there was another evil, which produced the\nmost fatal results. The champions of Catholicity contended, with\nboldness and success, against the religious innovations of Protestants.\nLanguages, history, criticism, philosophy, all that is most precious,\nrich, and brilliant in human knowledge, had been employed in the\nnoblest way in this important struggle; and the great men who were\nmost prominent among the defenders of the Church seemed to console\nher for the sad losses which she had sustained by the troubles of\nanother age. But while she embraced in her arms these zealous sons,\nthose who boasted the most of being called her children, she observed\nin some of them, with surprise and dread, an attitude of disguised\nhostility; and in their thinly veiled language and conduct she could\neasily perceive that they meditated giving her a fatal blow. Always\nasserting their submission and their obedience, but never submitting or\nobeying; continually extolling the authority and divine origin of the\nChurch, and carefully concealing their hatred of her existing laws and\ninstitutions under cover of professed zeal for the re-establishment of\nancient discipline; they sapped the foundations of morality, while they\nclaimed to be its earnest advocates; they disguised their hypocrisy and\npride under false humility and affected modesty; they called obstinacy\nfirmness, and wilful blindness strength of mind. This rebellion\npresented an aspect more dangerous than any heresy; their honeyed\nwords, studied candor, respect for antiquity, and the show of learning\nand knowledge, would have contributed to blind the best informed, if\nthe innovators had not been distinguished by the constant and unfailing\ncharacteristic of all erroneous sects, viz. hatred of authority.\n\nThey were seen from time to time struggling against the declared\nenemies of the Church, defending, with great display of learning,\nthe truth of her sacred dogmas, citing, with respect and deference,\nthe writings of the holy fathers, and declaring that they adhered\nto tradition, and had a profound veneration for the decisions of\ncouncils and Popes. They particularly prided themselves on being called\nCatholics, however much their language and conduct were inconsistent\nwith the name. Never did they get rid of the marvellous infatuation\nwith which they denied their existence as a sect; and thus did they\nthrow in the way of ill-informed persons the unhappy scandal of a\ndogmatical dispute, going on apparently within the bosom of the Church\nherself. The Pope declared them heretics; all true Catholics bowed to\nthe decision of the Vicar of Jesus Christ; from all parts of the world\na voice was unanimously raised to pronounce anathema against all who\ndid not listen to the successor of St. Peter; but they themselves,\ndenying and eluding all, persisted in considering themselves as a body\nof Catholics oppressed by the spirit of relaxation, abuse, and intrigue.\n\nThis scandal gave the finishing stroke to the leading of men astray,\nand the fatal gangrene which was infecting European society soon\ndeveloped itself with frightful rapidity. The religious disputes,\nthe multitude and variety of sects, the animosity which they showed\nagainst each other, all contributed to disgust with religion itself\nwhoever were not held fast by the anchor of authority. To establish\nindifference as a system, atheism as a creed, and impiety as a fashion,\nthere was only wanting a man laborious enough to collect, unite, and\npresent in a body all the numerous materials which were scattered\nin a multitude of works; a man who knew how to give to all this a\nphilosophical complexion suitable to the prevailing taste, and who\ncould give to sophistry and declamation that seductive appearance,\nthat deceptive form and dazzling show, by which the productions of\ngenius are always marked, in the midst even of their wildest vagaries.\nSuch a man appeared in the person of Bayle. The noise which his famous\ndictionary made in the world, and the favor which it enjoyed from\nthe beginning, show how well the author had taken advantage of his\nopportunity. The dictionary of Bayle is one of those books which,\nconsidered apart from their scientific and literary merit, always serve\nto denote a remarkable epoch, because they present, together with the\nfruits of the past, the clear perception of a long future. The author\nof such a work is not distinguished so much on account of his own\nmerit, as because he has known how to become the representative of\nideas previously diffused in society, but floating about in a state of\nuncertainty; and yet his name recalls a vast history, of which he is\nthe personification. The publication of Bayle's work may be regarded\nas the solemn inauguration of the chair of infidelity in Europe. The\nsophists of the eighteenth century found at hand an abundant repository\nof facts and arguments; but to render the thing complete, there was\nwanting a hand capable of retouching the old paintings, of restoring\ntheir faded colors, and of shedding over all the charms of imagination\nand the refinement of wit; there was wanting a guide to lead mankind\nby a flowery path to the borders of the abyss. Scarcely had Bayle\ndescended into the tomb, when there appeared above the literary horizon\na young man, whose great talents were equalled by his malice and\naudacity; Voltaire.\n\nIt was necessary to draw the reader's attention to the period which\nI have just described, to show him how great was the influence\nexercised by Protestantism in producing and establishing in Europe the\nirreligion, atheism, and fatal indifference which have caused so many\nevils in modern society. I do not mean to charge all Protestants with\nimpiety; and I willingly acknowledge the sincerity and firmness of\nmany of their most illustrious men, in struggling against the progress\nof irreligion. I am not ignorant that men sometimes adopt a principle\nand repudiate its consequences, and that it would, therefore, be very\nunjust to class them with those who openly accept those consequences;\nbut on the other hand, however painful it may be to Protestants to avow\nthat their system leads to atheism, it is nevertheless a fact which\ncannot be denied. All that they can claim of me on this point is, not\nto criminate their intentions; after that, they cannot complain if,\nguided by the instructions of history and philosophy, I develop their\nfundamental principle to the fullest extent.\n\nIt would be useless to sketch, even in the most rapid manner, what\nhas passed in Europe since the appearance of Voltaire: the events\nare so recent, and have been so often discussed, that all that I\ncould say would be only a useless repetition. I shall better attain\nmy object by offering some remarks on the actual state of religion\nin Protestant countries. Amid so many revolutions, and when so many\nheads were turned; when all the foundations of society were shaken,\nand the strongest institutions were torn out of the soil in which they\nhad been so deeply rooted; when even Catholic truth itself could not\nhave been sustained without the manifest aid of the arm of the Most\nHigh, we may imagine the fate of the fragile edifice of Protestantism,\nexposed, like all the rest, to so many and such violent attacks. No one\nis ignorant of the numberless sects which abound in Great Britain, of\nthe deplorable condition of faith among the Swiss Protestants, even on\nthe most important points. That there might be no doubt as to the real\nstate of the Protestant religion in Germany, that is, in its native\ncountry, where it was first established as in its dearest patrimony,\nthe Protestant minister, Baron Starck, has taken care to tell us, that\n\"_in Germany there is not one single point of Christian faith which\nhas not been openly attacked by the Protestant ministers themselves_.\"\nThe real state of Protestantism appears to me to be truly and forcibly\ndepicted by a curious idea of J. Heyer, a Protestant minister. Heyer\npublished, in 1818, a work entitled _Coup d'\u0153il sur les Confessions\nde Foi_; not knowing how to get out of the difficulty in which all\nProtestants found themselves placed when they had to choose a symbol,\nhe proposed the simple expedient of _getting rid of all symbols_.\n\nThe only way that Protestantism has of preserving itself, is to violate\nas much as possible its own fundamental principle, by withdrawing the\nright of private judgment, inducing the people to remain faithful\nto the opinions in which they have been educated, and carefully\nconcealing from them the inconsistency into which they fall, when\nthey submit to the authority of a private individual, after having\nrejected the authority of the Catholic church. But things are not\ntaking this course; and in spite of the efforts of some Protestants\nto follow it, Bible Societies, working with a zeal worthy of a better\ncause, in promoting among all classes the private interpretation of\nthe Bible, would suffice to keep alive always the spirit of inquiry.\nThis diffusion of the Bible operates as a constant appeal to private\njudgment, which, after perhaps causing many days of sorrow and mourning\nto society, will eventually destroy the remains of Protestantism. All\nthis has not escaped the notice of its disciples; and some of the\nmost remarkable among them have raised their voices to point out the\ndanger.[13]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nCAUSES OF THE CONTINUANCE OF PROTESTANTISM.\n\n\nAfter having clearly shown the intrinsic weakness of Protestantism,\nit is natural to ask this question: If it be so feeble, owing to\nthe radical defects of its constitution, why has it not by this\ntime completely disappeared? If it bear in its own breast the seeds\nof death, how has it been able so long to withstand such powerful\nadversaries, as Catholicity, on the one hand, and irreligion\nor Atheism, on the other? In order to resolve this question\nsatisfactorily, it is necessary to consider Protestantism in two points\nof view; as embodying a fixed creed, and as expressing a number of\nsects, who, in spite of their numerous mutual differences, agree in\ncalling themselves Christians, and preserve a shadow of Christianity,\nalthough they reject the authority of the Church. It is necessary\nto consider Protestantism in this double point of view, since its\nfounders, while endeavoring to destroy the authority and dogmas of the\nRoman Church, were compelled to form a system of doctrines to serve as\na symbol for their followers. Considered in the first aspect, it has\nalmost entirely disappeared; we should rather say it scarcely ever had\nexistence. This truth is sufficiently evident from what I have said of\nthe variations and actual condition of Protestantism in the various\ncountries of Europe; time has shown how much the pretended Reformers\nwere deceived, when they fancied that they could fix the columns of\nHercules of the human mind, to repeat the expression of Madame de Sta\u00ebl.\n\nWho now defends the doctrines of Luther and Calvin? Who respects the\nlimits which they prescribed? What Protestant Church distinguishes\nitself by the ardor of its zeal in preserving any particular dogmas?\nWhat Protestant now holds the divine mission of Luther, or believes the\nPope to be Antichrist? Who watches over the purity of doctrine, and\npoints out errors? Who opposes the torrent of sectarianism?\n\nDo we find, in their writings, or in their discourses, the energetic\ntones of conviction, or the zeal of truth? In fine, what a wide\ndifference do we find when we compare the Protestant Church with the\nCatholic! Inquire into the faith of the latter, and you will hear from\nthe mouth of Gregory XVI., the successor of St. Peter, the same that\nLuther heard from Leo X. Compare the doctrine of Leo X. with that of\nhis predecessors, you will always find it the same up to the Apostles,\nand to Jesus Christ himself. If you attempt to assail a dogma, if you\ntry to attack the purity of morals, the voice of the ancient Fathers\nwill denounce your errors, and in the middle of the nineteenth century\nyou will imagine that the old Leos and Gregories are risen from the\ntomb. If your intentions are good, you will find indulgence; if your\nmerits are great, you will be treated with respect; if you occupy an\nelevated position in the world, you will have attention paid to you.\nBut if you attempt to abuse your talents by introducing novelty in\ndoctrine; if, by your power, you aspire to demand a modification of\nfaith; and if, to avoid troubles or prevent schism, or conciliate\nany one, you ask for a compromise or even an ambiguous explanation;\nthe answer of the successor of St. Peter will be, \"Never! faith is a\nsacred deposit which we cannot alter; truth is immutable; it is one:\"\nand to this reply of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, which with a word will\nbanish all your hopes, will be added those of the modern Athanasiuses,\nGregories of Nazianzen, Ambroses, Jeromes, and Augustins. Always\nthe same firmness in the same faith, the same unchangeableness, the\nsame energy in preserving the sacred deposit intact, in defending it\nagainst the attacks of error, in teaching it to the faithful in all\nits purity, and in transmitting it unaltered to future generations.\nWill it be said that this is obstinacy, blindness, and fanaticism?\nBut, eighteen centuries gone by, the revolutions of empires, the most\nfearful catastrophes, an infinite variety of ideas and manners, the\nmost severe persecutions, the darkness of ignorance, the conflicts of\npassion, the lights of knowledge,--none of these have been able to\nenlighten this blindness, to bend this obstinacy, or extinguish this\nfanaticism. Certainly a reflecting Protestant, one of those who know\nhow to rise above the prejudices of education, when fixing his eyes on\nthis picture, the truth of which he cannot but acknowledge, if he is\nwell informed on the question, will feel strong doubts arise within him\nas to the truth of the instruction he has received; he will at least\nfeel a desire of examining more closely this great prodigy which the\nCatholic Church presents to us. But to return.\n\nWe see the Protestant sects melting away daily, and this dissolution\nmust constantly increase; nevertheless, we have no reason to be\nastonished that Protestantism, inasmuch as it consists of a number of\nsects who preserve the name and some remains of Christianity, does\nnot wholly disappear; for how could it disappear? Either Protestant\nnations must be completely swallowed up by irreligion or atheism, or\nthey must give up Christianity and adopt one of the religions which are\nestablished in other parts of the world. Now both these suppositions\nare impossible; therefore this false form of Christianity has been and\nwill be preserved, in some shape or other, until Protestants return to\nthe bosom of the Church.\n\nLet us develop these ideas. Why cannot Protestant nations be completely\nswallowed up by irreligion and atheism, or indifference? Because such\na misfortune may happen to an individual, but not to a nation. By\nmeans of false books, erroneous reasonings, and continual efforts,\nsome individuals may extinguish the lively sentiments of their hearts,\nstifle the voice of conscience, and trample under foot the dictates of\ncommon sense; but a nation cannot do so. A people always preserves a\nlarge fund of candor and docility, which, amid the most fatal errors\nand even the most atrocious crimes, compels it to lend an attentive\near to the inspirations of nature. Whatever may be the corruption of\nmorals, whatever may be the errors of opinion, there will never be\nmore than a small number of men found capable of struggling for a long\ntime against themselves, in the attempt to eradicate from their hearts\nthat fruitful germ of good feelings, that precious seed of virtuous\nthoughts, with which the beneficent hand of the Creator has enriched\nour souls. The conflagration of the passions, it is true, produces\nlamentable prostration, and sometimes terrible explosions; but when\nthe fire is extinguished, man returns to himself, and his mind becomes\nagain accessible to the voice of reason and virtue. An attentive study\nof society proves that the number of men is happily very small who\nare, as it were, steeled against truth and virtue; who reply with\nfrivolous sophistry to the admonitions of good sense; who oppose with\ncold stoicism the sweetest and most generous inspirations of nature,\nand venture to display, as an illustration of philosophy, firmness,\nand elevation of mind, the ignorance, obstinacy, and barrenness of\nan icy heart. The generality of mankind, more simple, more candid,\nmore natural, are consequently ill-suited to a system of atheism, or\nindifference. Such a system may take possession of the proud mind of\na learned visionary; it may be adopted, as a convenient opinion, by\ndissipated youth; and in times of agitation, it may influence a few\nfiery spirits; but it will never be able to establish itself in society\nas a normal condition.\n\nNo, by no means. An individual may be irreligious, but families and\nsociety never will. Without a basis on which the social edifice must\nrest; without a great creative idea, whence will flow the ideas of\nreason, virtue, justice, obligation, and right, which are as necessary\nto the existence and preservation of society as blood and nourishment\nare to the life of the individual, society would be destroyed; without\nthe sweet ties by which religious ideas unite together the members of\na family, without the heavenly harmony which they infuse into all its\nconnections, the family would cease to exist, or at least would be only\na rude and transient union, resembling the intercourse of animals.\nGod has happily gifted all his creatures with a marvellous instinct\nof self-preservation. Guided by that instinct, families and society\nrepudiate with indignation those degrading ideas which, blasting by\ntheir fatal breath all the germs of life, breaking all ties, upsetting\nall laws, make both of them retrograde towards the most abject\nbarbarism, and finish by scattering their members like dust before the\nwind.\n\nThe repeated lessons of experience ought to have convinced certain\nphilosophers that these ideas and feelings, engraven on the heart of\nman by the finger of the Author of nature, cannot be eradicated by\ndeclamation or sophistry. If a few ephemeral triumphs have occasionally\nflattered their pride, and made them conceive false hopes of the result\nof their efforts, the course of events has soon shown them, that to\npride themselves on these triumphs was to act like a man who, on\naccount of having succeeded in infusing unnatural sentiments into the\nhearts of a few mothers, would flatter himself that he has banished\nmaternal love from the world. Society (I do not mean the populace or\nthe commonalty)--society will be religious, even at the risk of being\nsuperstitious; if it does not believe in reasonable things, it will in\nextravagant ones; and if it have not a divine religion, it will have a\nhuman one: to suppose the contrary, is to dream; to struggle against\nthis tendency, is to struggle against an eternal law; to attempt to\nrestrain it, is to attempt to restrain with a weak arm a body launched\nwith an immense force--the arm will be destroyed, but the body will\ncontinue its course. Men may call this superstition, fanaticism, the\nresult of error; but to talk thus can only serve to console them for\ntheir failure.\n\nSince, then, religion is a real necessity, we have therein an\nexplanation of the phenomenon which history and experience present\nto us, namely, that religion never wholly disappears, and that when\nchanges take place, the two rival religions, during their struggles,\nmore or less protracted, occupy successively the same ground. The\nconsequence is, that Protestantism cannot entirely disappear unless\nanother religion takes its place. Now, as in the actual state of\ncivilization, no religion can replace it but the Catholic, it is\nevident that Protestant sects will continue to occupy, with more or\nless variation, the countries which they have gained.\n\nIndeed, how is it possible, in the present state of civilization among\nProtestant nations, that the follies of the Koran, or the absurdities\nof idolatry, should have any chance of success among them? The spirit\nof Christianity circulates in the veins of modern society; its seal\nis set upon all legislation; its light is shed upon all branches of\nknowledge; its phraseology is found in all languages; its precepts\nregulate morals; habits and manners have assumed its form; the fine\narts breathe its perfume, and all the monuments of genius are full\nof its inspirations. Christianity, in a word, pervades all parts of\nthat great, varied, and fertile civilization, which is the glory of\nmodern society. How then, is it possible for a religion entirely to\ndisappear which possesses, with the most venerable antiquity, so many\nclaims to gratitude, so many endearing ties, and so many glorious\nrecollections? How could it give place, among Christian nations, to\none of those religions which, at the first glance, show the finger\nof man, and indicate, as their distinctive mark, degradation and\ndebasement? Although the essential principle of Protestantism saps\nthe foundations of the Christian religion, although it disfigures its\nbeauty, and lowers its sublimity, yet the remains which it preserves of\nChristianity, its idea of God, and its maxims of morality, raise it far\nabove all the systems of philosophy, and all the other religions of the\nworld.\n\nIf, then, Protestantism has preserved some shadow of the Christian\nreligion, it was because, looking at the condition of the nations who\ntook part in the schism, it was impossible for the Christian name\nwholly to disappear; and not on account of any principle of life\ncontained in the bosom of the pretended Reformation. On the other\nhand, consider the efforts of politicians, the natural attachment of\nministers to their own interests, the illusions of pride which flatter\nmen with the freedom they will enjoy in the absence of all authority,\nthe remains of old prejudices, the power of education, and such like\ncauses, and you will find a complete solution of the question. Then\nyou will no longer be surprised that Protestantism continues to retain\npossession of many of those countries where it unfortunately became\ndeeply rooted.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nTHE POSITIVE DOCTRINES OF PROTESTANTISM REPUGNANT TO THE INSTINCT OF\nCIVILIZATION.\n\n\nThe best proof of the extreme weakness of Protestantism, considered\nas a body of doctrine, is the little influence which its positive\ndoctrines have exercised in European civilization. I call its positive\ndoctrines those which it attempts to establish as its own; and I\ndistinguish them thus from its other doctrines, which I call negative,\nbecause they are nothing but the negation of authority. The latter\nfound favor on account of their conformity with the inconstancy and\nchangeableness of the human mind; but the others, which have not the\nsame means of success, have all disappeared with their authors, and are\nnow plunged in oblivion. The only part of Christianity which has been\npreserved among Protestants, is that which was necessary to prevent\nEuropean civilization from losing among them its nature and character;\nand this is the reason why the doctrines which had too direct a\ntendency to alter the nature of this civilization have been repudiated,\nwe should rather say, despised by it.\n\nThere is a circumstance here well worthy of attention, and which has\nnot perhaps been noticed, viz. the fate of the doctrine held by the\nfirst reformers with respect to free-will. It is well known that one\nof the first and most important errors of Luther and Calvin consisted\nin denying free-will. We find this fatal doctrine professed in the\nworks which they have left us. Does it not seem that this doctrine\nought to have preserved its credit among the Protestants, and that they\nought to have fiercely maintained it, since such is commonly the case\nwith errors which serve as a nucleus in the formation of a sect? It\nseems, also, that Protestantism being widely spread, and deeply rooted\nin several countries of Europe, this fatalist doctrine ought to have\nexercised a strong influence on the legislation of Protestant nations.\nWonderful as it is, such has not been the case; European moralists have\ndespised it; legislation has not adopted it as a basis; civilization\nhas not allowed itself to be directed by a principle which sapped all\nthe foundations of morality, and which, if once applied to morals and\nlaws, would have substituted for European civilization and dignity the\nbarbarism and debasement of Mahometanism.\n\nThere is no doubt that this fatal doctrine has perverted some\nindividuals; it has been adopted by sects more or less numerous; and\nit cannot be denied that it has affected the morality of some nations.\nBut it is also certain, that, in the generality of the great human\nfamily, governments, tribunals, administration, legislation, science,\nand morals, have not listened to this horrible doctrine of Luther,--a\ndoctrine which strips man of his free will, which makes God the author\nof sin, which charges the Creator with the responsibility of all the\ncrimes of His creatures, and represents Him as a tyrant, by affirming\nthat His precepts are impossible; a doctrine which monstrously\nconfounds the ideas of good and evil, and removes all stimulus to good\ndeeds, by teaching that faith is sufficient for salvation, and that all\nthe good works of the just are only sins.\n\nPublic opinion, good sense, and morality here side with Catholicity.\nThose even who in theory embrace these fatal religious doctrines,\nusually reject them in practice; this is because Catholic instruction\non these important points has made so deep an impression on them;\nbecause so strong an instinct of civilization has been communicated\nto European society by the Catholic religion. Thus the Church, by\nrepudiating the destructive errors taught by Protestantism, preserved\nsociety from being debased by these fatalist doctrines. The Church\nformed a barrier against the despotism which is enthroned wherever the\nsense of dignity is lost; she was a fence against the demoralization\nwhich always spreads whenever men think themselves bound by blind\nnecessity, as by an iron chain; she also freed the human mind from\nthe state of abjection into which it falls whenever it thinks itself\ndeprived of the government of its own conduct, and of the power of\ninfluencing the course of events. In condemning those errors of Luther,\nwhich were the bond of Protestantism at its birth, the Pope raised\nthe alarm against an irruption of barbarism into the order of ideas;\nhe saved morality, laws, public order, and society; the Vatican, by\nsecuring the noble sentiment of liberty in the sanctuary of conscience,\npreserved the dignity of man; by struggling against Protestant ideas,\nby defending the sacred deposit confided to it by its Divine Master,\nthe Roman See became the tutelary divinity of future civilization.\n\nReflect on these great truths, understand them thoroughly, you who\nspeak of religious disputes with cold indifference, with apparent\nmockery and pity, as if they were only scholastic puerilities. Nations\n_do not live on bread alone_; they live also on ideas, on maxims,\nwhich, converted into spiritual aliment, give them greatness, strength,\nand energy, or, on the contrary, weaken them, reduce them, and condemn\nthem to stupidity. Look over the face of the globe, examine the periods\nof human history, compare times with times, and nations with nations,\nand you will see that the Church, by giving so much importance to the\npreservation of these transcendent truths, by accepting no compromise\non this point, has understood and realized better than any other\nteacher, the elevated and salutary maxim, that truth ought to reign in\nthe world; that on the order of ideas depends the order of events, and\nthat when these great problems are called in question, the destinies of\nhumanity are involved.\n\nLet us recapitulate what we have said; the essential principle of\nProtestantism is one of destruction; this is the cause of its incessant\nvariations, of its dissolution and annihilation. As a particular\nreligion it no longer exists, for it has no peculiar faith, no positive\ncharacter, no government, nothing that is essential to form an\nexistence; Protestantism is only a negative. If there is any thing to\nbe found in it of a positive nature, it is nothing more than vestiges\nand ruins; all is without force, without action, without the spirit of\nlife. It cannot show an edifice raised by its own hands; it cannot,\nlike Catholicity, stand in the midst of its vast works and say, \"These\nare mine.\" Protestantism can only sit down on a heap of ruins, and say\nwith truth, \"I have made this pile.\"\n\nAs long as sectarian fanaticism lasted, as long as this flame,\nenkindled by furious declamation, was kept alive by unhappy\ncircumstances, Protestantism showed a certain degree of force, which,\nalthough it was not the sign of vigorous life, at least indicated\nthe convulsive energy of delirium. But that period has passed, the\naction of time has dispersed the elements that fed the flame, and\nnone of the attempts which have been made to give to the Reformation\nthe character of a work of God, have been able to conceal the fact\nthat it was the work of human passions. Let us not be deceived by the\nefforts which are now being made; what is acting under our eyes is\nnot living Protestantism, it is the operation of false philosophy,\nperhaps of policy, sometimes of sordid interest disguised under the\nname of policy. Every one knows how powerful Protestantism was in\nexciting disturbances and causing disunion. It is on this account that\nevil-minded men search in the bed of this exhausted torrent for some\nremains of its impure waters, and knowing them to contain a deadly\npoison, present them to the unsuspecting in a golden cup.\n\nBut it is in vain for weak man to struggle against the arm of the\nAlmighty, God will not abandon His work. Notwithstanding all his\nattempts to deface the work of God, man cannot blot out the eternal\ncharacters which distinguish truth from error. Truth in itself is\nstrong and robust: as it is the ensemble of the relations which unite\nthings together, it is strongly connected with them, and cannot be\nseparated either by the efforts of man or by the revolution of time.\nError, on the contrary, the lying image of the great ties which bind\ntogether the compact mass of the universe, stretches over its usurped\ndomain like those dead branches of the forest which, devoid of sap,\nafford neither freshness nor verdure, and only serve to impede the\nadvance of the traveller.\n\nConfiding men, do not allow yourselves to be seduced by brilliant\nappearances, pompous discourse, or false activity. Truth is open,\nmodest, without suspicion, because it is pure and strong; error is\nhypocritical and ostentatious, because it is false and weak. Truth\nresembles a woman of real beauty, who, conscious of her charms,\ndespises the affectation of ornament; error, on the contrary, paints\nand ornaments herself, because she is ugly, without expression,\nwithout grace, without dignity. Perhaps you may be pleased with its\nlaborious activity. Know, then, that it has no strength but when it\nis the rallying cry of a faction; then, indeed, it is rapid in action\nand fertile in violent measures. It is like the meteor which explodes\nand vanishes, leaving behind it nothing but darkness, death, and\ndestruction; truth, on the contrary, like the sun, sends forth its\nbright and steady beams, fertilizes with its genial warmth, and sheds\non every side life, joy, and beauty.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nTHE EFFECTS WHICH THE INTRODUCTION OF PROTESTANTISM INTO SPAIN WOULD\nHAVE PRODUCED.\n\n\nIn order to judge of the real effect which the introduction of\nProtestant doctrines would have had in Spain, we shall do well, in\nthe first place, to take a survey of the present state of religion\nin Europe. In spite of the confusion of ideas which is one of the\nprevailing characteristics of the age, it is undeniable that the spirit\nof infidelity and irreligion has lost much of its strength, and that\nwhere it still exists it has merged into indifference, instead of\npreserving its systematic form of the last century. With the lapse\nof time declamation ceases; men grow tired of continually repeating\nthe same insulting language; their minds resist the intolerance and\nbad faith of sects; systems betray their emptiness, opinions their\nerroneousness, judgments their precipitation, and reasonings their want\nof exactitude. Time shows their counterfeit intentions, their deceptive\nstatements, the littleness of their ideas, and the mischievousness of\ntheir projects; truth begins to recover its empire, things regain their\nreal names, and, thanks to the new direction of the public mind, that\nwhich before was considered innocent and generous is now looked upon\nas criminal and vile. The deceitful masks are taken off, and falsehood\nis discovered surrounded by the discredit which ought always to have\naccompanied it.\n\nIrreligious ideas, like all those which are prevalent in an advanced\nstate of society, would not, and could not be confined to mere\nspeculation; they invaded the domain of practice, and labored to gain\nthe upper hand in all branches of administration and politics. But the\nrevolution which they produced in society became fatal to themselves;\nfor there is nothing which better exposes the faults and errors of\na system, and undeceives men on the subject, than the touchstone\nof experience. There is in our minds a certain power of viewing\nan object under a variety of aspects, and an unfortunate aptitude\nfor supporting the most extravagant proposition by a multitude of\nsophisms. In mere disputation, it is difficult for the most reasoning\nminds to keep clear of the snares of sophistry. But when we come to\nexperience, it is otherwise; the mind is silent, and facts speak; and\nif the experience has been on a large scale, and applied to objects of\ngreat interest and importance, it is difficult for the most specious\narguments to counteract the convincing eloquence of the result. Hence\nit is that a man of much experience obtains an instinct so sure and\ndelicate, that when a system is but explained he can point out all its\ninconveniences. Inexperience, presumptuous and prejudiced, appeals to\nargument in support of its doctrines; but good sense, that precious and\ninestimable quality, shakes its head, shrugs its shoulders, and with a\ntranquil smile leaves its prediction to be tested by time.\n\nIt is not necessary now to insist on the practical results of those\ndoctrines of which infidelity was the motto; we have said enough on\nthat subject. Suffice it to say, that those same men who seem to belong\nto the last century by their principles, interests, recollections, or\nfor other reasons, have been obliged to modify their doctrines, to\nlimit their principles, to palliate their propositions, to cool the\nwarmth and passion of their invectives; and when they wish to give a\nmark of their esteem and veneration for those writers who were the\ndelight of their youth, they are compelled to declare \"that those men\nwere great philosophers, but philosophers of the cabinet;\" as if in\nreality what they call the knowledge of the cabinet was not the most\ndangerous ignorance.\n\nIt is certain that these attempts have had the effect of throwing\ndiscredit on irreligion as a system. If people do not regard it with\nhorror, at least they look upon it with mistrust. Irreligion has\nlabored in all the branches of science, in the vain hope that the\nheavens would cease to relate the glories of God, that the earth would\ndisown Him who laid its foundations, and that all nature would give\ntestimony against the Lord who gave it existence and life. These same\nlabors have banished the scandalous division which had begun between\nreligion and science; so that the ancient accents of the man of Hus\nhave again resounded, without dishonor to science, in the mouths of\nmen in the nineteenth century; and what shall we say of the triumphs\nof religion in all that is noble, tender, and sublime on earth? How\ngrand are the operations of Providence displayed therein! Admirable\ndispensation! The mysterious hand which governs the universe seems to\nhold in reserve for every great crisis of society an extraordinary\nman. At the proper moment this man presents himself; he advances,\nhimself ignorant whither he is going, but he advances with a firm step\ntowards the accomplishment of the high mission for which Providence has\ndestined him.\n\nAtheism was bathing France in a sea of tears and blood; an unknown man\nsilently traverses the ocean. While the violence of the tempest rends\nthe sails of his vessel, he listens attentively to the hurricane--he\nis lost in the contemplation of the majesty of the heavens. Wandering\nin the solitudes of America, he asks of the wonders of creation the\nname of their Author; the thunder on the confines of the desert, the\nlow murmuring of the forests, and the beauties of nature answer him\nwith canticles of love and harmony. The view of a solitary cross\nreveals to him mysterious secrets; the traces of an unknown missionary\nawaken important recollections which connect the new world with the\nold; a monument in ruins, the hut of a savage, excite in his mind\nthoughts which penetrate to the foundations of society and to the\nheart of man. Intoxicated with these spectacles, his mind full of\nsublime conceptions, and his heart inundated with the charms of so\nmuch beauty, this man returns to his native soil. What does he find\nthere? The bloody traces of Atheism; the ruins and ashes of ancient\ntemples devoured by the flames or destroyed by violence; the remains of\na multitude of innocent victims, buried in the graves which formerly\nafforded an asylum to persecuted Christians. He observes, however, that\nsomething is in agitation; he sees that religion is about to redescend\nupon France, like consolation upon the unfortunate, or the breath of\nlife upon a corpse. From that moment he hears on all sides a concert of\ncelestial harmony; the inspirations of meditation and solitude revive\nand ferment in his great soul; transported out of himself, and ravished\ninto ecstasy, he sings with a tongue of fire the glories of religion,\nhe reveals the delicacy and beauty of the relations between religion\nand nature, and in surpassing language he points out to astonished men\nthe mysterious golden chain which connects the heavens and the earth.\nThat man was Chateaubriand.\n\nIt must, however, be confessed, that the confusion which has been\nintroduced into ideas cannot be corrected in a short time, and that it\nis not easy to eradicate the deep traces of the ravages of irreligion.\nMen's minds, it is true, are tired of the irreligious system; society,\nwhich had lost its balance, is generally ill at ease; the family feels\nits ties relaxed, and individuals sigh after a ray of light, a drop\nof hope and consolation. But where shall the world find the remedy\nwhich is wanting? Will it follow the best road--the only road? Will\nit re-enter the fold of the Catholic Church? Alas! God alone knows\nthe secrets of the future; He alone has clearly unfolded before His\neyes the great events which are no doubt awaiting humanity. He alone\nknows what will be the result of that activity, of that energy, which\nagain urges men to the examination of great political and religious\nquestions; and He alone knows what, to future generations, will be\nthe result of the triumphs obtained by religion, in the fine arts, in\nliterature, in science, in politics, in all the operations carried on\nby the human mind.\n\nAs to us, carried away as we are by the rapid and precipitate course\nof revolution, hardly have we time to cast a fleeting glance upon\nthe chaos in which our country is involved. What can we confidently\npredict? All that we can be sure of is, that we are in an age of\ndisquietude, of agitation, of transition; that the multiplied examples\nand warnings of so many disappointed expectations, the fruits of\nfearful revolutions and unheard-of catastrophes, have everywhere thrown\ndiscredit upon irreligious and disorganizing doctrines, without having\nestablished the legitimate empire of true religion. Hearts sick of so\nmany misfortunes are willingly open to hope; but minds are in a state\nof great uncertainty as to the future: perhaps they even anticipate\na new series of calamities. Owing to revolutions, to the efforts of\nindustry, to the activity and extension of commerce, to the progress\nand prodigious diffusion of printing, to scientific discoveries, to the\nease, rapidity, and universality of communication, to the taste for\ntravelling, to the dissolving action of Protestantism, of incredulity,\nand skepticism, the human mind certainly now presents one of the most\nsingular phases of its history. Reason, imagination, and the heart are\nin a state of agitation, of movement, and of extraordinary development,\nand show us at the same time the most singular contrasts, the most\nridiculous extravagances, and the most absurd contradictions. Observe\nthe sciences, and you will no longer find those lengthened labors,\nthat indefatigable patience, that calm and tranquil progress, which\ncharacterized these studies at other epochs; but you will find there\na spirit of observation, and a tendency to place questions in that\ntranscendental point of view where may be discovered the relations\nsubsisting between them, the ties by which they are connected, and\nthe way in which they throw light upon each other. Questions of\nreligion, of politics, of legislation, of morals, of government, are\nall mingled, stand prominently forward, and give to the horizon of\nscience a grandeur and immensity which it did not previously possess.\nThis progress, this confusion, this chaos, if you like to call it so,\nis a fact which must be taken into account in studying the spirit of\nthe age, in examining the religious condition of the time; for it is\nnot the work of a single man, or the effect of accident; it is the\nresult of a multitude of causes, the fruit of a great number of facts;\nit is an expression of the present state of intelligence; a symptom\nof strength and disease, an announcement of change and of transition,\nperhaps a sign of consolation, perhaps a presage of misfortune. And\nwho has not observed the fertility of imagination and unbounded reach\nof thought in that literature, so various, so irregular, and so vague,\nbut at the same time so rich in fine images, in delicate feeling, and\nin bold and generous thought? You may talk as much as you please of the\ndebasement of science, of the falling off in study. You may speak in\na tone of derision of the _lights of the age_, and turn with regret to\nages more studious and more learned; there will be some exaggeration,\ntruth and error, in all this, as there always is in declamation of\nthis kind; but whatever may be the degree of utility belonging to the\npresent labors of the human mind, never, perhaps, was there a time\nwhen it displayed more activity and energy, never was it agitated by\na movement so general, so lively, so various, and never, perhaps, did\nit desire, with a more excusable curiosity and impatience, to raise\na part of the veil which covers the boundless future. What will be\nable to govern elements so powerful and so opposite? What can calm\nthis tempestuous sea? What will give the union, the connection, the\nconsistency necessary to form, out of these repulsive and discordant\nelements, a whole compact and capable of resisting the action of time?\nWill this be done by Protestantism, with its fundamental principle\nwhich establishes and diffuses and sanctions the dissolving principle\nof private interpretation in matters of religion, and realizes this\nunhappy notion by circulating among all classes of society copies of\nthe Bible?\n\nNations numerous, proud of their power, vain of their knowledge,\nrendered dissipated by pleasure, refined by luxury, continually exposed\nto the powerful influence of the press, and possessing means of\ncommunication which would have appeared fabulous to their ancestors;\nnations in whom all the violent passions have an object, all intrigues\nan existence, all corruptions a veil, all crimes a title, all errors an\nadvocate, all interests a support; nations which, warned and deceived,\nstill vacillate in a state of dreadful uncertainty between truth and\nfalsehood; sometimes looking at the torch of truth as if they meant to\nbe guided by its light, and then again seduced by an _ignis fatuus_;\nsometimes making an effort to rule the storm, and then abandoning\nthemselves to its violence; modern nations show us a picture as\nextraordinary as it is interesting, where hopes, fears, prognostics,\nand conjectures have free scope, and nobody can pretend to predict with\naccuracy, and the wise man must await in silence the d\u00e9nouement marked\nout in the secret decrees of God, where alone are clearly written the\nevents of all time, and the future destinies of men.\n\nBut it may be easily understood that Protestantism, on account of its\nessentially dissolving nature, is incapable of producing any thing in\nmorals or religion to increase the happiness of nations, for it is\nimpossible for this happiness to exist as long as men's minds are at\nwar on the most important questions which can occupy them.\n\nWhen the observer, amid this chaos and obscurity, seeks for a ray of\nlight to illuminate the world--for a powerful principle capable of\nputting an end to so much confusion and anarchy, and of bringing back\nmen's minds to the path of truth, Catholicity immediately presents\nherself to him, as the only source of all these benefits. When we\nconsider with what _\u00e9clat_ and with what power Catholicity maintains\nherself against all the unprecedented attempts which are made to\ndestroy her, our hearts are filled with hope and consolation; and we\nfeel inclined to hail this divine religion, and to congratulate her on\nthe new triumph which she is about to achieve on earth.\n\nThere was a time when Europe, inundated by a torrent of barbarians,\nsaw at once overwhelmed all the monuments of ancient civilization\nand refinement. Legislators and their laws, the empire and its power\nand splendor, philosophers and the sciences, the arts and their\n_chef-d'\u0153uvres_, all disappeared; and those immense regions, where\nhad flourished all the civilization and refinement that had been\ngained during so many ages, were suddenly plunged into ignorance and\nbarbarism. Nevertheless, the spark of light which had appeared to the\nworld in Palestine, continued to shine amid the chaos: in vain did\nwhirlwinds threaten to extinguish it; kept alive by the breath of the\nEternal, it continued to shine. Ages rolled away, and it appeared with\ngreater brilliancy; and when, perchance, the nations only expected a\nbeam of light to guide them in the darkness, they found a resplendent\nsun, everywhere diffusing life and light: and who shall say that there\nis not reserved for her in the secrets of the Eternal, another triumph\nmore difficult, but not less useful, not less brilliant? If in other\ntimes that religion instructed ignorance, civilized barbarism, polished\nrudeness, softened ferocity, and preserved society from being always\nthe prey of the fiercest brutality and the most degrading stupidity,\nwill it be less glorious for her to correct ideas, to harmonize and\nrefine feelings, to establish the eternal principles of society, to\ncurb the passions, to remove animosities, to remove excesses, to\ngovern all minds and hearts? How honorable will it be to her, if,\nwhile regulating all things, and unceasingly stimulating all kinds\nof knowledge and improvement, she can inspire with a proper spirit\nof moderation that society which so many elements, devoid of central\nattraction, threaten every moment with dissolution and death!\n\nIt is not given to man to penetrate the future; but in the same way as\nthe physical world would be broken up by a terrible catastrophe, if it\nwere deprived for a moment of the fundamental principle which gives\nunity, order, and concert to the various movements of the system; in\nthe same way, if society, full as it is of motion, of communication,\nand life, were not placed under the direction of a constant and\nuniversal regulating principle, we could not fix our eyes on the lot of\nfuture generations without the greatest alarm.\n\nThere is, however, a fact which is consoling in the highest degree,\nviz. the wonderful progress which Catholicity has made in different\ncountries. It is gaining strength in France and Belgium: the obstinacy\nwith which it is combated in the north of Europe shows how much it\nis feared. In England its progress has been recently so great that\nit would not be credited without the most irresistible evidence; and\nin the foreign missions it has shown an extent of enterprise and\nfruitfulness, worthy of the time of its greatest ascendency and power.\n\nWhen other nations tend towards unity, shall we commit the gross\nmistake of adopting schism? at a time when other nations would be happy\nto find within their bosoms a vital principle capable of restoring the\npower which incredulity has destroyed, shall Spain, which preserves\nCatholicity, and alone possesses it full and complete, allow the germ\nof death to be introduced into her bosom, thereby rendering impossible\nthe cure of her evils, or rather entailing on herself complete and\ncertain ruin? Amid the moral regeneration towards which nations are\nadvancing, seeking to quit the painful position in which they have\nbeen placed by irreligious doctrines, is it possible to overlook the\nimmense advantage which Spain still preserves over most of them? Spain\nis one of those least affected by the gangrene of irreligion; she still\npreserves religious unity, that inestimable inheritance of a long\nline of ages. Is it possible to overlook the advantage of that unity\nif properly made use of, that unity which is mixed up with all our\nglories, which awakens such noble recollections, and which may be made\nso wonderful an instrument in the regeneration of social order?\n\nIf I am asked my opinion of the nearness of the danger, and if I think\nthe present attempts of Protestants have any probability of success,\nI must draw a distinction in my reply. Protestantism is extremely\nweak, both on account of its own nature, and of its age and decaying\ncondition. In endeavoring to introduce itself into Spain, it will\nhave to contend with an adversary full of life and strength, and\ndeeply rooted in the soil. This is the reason why I think that its\ndirect action is not to be feared; and yet, if it should succeed in\nestablishing itself in any part of our country, however limited may\nbe its domain, it is sure to produce fearful results. It is evident\nthat we shall then have in the midst of us a new apple of discord, and\nit is not difficult to foresee that collisions will frequently arise.\nProtestantism in Spain, besides its intrinsic weakness, will labor\nunder the disadvantage of not finding its natural aliment. Hence it\nwill be obliged to take advantage of any support that is offered; it\nwill immediately become the point of reunion for the discontented; and\nalthough failing in its intended object, it will succeed in becoming\nthe nucleus of new parties and the banner of factions. Scandal, strife,\ndemoralization, troubles, and perhaps catastrophes,--such will be the\nimmediate and infallible results of the introduction of Protestantism\namong us. On this point I appeal to the candid opinion of every man who\nis well acquainted with Spain. But this is not all: the question is\nenlarged, and acquires an incalculable importance, if we consider it\nwith reference to foreign politics. What a lever will be afforded to\nforeigners for all kinds of attempts in our unhappy country! How gladly\nwill those, who are perhaps on the look-out for such an aid, avail\nthemselves of it!\n\nThere is in Europe a nation remarkable for her immense power, and\nworthy of respect on account of the great progress which she has made\nin the arts and sciences; a nation that holds in her hands powerful\nmeans of action in all parts of the world, and knows how to use them\nwith wonderful discretion and sagacity. As that nation has taken the\nlead in modern times in passing through all the phases of political and\nreligious revolution, and has seen, during fearful convulsions, the\npassions in all their nakedness, and crime in all its forms, she is\nbetter acquainted than all others with their causes.\n\nNot misled by the vain names under which, at such periods, the lowest\npassions and the most sordid interests disguise themselves, she is too\nmuch on her guard to allow the troubles which have inundated other\ncountries with tears and blood, to be easily excited within herself.\nHer internal peace is not disturbed by the agitation and heat of\ndisputes; although she may expect to have to encounter, sooner or\nlater, difficulties and embarrassments, she enjoys, in the mean time,\nthe tranquillity which is secured to her by her constitution, her\nmanners, her riches,--and, above all, by the ocean which surrounds\nher. Placed in so advantageous a position, that nation watches the\nprogress of others, for the purpose of attaching them to her car by\ngolden chains, if they are simple enough to listen to her flattery; at\nleast she attempts to hinder their advance, when a noble independence\nis about to free them from her influence. Always attentive to her own\naggrandizement, by means of commerce and the arts, and by a policy\neminently mercantile, she hides her self-interest under all sorts of\ndisguises; and although religion and politics, where she has to do\nwith another people, are quite indifferent to her, she knows how to\nmake an adroit use of these powerful arms, to make friends, to defeat\nher enemies, and to enclose all within the net of commerce, which she\nis always extending in all quarters of the world. Her sagacity must\nnecessarily have perceived how much progress she will have made in\nadding Spain to the number of her colonies, when she has persuaded\nthe Spanish people to fraternize with her in religion; not so much on\naccount of the sympathy which such a fraternization would establish\nbetween them, as because she would find therein a sure method of\nstripping the Spanish people of that peculiar character and grave\nappearance which distinguishes them from all others, by depriving\nthem of the only national and regenerative idea which remains to them\nafter so many convulsions; from that moment, in truth, Spain, that\nproud nation, would be rendered accessible to all kinds of foreign\nimpressions, docile and pliable in bending to all opinions, and subject\nto the interests of her astute protectors. Let it not be forgotten\nthat there is no other nation that conceives her plans with so much\nforesight, prepares them with so much prudence, executes them with so\nmuch ability and perseverance. As she has remained since her great\nrevolutions, that is, since the end of the seventeenth century, in a\nsettled condition, and entirely free from the convulsions undergone\nsince that time by other European nations, she has been able to follow\na regular political system, both internal and external; and her\npoliticians have been formed to the perfect science of government, by\nconstantly inheriting the experience and views of their predecessors.\nHer statesmen well know how important it is to be prepared beforehand\nfor every event. They deeply study what may aid or impede them in\nother nations. They go out of the sphere of politics: they penetrate\nto the heart of every nation over which they propose to extend their\ninfluence: they examine what are the conditions of its existence; what\nis its vital principle; what are the causes of the strength and energy\nof every people.\n\nDuring the autumn of 1805, Pitt gave a dinner in the country to some\nof his friends. While thus engaged, a despatch was brought to him\nannouncing the surrender of Mack at Ulm, with 40,000 men, and the march\nof Napoleon on Vienna. Pitt communicated the fatal news to his friends,\nwho cried out, \"All is lost; there is no longer any resource against\nhim.\" \"There is one still left,\" replied the minister, \"if I can excite\na national war in Europe; and that war must begin in Spain.\" \"Yes,\ngentlemen,\" he added, \"Spain will be the first country to commence\nthe patriotic war which shall give liberty to Europe.\" Such was the\nimportance attributed by this profound statesman to a national idea;\nhe expected from it what the strength of all the governments could not\neffect, the downfall of Napoleon, and the liberation of Europe. But it\nnot uncommonly happens that the march of events is such, that these\nsame national ideas, which one time were the powerful auxiliaries of\nambitious cabinets, become, at another, the greatest obstacles; and\nthen, instead of encouraging, it becomes their interest to extinguish\nthem. As the nature of this work will not allow me to enter into the\ndetails of politics, I must content myself with appealing to the\njudgment of those who have observed the line of conduct pursued by\nEngland during our war and revolution, since the death of Ferdinand\nVII. If we consider what the interests of that powerful nation require\nfor the future, we may conjecture the part which she will take.\n\nThe means of saving a nation, by delivering it from interested\nprotectors, and of securing her real independence, are to be found in\ngreat and generous ideas, deeply rooted in the people; in feelings\nengraved on their hearts by the action of time, by the influence of\npowerful institutions, by ancient manners and customs; in fine, in that\nunity of religious thought, which makes a whole people as one man. Then\nthe past is united with the present, the present is connected with the\nfuture; then arises in the mind that enthusiasm which is the source of\ngreat deeds; then are found disinterestedness, energy, and constancy;\nbecause ideas are fixed and elevated, because hearts are great and\ngenerous.\n\nIt is not impossible that during one of the convulsions which disturb\nour unhappy country, men may arise amongst us blind enough to attempt\nto introduce the Protestant religion into Spain. We have had warnings\nenough to alarm us; we have not forgotten events which showed plainly\nenough how far some would sometimes have gone, if the great majority\nof the nation had not restrained them by their disapprobation. We\ndo not dread the outrages of the reign of Henry VIII.; but what we\ndo fear is, that advantage may be taken of a violent rupture with\nthe Holy See, of the obstinacy and ambition of some ecclesiastics,\nof the pretext of establishing toleration in our country, or some\nother pretext, to attempt to introduce amongst us, in some shape or\nother, the doctrines of Protestantism. We certainly have no need of\nimporting toleration from abroad; it already exists amongst us so\nfully, that no one is afraid of being disturbed on account of his\nreligious opinions. What would be thus introduced and established in\nSpain, would be a new system of religion, provided with every thing\nnecessary for gaining the upper hand; and for weakening, and, if\npossible, destroying Catholicity. Then would resound in our ears, with\na force constantly increasing, the fierce declamation which we have\nheard for several years; the vain threatenings of a party who are\ndelirious, because they are on the point of expiring. The aversion with\nwhich the nation regards the pretended Reformation, we have no doubt,\nwould be looked upon as rebellion; the pastorals of bishops would be\ntreated as insidious persuasions, and the fervent zeal of our priests\nas sedition; the unanimity of Catholics to preserve themselves from\ncontagion would be denounced as a diabolical conspiracy, devised by\nintolerance and party spirit, and executed by ignorance and fanaticism.\nAmid the efforts of the one party, and the resistance of the other,\nwe should see enacted, in a greater or less degree, the scenes of\ntimes gone by; and although the spirit of moderation, which is one of\nthe characteristics of this age, would not allow the perpetration of\nexcesses which have stained the annals of other nations, they would\nnot be without imitators. We must not forget that, with respect to\nreligion in Spain, we cannot calculate on the coldness and indifference\nwhich other nations would now display on a similar occasion. With the\nlatter, religious feelings have lost much of their force, but in Spain\nthey are still deep, lively, and energetic; and if they were to come\ninto open and avowed opposition to each other, the shock would be\nviolent and general. Although we have witnessed lamentable scandals,\nand even fearful catastrophes in religious matters, yet, up to this\ntime, perverse intentions have been always concealed by a mask, more\nor less transparent. Sometimes the attack was made against a person\ncharged with political machinations; sometimes against certain classes\nof citizens, who were accused of imaginary crimes. If, at times, the\nrevolution exceeded its bounds, it was said that it was impossible to\nrestrain it, and thus the vexations, the insults, the outrages heaped\nupon all that was most sacred upon earth, were only the inevitable\nresults, and the work of a mob that nothing could restrain. There\nhas always been more or less of disguise; but if the dogmas of\nCatholicity were attacked deliberately, and with _sang froid_; if\nthe most important points of discipline were trodden under foot; if\nthe most august mysteries were turned into ridicule, and the most\nholy ceremonies treated with public contempt; if church were raised\nagainst church, and pulpit against pulpit, what would be the result?\nIt is certain that minds would be very much exasperated; and if, as\nmight be feared, alarming explosions did not ensue, at least religious\ncontroversy would assume a character so violent that we should believe\nourselves transferred to the sixteenth century.\n\nIt is a common thing among us for the principles which prevail in\npolitics to be entirely opposed to those which rule in society; it may\nthen easily happen that a religious principle, rejected by society,\nmay find support among influential statesmen. We should then see\nreproduced, under more important circumstances, a phenomenon which\nwe have witnessed for so many years, viz. governments attempting to\nalter the course of society by force. This is one of the principal\ndifferences between our revolution and those of other countries; it\nis, at the same time, a key which explains the greatest anomalies.\nEverywhere else revolutionary ideas took possession of society, and\nafterwards extended themselves to the sphere of politics; with us they\nfirst ruled in the political sphere, and afterwards strove to descend\ninto the social sphere; society was far from being prepared for such\ninnovations; this was the cause of shocks so violent and so frequent.\nIt is on account of this want of harmony that the government of Spain\nexercises so little influence over the people; I mean by influence,\nthat moral ascendency which does not require to be accompanied by\nthe idea of force. There is no doubt that this is an evil, since it\ntends to weaken that authority which is indispensably necessary for\nall societies. But on more than one occasion it has been a great\nbenefit. It is no slight advantage that in presence of a senseless and\ninconstant government there is found a society full of calmness and\nwisdom, and that that society pursues its quiet and majestic march,\nwhile the government is carried away by rashness. We may expect much\nfrom the right instinct of the Spanish nation, from her proverbial\ngravity, which so many misfortunes have only augmented, and from\nthat fact, which teaches her so well how to discern the true path to\nhappiness, by rendering her deaf to the insidious suggestions of those\nwho seek to lead her astray. Although for so many years, owing to a\nfatal combination of circumstances, and a want of harmony between\nthe social and political order, Spain has not been able to obtain a\ngovernment which understands her feelings and instincts, follows her\ninclinations, and promotes her prosperity, we still cherish the hope\nthat the day will come when from her own bosom, so fertile in future\nlife, will come forth the harmony which she seeks, and the equilibrium\nwhich she has lost. In the mean time, it is of the highest importance\nthat all men who have a Spanish heart in their breasts, and who do\nnot wish to see the vitals of their country torn to pieces, should\nunite and act in concert to preserve her from the genius of evil.\nTheir unanimity will prevent the seeds of perpetual discord from being\nscattered upon our soil, will ward off this additional calamity, and\nwill preserve from destruction those precious germs, whence may arise,\nwith renovated vigor, our civilization, which has been so much injured\nby disastrous events.\n\nThe soul is overwhelmed with painful apprehensions at the thought\nthat a day may come when religious unity will be banished from among\nus; that unity which is identified with our habits, our customs, our\nmanners, our laws; which guarded the cradle of our monarchy in the\ncavern of Covadonga, and which was the emblem on our standard during\na struggle of eight centuries against the formidable crescent; that\nunity which developed and illustrated our civilization in times of the\ngreatest difficulty; that unity which followed our terrible _tercios_,\nwhen they imposed silence upon Europe; which led our sailors when they\ndiscovered the new world, and guided them when they for the first time\nmade the circuit of the globe; that unity which sustains our soldiers\nin their most heroic exploits, and which, at a recent period, gave the\nclimax to their many glorious deeds in the downfall of Napoleon. You\nwho condemn so rashly the work of ages; you who offer so many insults\nto the Spanish nation, and who treat as barbarism and ignorance the\nregulating principle of our civilization, do you know what it is you\ninsult? Do you know what inspired the genius of Gonzalva, of Ferdinando\nCortez, of the conqueror of Lepanto? Do not the shades of Garcilazo,\nof Herrara, of Ercilla, of Fray Luis de Leon, of Cervantes, of Lope de\nVega, inspire you with any respect? Can you venture to break the tie\nwhich connects us with them, to make us the unworthy posterity of these\ngreat men? Do you wish to place an impassable barrier between their\nfaith and ours, between their manners and ours, to make us destroy all\nour traditions, and to forget our most inspiring recollections? Do you\nwish to preserve the great and august monuments of our ancestors' piety\namong us only as a severe and eloquent reproach? Will you consent to\nsee dried up the most abundant fountains to which we can have recourse\nto revive literature, to strengthen science, to reorganize legislation,\nto re-establish the spirit of nationality, to restore our glory, and\nreplace this nation in the high position which her virtues merit, by\nrestoring to her the peace and happiness which she seeks with so much\nanxiety, and which her heart requires?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nCATHOLICITY AND PROTESTANTISM IN RELATION TO SOCIAL PROGRESS.\nPRELIMINARY COUP D'\u0152IL.\n\n\nAfter having placed Catholicity and Protestantism in contrast, in a\nreligious point of view, in the picture which I have just drawn; after\nhaving shown the superiority of the one over the other, not only in\ncertainty, but also in all that regards the instincts, the feelings,\nthe ideas, the characteristics of the human mind, it seems to me proper\nto approach another question, certainly not less important, but much\nless understood, and in the examination of which we shall have to\ncontend against strong antipathies, and to dissipate many prejudices\nand errors. Amid the difficulties by which the question that I am\nabout to undertake is surrounded, I am supported by a strong hope\nthat the interest of the subject, and its analogy with the scientific\ntaste of the age, will invite a perusal; and that I shall thereby\navoid the danger which commonly threatens those who write in favor\nof the Catholic religion, that of being judged without being heard.\nThe question may be stated thus: \"When we compare Catholicity and\nProtestantism, which do we find the most favorable to real liberty, to\nthe real progress of nations, to the cause of civilization?\" Liberty!\nThis is one of those words which are as generally employed as they are\nlittle understood; words which, because they contain a certain vague\nidea, easily perceived, present the deceptive appearance of perfect\nclearness, while, on account of the multitude and variety of objects\nto which they apply, they are susceptible of a variety of meanings,\nand, consequently, are extremely difficult to comprehend. Who can\nreckon the number of applications made of the word liberty? There is\nalways found in this word a certain radical idea, but the modifications\nand graduations to which the idea is subject are infinite. The air\ncirculates with liberty; we move the soil around the plant, to enable\nit to grow and increase with liberty; we clean out the bed of a stream\nto allow it to flow with liberty; when we set free a fish in a net,\nor a bird in a cage, we give them their liberty; we treat a friend\nwith freedom; we have free methods, free thoughts, free expressions,\nfree successions, free will, free actions; a prisoner has no liberty;\nnor have boys, girls, or married people; a man behaves with greater\nfreedom in a foreign country; soldiers are not free; there are men\nfree from conscription, from contributions; we have free votes, free\nacknowledgments, free interpretation, free evidence; freedom of\ncommerce, of instruction, of the press, of conscience; civil freedom,\nand political freedom; we have freedom just, unjust, rational,\nirrational, moderate, excessive, limited, licentious, seasonable,\nunseasonable. But I need not pursue the endless enumeration. It seemed\nto me necessary to dwell upon it for a moment, even at the risk of\nfatiguing the reader; perhaps the remembrance of all this may serve to\nengrave deeply on our minds the truth, that when, in conversation, in\nwriting, in public discussions, in laws, this word is so frequently\nemployed as applied to objects of the highest importance, it is\nnecessary to consider maturely the number and nature of the ideas which\nit embraces in the particular case, the meaning that the subject needs,\nthe modifications which the circumstances require, and the precaution\ndemanded in the case.\n\nWhatever may be the acceptation in which the word liberty is taken, it\nis apparent that it always implies the absence of a cause restraining\nthe exercise of a power. Hence it follows that, in order to fix in\neach case the real meaning of the word, it is indispensable to pay\nattention to the circumstances as well as to the nature of the power,\nthe exercise of which is to be prevented or limited, without losing\nsight of the various objects to which it applies, the conditions of\nits exercise, as also the character, power, and extent of the means\nwhich are employed to restrain it. To explain this matter, let it be\nproposed to form a judgment on the proposition, \"Man ought to enjoy\nliberty of thought.\"\n\nIt is here affirmed that freedom of thought in man ought not to be\nrestrained; but do you speak of physical force exercised directly\non thought itself? In that case the proposition is entirely vain;\nfor as such an application of force is impossible, it is useless to\nsay that it ought not to be employed. Do you mean to say that it is\nnot allowable to restrain the expression of thought; that is to say,\nthat the liberty of manifesting thought ought not to be hindered or\nrestrained? You have, then, made a great step, you have placed the\nquestion on a different footing. Or if you do not mean to say that\nevery man, at all times, in all places, and on all subjects, has a\nright to give utterance to all that comes into his head, and that\nin any way he may think proper, you must then specify the things,\nthe persons, the places, the times, the subjects, the conditions; in\nshort, you must note a variety of circumstances, you must prohibit\naltogether in some cases, limit in others, bind in some, loosen in\nothers; in fine, make so many restrictions, that you will make little\nprogress in establishing your general principle of freedom of thought,\nwhich at first appeared so simple and so clear. Even in the sanctuary\nof thought, where human sight does not extend, and which is open to\nthe eye of God alone, what means the liberty of thought? Is it owing\nto chance that laws are imposed on thought to which it is obliged to\nsubmit under pain of losing itself in chaos? Can it despise the rules\nof sound reason? Can it refuse to listen to the counsels of good sense?\nCan it forget that its object is truth? Can it disregard the eternal\nprinciples of morality? Thus we find, in examining the meaning of the\nword liberty, even as applied to what is certainly freer than any\nthing else in man, viz. thought--we find such a number and variety of\nmeanings that we are forced to make many distinctions, and necessity\ncompels us to limit the general proposition, if we wish to avoid saying\nany thing in opposition to the dictates of reason and good sense, the\neternal laws of morality, the interests of individuals, and the peace\nand preservation of society. And what may not be said of so many claims\nof liberty which are constantly propounded in language intentionally\nvague and equivocal?\n\nI avail myself of these examples to prevent a confusion of ideas; for\nin defending the cause of Catholicity, I have no need of pleading for\noppression, or of applauding tyranny, or of approving the conduct of\nthose who have trodden under foot men's most sacred rights. Yes, I\nsay, sacred; for after the august religion of Jesus Christ has been\npreached, man is sacred in the eyes of other men on account of his\norigin and divine destiny, on account of the image of God which is\nreflected in him, and because he has been redeemed with ineffable\ngoodness and love by the Son of the Eternal. This divine religion\ndeclares the rights of man to be sacred; for its august Founder\nthreatens with eternal punishment not only those who kill a man, those\nwho mutilate or rob him, but even those who offend him in words:\n\"He who shall say to his brother, Thou fool, shall be in danger of\nhell-fire.\" (Matt. v. 22.) Thus speaks our divine Lord.\n\nOur hearts swell with generous indignation, when we hear the religion\nof Jesus Christ reproached with a tendency towards oppression. It is\ntrue that, if you confound the spirit of real liberty with that of\ndemagogues, you will not find it in Catholicity; but, if you avoid a\nmonstrous misnomer, if you give to the word liberty its reasonable,\njust, useful, and beneficial signification, then the Catholic religion\nmay fearlessly claim the gratitude of the human race, _for she has\ncivilized the nations who embraced her, and civilization is true\nliberty_.\n\nIt is a fact now generally acknowledged, and openly confessed, that\nChristianity has exercised a very important and salutary influence on\nthe development of European civilization; if this fact has not yet\nhad given to it the importance which it deserves, it is because it\nhas not been sufficiently appreciated. With respect to civilization,\na distinction is sometimes made between the influence of Christianity\nand that of Catholicity; its merits are lavished on the former, and\nstinted to the latter, by those who forget that, with respect to\nEuropean civilization, Catholicity can always claim the principal\nshare; and, for many centuries, an exclusive one; since, during a very\nlong period, she worked alone at the great work. People have not been\nwilling to see that, when Protestantism appeared in Europe, the work\nwas bordering on completion; with an injustice and ingratitude which\nI cannot describe, they have reproached Catholicity with the spirit\nof barbarism, ignorance, and oppression, while they were making an\nostentatious display of the rich civilization, knowledge, and liberty,\nfor which they were principally indebted to her.\n\nIf they did not wish to fathom the intimate connection between\nCatholicity and European civilization, if they had not the patience\nnecessary for the long investigations into which this examination would\nlead them, at least it would have been proper to take a glance at the\ncondition of countries where the Catholic religion has not exerted all\nher influence during centuries of trouble, and compare them with those\nin which she has been predominant. The East and the West, both subject\nto great revolutions, both professing Christianity, but in such a way\nthat the Catholic principle was weak and vacillating in the East, while\nit was energetic and deeply rooted in the West; these, we say, would\nhave afforded two very good points of comparison to estimate the value\nof Christianity without Catholicity, when the civilization and the\nexistence of nations were at stake. In the West, the revolutions were\nmultiplied and fearful; the chaos was at its height; and, nevertheless,\nout of chaos came light and life. Neither the barbarism of the nations\nwho inundated those countries, and established themselves there, nor\nthe furious assaults of Islamism, even in the days of its greatest\npower and enthusiasm, could succeed in destroying the germs of a rich\nand fertile civilization. In the East, on the contrary, all tended\nto old age and decay; nothing revived; and, under the blows of the\npower which was ineffectual against us, all was shaken to pieces. The\nspiritual power of Rome, and its influence on temporal affairs, have\ncertainly borne fruits very different from those produced, under the\nsame circumstances, by its violent opponents.\n\nIf Europe were destined one day again to undergo a general and fearful\nrevolution, either by a universal spread of revolutionary ideas or by\na violent invasion of social and proprietary rights by pauperism; if\nthe colossus of the North, seated on its throne amid eternal snows,\nwith knowledge in its head, and blind force in its hands, possessing\nat once the means of civilization, and unceasingly turning towards\nthe East, the South, and the West that covetous and crafty look which\nin history is the characteristic march of all invading empires; if,\navailing itself of a favorable moment, it were to make an attempt on\nthe independence of Europe, then we should perhaps have a proof of\nthe value of the Catholic principle in a great extremity; then we\nshould feel the power of the unity which is proclaimed and supported\nby Catholicity, and while calling to mind the middle ages, we should\ncome to acknowledge one of the causes of the weakness of the East and\nthe strength of the West. Then would be remembered a fact, which,\nthough but of yesterday, is falling into oblivion, viz. that the nation\nwhose heroic courage broke the power of Napoleon was proverbially\nCatholic; and who knows whether, in the attempts made in Russia against\nCatholicity, attempts which the Vicar of Jesus Christ has deplored\nin such touching language--who knows whether there be not the secret\ninfluence of a presentiment, perhaps even a foresight of the necessity\nof weakening that sublime power, which has been in all ages, when the\ncause of humanity was in question, the centre of great attempts? But\nlet us return.\n\nIt cannot be denied that, since the sixteenth century, European\ncivilization has shown life and brilliancy; but it is a mistake to\nattribute this phenomenon to Protestantism. In order to examine the\nextent and influence of a fact, we ought not to be content with the\nevents which have followed it; it is also necessary to consider whether\nthese events were already prepared; whether they are any thing more\nthan the necessary result of anterior facts; and we must take care\nnot to reason in a way which is justly declared to be sophistical\nby logicians, _post hoc, ergo propter hoc_: after that, therefore\non account of it. Without Protestantism, and before it, European\ncivilization was already very much advanced, thanks to the labors and\ninfluence of the Catholic religion; the greatness and splendor which it\nsubsequently displayed were not owing to it, but arose in spite of it.\n\nErroneous ideas on this matter have arisen from the fact, that\nChristianity has not been deeply studied; and that, without entering\ninto a serious examination of Church history, men have too often\ncontented themselves with taking a superficial view of the principles\nof brotherhood which she has so much recommended. In order fully to\nunderstand an institution, it is not enough to remain satisfied with\nits leading ideas; it is necessary to follow all its steps, see how it\nrealizes its ideas, and how it triumphs over the obstacles that oppose\nit. We shall never form a complete idea of an historical fact, unless\nwe carefully study its history. Now the study of Church history in\nits relations with civilization, is still incomplete. It is not that\necclesiastical history has not been profoundly studied; but it may be\nsaid that since the spirit of social analysis has been developed, that\nhistory has not yet been made the subject of those admirable labors\nwhich have thrown so much light upon it in a critical and dogmatical\npoint of view.\n\nAnother impediment to the complete comprehension of this matter is,\nthat an exaggerated importance is given to the intentions of men, and\nthe great march of events is too much neglected. The greatness of\nevents is measured, and their nature judged of, by the immediate means\nwhich produces them, and the objects of the men whose actions are\ntreated of; this is a very important error. The eye ought to range over\na wider field; we ought to observe the successive development of ideas,\nthe influence which they have exercised on events, the institutions\nwhich have sprung from them; but it is necessary to see all these\nthings as they are in themselves, that is, on a large scale, without\nstopping to consider particular and isolated facts. It is an important\ntruth, which ought to be deeply engraven on the mind, that when one\nof those great facts which change the lot of a considerable portion\nof the human race is developed, it is rarely understood by those who\ntake part in it, and figure as the principal actors. The march of\nhumanity is a grand drama; the parts are played by persons who pass\nby and disappear: man is very little; God alone is great. Neither the\nactors who figured on the scene in the ancient empires of the East, nor\nAlexander invading Asia and reducing numberless nations into servitude,\nnor the Romans subjugating the world, nor the barbarians overturning\nthe empire and breaking it in pieces, nor the Mussulmen ruling Asia and\nAfrica and menacing the independence of Europe, knew, or could know,\nthat they were the instruments in the great designs whereof we admire\nthe execution.\n\nI mean to show from this, that when we have to do with Christian\ncivilization, when we collect and analyze the facts which distinguish\nits march, it is not necessary, or even often proper, to suppose that\nthe men who have contributed to it in the most remarkable manner\nunderstood, to the full extent, the results of their own efforts. It\nis glory enough for a man to be pointed out as the chosen instrument\nof Providence, without the necessity of attributing to him great\nability or lofty ambition. It is enough to observe that a ray of\nlight has descended from heaven and illumined his brow; it is of\nlittle importance whether he foresaw that this ray, by reflection,\nwas destined to shed a brilliant light on future generations. Little\nmen are commonly smaller than they think themselves, but great men\nare often greater than they imagine; if they do not know all their\ngrandeur, it is because they are ignorant that they are the instruments\nof the high designs of Providence. Another observation which we ought\nalways to have present in the study of these great events is, that we\nshould not expect to find there a system, the connection and harmony\nof which are apparent at the first _coup d'\u0153il_. We must expect to\nsee some irregularities and objects of an unpleasant aspect; it is\nnecessary to guard against the childish impatience of anticipating the\ntime; it is indispensable to abandon that desire which we always have,\nin a greater or less degree, and which always urges us to seek every\nthing in conformity with our own ideas, and to see every thing advance\nin the way most pleasing to us.\n\nDo you not see nature herself so varied, so rich, so grand, lavish\nher treasures in disorder, hide her inestimable precious stones and\nher most valuable veins of metal in masses of earth? See how she\npresents huge chains of mountains, inaccessible rocks, and fearful\nprecipices, in contrast with her wide and smiling plains. Do you not\nobserve this apparent disorder, this prodigality, in the midst of which\nnumberless agents work, in secret concert, to produce the admirable\nwhole which enchants our eyes and ravishes the lover of nature? So\nwith society; the facts are dispersed, scattered here and there,\nfrequently offering no appearance of order or concert; events succeed\neach other, act on each other, without the design being discovered; men\nunite, separate, co-operate, and contend, and nevertheless time, that\nindispensable agent in the production of great works, goes on, and all\nis accomplished according to the destinies marked out in the secrets of\nthe Eternal.\n\nThis is the march of humanity; this is the rule for the philosophic\nstudy of history; this is the way to comprehend the influence of those\nproductive ideas, of those powerful institutions, which from time to\ntime appear among men to change the face of the earth. When in a study\nof this kind we discover acting at the bottom of things a productive\nidea, a powerful institution, the mind, far from being frightened\nat meeting with some irregularities, is inspired, on the contrary,\nwith fresh courage; for it is a sure sign that the idea is full of\ntruth, that the institution is fraught with life, when we see them\npass through the chaos of ages, and come safe out of the frightful\nordeals. Of what importance is it that certain men were not influenced\nby the idea, that they did not answer the object of the institution,\nif the latter has survived its revolutions, and the former has not\nbeen swallowed up in the stormy sea of the passions? To mention the\nweaknesses, the miseries, the faults, the crimes of men, is to make the\nmost eloquent apology for the idea and the institution.\n\nIn viewing men in this way, we do not take them out of their proper\nplaces, and we do not require from them more than is reasonable. We\nsee them enclosed in the deep bed of the great torrent of events,\nand we do not attribute to their intellects, or to their will, any\nthing that exceeds the sphere appointed for them; we do not, however,\nfail to appreciate in a proper manner the nature and the greatness\nof the works in which they take part, but we avoid giving to them an\nexaggerated importance, by honoring them with eulogiums which they do\nnot deserve, or reproaching them unjustly. Times and circumstances\nare not monstrously confounded; the observer sees with calmness and\n_sang froid_ the events which pass before his eyes; he speaks not of\nthe empire of Charlemagne as he would of that of Napoleon, and is not\nhurried into bitter invectives against Gregory VII. because he did not\nadopt the same line of political conduct as Gregory XVI.\n\nObserve that I do not ask from the philosophical historian an impassive\nindifference to good and evil, to justice and injustice; I do not claim\nindulgence for vice, nor would I refuse to virtue its eulogy. I have\nno sympathy with that school of historic fatalism, which would bring\nback to the world the destiny of the ancients; a school which, if it\nacquired influence, would corrupt the best part of history, and stifle\nthe most generous emotions. I see in the march of society a plan, a\nharmony, but not a blind necessity; I do not believe that events are\nmingled up together indiscriminately in the dark urn of destiny, nor\nthat fatalism holds the world enclosed in an iron circle. But I see a\nwonderful chain stretching over the course of centuries, a chain which\ndoes not fetter the movements of individuals or of nations, and which\naccommodates itself to the ebb and flow which are required by the\nnature of things; at its touch great thoughts arise in the minds of\nmen: this golden chain is suspended by the hand of the Eternal, it is\nthe work of infinite intelligence and ineffable love.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nDID THERE EXIST AT THE EPOCH WHEN CHRISTIANITY APPEARED ANY OTHER\nPRINCIPLE OF REGENERATION?\n\n\nIn what condition did Christianity find the world? This is a question\nwhich ought to fix all our attention, if we wish to appreciate\ncorrectly the blessings conferred by that divine religion on\nindividuals and on society, if we are desirous of knowing the real\ncharacter of Christian civilization. Certainly at the time when\nChristianity appeared, society presented a dark picture. Covered with\nfine appearances, but infected to the heart with a mortal malady,\nit presented an image of the most repugnant corruption, veiled by\na brilliant garb of ostentation and opulence. Morality was without\nreality, manners without modesty, the passions without restraint, laws\nwithout authority, and religion without God. Ideas were at the mercy\nof prejudices, of religious fanaticism, and philosophical subtilties.\nMan was a profound mystery to himself; he did not know how to estimate\nhis own dignity, for he reduced it to the level of brutes; and when\nhe attempted to exaggerate its importance, he did not know how to\nconfine it within the limits marked out by reason and nature: and it\nis well worthy of observation, that while a great part of the human\nrace groaned in the most abject servitude, heroes, and even the most\nabominable monsters, were elevated to the rank of gods.\n\nSuch elements must, sooner or later, have produced social dissolution.\nEven if the violent irruption of the barbarians had not taken place,\nsociety must have been overturned sooner or later, for it did not\npossess a fertile idea, a consoling thought, or a beam of hope, to\npreserve it from ruin.\n\nIdolatry had lost its strength; it was an expedient exhausted by time\nand by the gross abuse which the passions had made of it. Its fragile\ntissue once exposed to the dissolving influence of philosophical\nobservation, idolatry was entirely disgraced; and if the rooted force\nof habit still exercised a mechanical influence on the minds of\nmen, that influence was neither capable of re-establishing harmony\nin society, nor of producing that fiery enthusiasm which inspires\ngreat actions--enthusiasm which in virgin hearts may be excited by\nsuperstition the most irrational and absurd. To judge of them by the\nrelaxation of morals, by the enervated weakness of character, by the\neffeminate luxury, by the complete abandonment to the most repulsive\namusements and the most shameful pleasures, it is clear that religious\nideas no longer possessed the majesty of the heroic age; no longer\nefficacious, they only exerted on men's minds a feeble influence, while\nthey served in a lamentable manner as instruments of dissolution. Now\nit was impossible for it to be otherwise: nations who had obtained\nthe high degree of cultivation of the Greeks and Romans; nations\nwho had heard their great sages dispute on the grand questions of\ndivinity and man, could not continue in the state of simplicity which\nwas necessary to believe with good faith the intolerable absurdities\nof which Paganism is full; and whatever may have been the disposition\nof mind among the ignorant portion of the people, assuredly those who\nwere raised above the common standard did not believe them--those\nwho listened to philosophers as enlightened as Cicero, and who daily\nenjoyed the malicious railleries of their satirical poets.\n\nIf religion was impotent, was there not another means, viz. knowledge?\nBefore we examine what was to be hoped from this, it is necessary to\nobserve, that knowledge never founded a society, nor was it ever able\nto restore one that had lost its balance. In looking over the history\nof ancient times, we find at the head of some nations eminent men\nwho, thanks to the magic influence which they exercised over others,\ndictated laws, corrected abuses, rectified ideas, reformed morals, and\nestablished a government on wise principles; thus securing, in a more\nor less satisfactory manner, the happiness and prosperity of those\nwho were confided to their care. But we should be much mistaken if we\nimagined that these men proceeded according to what we call scientific\ncombinations. Generally simple and rude, they acted according to the\nimpulses of their generous hearts, only guided by the wisdom and good\nsense of the father of a family in the management of his domestic\naffairs: never did these men adopt for their rule the wretched\nsubtilties which we call theories, the crude mass of ideas which we\ndisguise under the pompous name of science. Were the most distinguished\ndays of Greece those of Plato and Aristotle? The proud Romans, who\nconquered the world, certainly had not the extent and variety of\nknowledge of the Augustan age; and yet who would exchange the times or\nthe men?\n\nModern times also can show important evidences of the sterility of\nscience in creating social institutions; which is the more evident as\nthe practical effects of the natural sciences are the more visible. It\nseems that in the latter sciences man has a power which he has not in\nthe former; although, when the matter is fully examined, the difference\ndoes not appear so great as at the first view.\n\nLet us briefly compare their respective results.\n\nWhen man seeks to apply the knowledge which he has acquired of the\ngreat laws of nature, he finds himself compelled to pay respect to\nher; as, whatever might be his wishes, his weak arm could not cause\nany great _bouleversement_, he is obliged to make his attempts limited\nin extent, and the desire of success induces him to act in conformity\nwith the laws which govern the bodies he has to do with. It is quite\notherwise with the application made of the social sciences. There man\nis able to act directly and immediately on society itself, on its\neternal foundations; he does not consider himself necessarily bound\nto make his attempts on a small scale, or to respect the eternal laws\nof society; he is able, on the contrary, to imagine those laws as\nhe pleases, indulge in as many subtilties as he thinks proper, and\nbring about disasters which humanity laments. Let us remember the\nextravagances which have found favor, with respect to nature, in the\nschools of philosophy, ancient and modern, and we shall see what would\nhave become of the admirable machine of the universe, if philosophers\nhad had full power over it. Descartes said, \"Give me matter and motion,\nand I will form a world!\" He could not derange an atom in the system of\nthe universe. Rousseau, in his turn, dreamed of placing society on a\nnew basis, and he upset the social state. It must not be forgotten that\nscience, properly so called, has little power in the organization of\nsociety: this ought to be remembered in modern times, when it boasts so\nmuch of its pretended fertility. It attributes to its own labors what\nis the fruit of the lapse of ages, of the instinctive law of nations,\nand sometimes of the inspirations of genius; now neither this instinct\nof nations nor genius at all resembles science.\n\nBut without pushing any further these general considerations, which\nare, nevertheless, very useful in leading us to a knowledge of man,\nwhat could be hoped from the false light of science which was preserved\nin the ruins of the ancient schools at the time we are speaking of?\nHowever limited the knowledge of the ancient philosophers, even the\nmost distinguished, may have been on these subjects, we must allow that\nthe names of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle command some degree of\nrespect, and that amid their errors and mistakes they give us thoughts\nwhich are really worthy of their lofty genius. But when Christianity\nappeared, the germs of knowledge planted by them had been destroyed;\ndreams had taken the place of high and fruitful thoughts, the love of\ndisputation had replaced that of wisdom, sophistry and subtilties had\nbeen substituted for mature judgment and severe reasoning. The ancient\nschools had been upset, others as sterile as they were strange had\nbeen formed out of their ruins; on all sides there appeared a swarm\nof sophists like the impure insects which announce the corruption\nof a dead body. The Church has preserved for us a very valuable\nmeans of judging of the science of that time, in the history of the\nearly heresies. Without speaking of what therein deserves all our\nindignation, as, for example, their profound immorality, can we find\nany thing more empty, absurd, or pitiable?[14]\n\nThe Roman legislation, so praiseworthy for its justice and equity, its\nwisdom and prudence, and much as it deserves to be regarded as one of\nthe most precious ornaments of ancient civilization, was yet incapable\nof preventing the dissolution with which society was threatened.\nNever did it owe its safety to jurisconsults; so great a work is\nbeyond the sphere of action of jurisprudence. Let us suppose the laws\nas perfect as possible, jurisprudence carried to the highest point,\njurisconsults animated by the purest feelings and guided by the most\nhonest intentions, what would all this avail if the heart of society is\ncorrupt, if moral principles have lost their force, if manners are in\ncontinual opposition with laws? Let us consider the picture of Roman\nmanners such as their own historians have painted them; we shall not\nfind even a reflection of the equity, justice, and good sense which\nmade the Roman laws deserve the glorious name of written reason.\n\nTo give a proof of impartiality, I purposely omit the blemishes from\nwhich the Roman law was certainly not exempt, for I do not desire\nto be accused of wishing to lower every thing which is not the work\nof Christianity. Yet I must not pass over in silence the important\nfact, that it is by no means true that Christianity had no share in\nperfecting the jurisprudence of Rome; I do not mean merely during the\nperiod of the Christian emperors, which does not admit of a doubt, but\neven at a prior period. It is certain that some time before the coming\nof Jesus Christ the number of the Roman laws was very considerable,\nand that their study and arrangement already occupied the attention of\nmany of the most illustrious men. We know from Suetonius (_In C\u00e6sar._\nc. 44) that Julius C\u00e6sar had undertaken the extremely useful task of\ncondensing into a small number of books those which were the most\nselect and necessary among the immense collection of laws; a similar\nidea occurred to Cicero, who wrote a book on the methodical digest of\nthe civil law (_de jure civili in arte redigendo_), as Aulus Gellius\nattests. (_Noct. Att._ lib. i. c. 22.) According to Tacitus, this work\nalso occupied the attention of the Emperor Augustus. Certainly these\nprojects show that legislation was not in its infancy; but it is not\nthe less true that the Roman law, as we possess it, is in great part\nthe product of later ages. Many of the most famous jurists, whose\nopinions form a considerable part of the law, lived long after the\ncoming of Jesus Christ. As to the constitutions of the emperors, their\nvery names remind us of the time when they were digested.\n\nThese facts being established, I shall observe that it does not follow\nthat because the emperors and jurists were pagans, the Christian\nideas had no influence on their works. The number of Christians was\nimmense in all places; the cruelty alone with which they had been\npersecuted, the heroic courage which they had displayed in the face\nof torments and death, must have drawn upon them the attention of the\nwhole world; and it is impossible that this should not have excited,\namong men of reflection, curiosity enough to examine what this new\nreligion taught its proselytes. The reading of the apologies for\nChristianity already written in the first ages with so much force of\nreasoning and eloquence, the works of various kinds published by the\nearly Fathers, the homilies of Bishops to their people, contain so\nmuch wisdom, breathe such a love for truth and justice, and proclaim\nso loudly the eternal principles of morality, that it was impossible\nfor their influence not to be felt even by those who condemned the\nreligion of Christ. When doctrines having for their object the greatest\nquestions which affect man are spread everywhere, propagated with\nfervent zeal, received with love by a considerable number of disciples,\nand maintained by the talent and knowledge of illustrious men, these\ndoctrines make a profound impression in all directions, and affect\neven those who warmly combat them. Their influence in this case is\nimperceptible, but it is not the less true and real. They act like the\nexhalations which impregnate the atmosphere; with the air we inhale\nsometimes death, and sometimes a salutary odor which purifies and\nstrengthens us.\n\nSuch must necessarily have been the case with a doctrine which was\npreached in so extraordinary a manner, propagated with so much\nrapidity, and the truth of which, sealed by torrents of blood, was\ndefended by writers such as Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Iren\u00e6us,\nand Tertullian. The profound wisdom, the ravishing beauty of these\ndoctrines, explained by the Christian doctors, must have called\nattention to the sources whence they flowed; it was natural that\ncuriosity thus excited should put the holy Scriptures into the hands\nof many philosophers and jurists. Would it be strange if Epictetus had\nimbibed some of the doctrines of the Sermon on the Mount, and if the\noracles of jurisprudence had imperceptibly received the inspiration\nof a religion whose power, spreading in a wonderful manner, took\npossession of all ranks of society? Burning zeal for truth and justice,\nthe spirit of brotherhood, grand ideas of the dignity of man, the\ncontinued themes of Christian instruction, could not remain confined\namong the children of the Church. More or less rapidly they penetrated\nall classes; and when, by the conversion of Constantine, they acquired\npolitical influence and imperial authority, it was only the repetition\nof an ordinary phenomenon; when a system has become very powerful\nin the social order, it ends by exerting an empire, or at least an\ninfluence, in the political.\n\nI leave these observations to the judgment of thinking men with perfect\nconfidence; I am sure that if they do not adopt them, at least they\nwill not consider them unworthy of reflection. We live at a time\nfruitful in great events, and when important revolutions have taken\nplace; therefore we are better able to understand the immense effects\nof indirect and slow influences, the powerful ascendency of ideas, and\nthe irresistible force with which doctrines work their way.\n\nTo this want of vital principles capable of regenerating society,\nto all those elements of dissolution which society contained within\nitself, was joined another evil of no slight importance,--the vice\nof its political organization. The world being under the yoke of\nRome, hundreds of nations differing in manners and customs were\nheaped together in confusion, like spoils on the field of battle,\nand constrained to form a factitious body, like trophies placed upon\na spear. The unity of the government being violent, could not be\nadvantageous; and moreover, as it was despotic, from the emperor down\nto the lowest proconsul, it will be seen that it could not produce\nany other result than the debasement and degradation of nations, and\nthat it was impossible for them to display that elevation and energy\nof character which are the precious fruit of a feeling of self-dignity\nand love for national independence. If Rome had preserved her ancient\nmanners, if she had retained in her bosom warriors as celebrated for\nthe simplicity and austerity of their lives as for the renown of their\nvictories, some of the qualities of the conquerors might have been\ncommunicated to the conquered, as a young and robust heart reanimates\nwith its vigor a body attenuated by disease. Unfortunately such was not\nthe case. The Fabiuses, the Camilluses, the Scipios, would not have\nacknowledged their unworthy posterity; Rome, the mistress of the world,\nlike a slave, was trodden under the feet of monsters who mounted to the\nthrone by perjury and violence, stained their sceptres with corruption\nand cruelty, and fell by the hands of assassins. The authority of the\nSenate and people had disappeared; only vain imitations of them were\nleft, _vestigia morientis libertatis_, as Tacitus calls them, vestiges\nof expiring liberty; and this royal people, who formerly disposed of\nkingdoms, consulships, legions, and all, then thought only of two\nthings, food and games,\n\n \"Qui dabat olim\n Imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se\n Continet, atque duas tantum res anxius optat,\n Panem et Circenses.\"--JUVENAL, _Satire_ X.\n\nAt length, in the plenitude of time Christianity appeared; and without\nannouncing any change in political forms, without intermeddling in\nthe temporal and earthly, it brought to mankind a twofold salvation,\nby calling them to the path of eternal felicity, but at the same time\nbountifully supplying them with the only means of preservation from\nsocial dissolution, the germ of a regeneration slow and pacific,\nbut grand, immense, and lasting, and secure from the revolutions of\nages; and this preservative against social dissolution, this germ\nof invaluable improvements, was a pure and lofty doctrine, diffused\namong all mankind, without exception of age, sex, and condition, as\nthe rain which falls like a mild dew on an arid and thirsty soil. No\nreligion has ever equalled Christianity in knowledge of the hidden\nmeans of influencing man; none has ever, when doing so, paid so high\na compliment to his dignity; and Christianity has always adopted the\nprinciple, that the first step in gaining possession of the whole man\nis that of gaining his mind; and that it is necessary, in order either\nto destroy evil or to effect good, to adopt intellectual means: thereby\nit has given a mortal blow to the systems of violence which prevailed\nbefore its existence; it has proclaimed the wholesome truth, that in\ninfluencing men, the weakest and most unworthy method is force; a\nfruitful and beneficial truth, which opened to humanity a new and happy\nfuture. Only since the Christian era do we find the lessons of the\nsublimest philosophy taught to all classes of the people, at all times\nand in all places. The loftiest truths relating to God and man, the\nrules of the purest morality, are not communicated to a chosen number\nof disciples in hidden and mysterious instructions; the philosophy of\nChristianity has been bolder; it has ventured to reveal to man the\nwhole naked truth, and that in public, with a loud voice, and that\ngenerous boldness which is the inseparable companion of the truth.\n\"That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light; and that\nwhich you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetop.\" (Matt. x. 27.)\n\nAs soon as Christianity and Paganism met face to face, the superiority\nof the former was rendered palpable, not only by its doctrines\nthemselves, but by the manner in which it propagated them. It might\neasily be imagined that a religion so wise and pure in its teachings,\nand which, in propagating them, addressed itself directly to the mind\nand heart, must quickly drive from its usurped dominion the religion\nof imposture and falsehood. And, indeed, what did Paganism do for\nthe good of man? What moral truths did it teach? How did it check\nthe corruption of manners? \"As to morals,\" says St. Augustine, \"why\nhave not the gods chosen to take care of those of their adorers, and\nprevent their irregularities? As to the true God, it is with justice\nthat He has neglected those who did not serve Him. But whence comes\nit that those gods, the prohibition of whose worship is complained of\nby ungrateful men, have not established laws to lead their adorers to\nvirtue? Was it not reasonable that, as men undertook their mysteries\nand sacrifices, the gods, on their side, should undertake to regulate\nthe manners and actions of men? It is replied, that no one is wicked\nbut because he wishes to be so. Who doubts this? but the gods ought not\non that account to conceal from their worshippers precepts that might\nserve to make them practise virtue. They were, on the contrary, under\nthe obligation of publishing those precepts aloud, of admonishing and\nrebuking sinners by their prophets; of publicly threatening punishment\nto those who did evil, and promising rewards to those who did well.\nWas there ever heard, in the temples of the gods, a loud and generous\nvoice teaching any thing of the kind?\" (_De Civit._ lib. ii. c. 4.)\nThe holy doctor afterwards paints a dark picture of the infamies and\nabominations which were committed in the spectacles and sacred games\ncelebrated in honor of the gods--games and shows at which he had\nhimself assisted in his youth; he continues thus: \"Thence it comes\nthat these divinities have taken no care to regulate the morals of the\ncities and nations who adore them, or to avert by their threats those\ndreadful evils which injure not only fields and vineyards, houses and\nproperties, or the body which is subject to the mind, but the mind\nitself, the directress of the body, which was drenched with their\niniquities. Or if it be pretended that they did make such menaces,\nlet them be shown and proved to us. But let there not be alleged a\nfew secret words whispered in the ears of a small number of persons,\nand which, with a great deal of mystery, were to teach virtue. It\nis necessary to point out, to name the places consecrated to the\nassemblies--not those in which were celebrated games with lascivious\nwords and gestures; not those feasts called _fuites_, and which\nwere solemnized with the most unbridled license; but the assemblies\nwhere the people were instructed in the precepts of the gods for the\nrepression of avarice, moderating ambition, restraining immodesty;\nthose where these unfortunate beings learn what Perseus desires them\nto know, when he says, in severe language, 'Learn, O unhappy mortals,\nthe reason of things, what we are, why we come into the world, what\nwe ought to do, how miserable is the term of our career, what bounds\nwe ought to prescribe to ourselves in the pursuit of riches, what use\nwe ought to make of them, what we owe to our neighbor, in fine, the\nobligations we owe to the rank we occupy among men.' Let them tell us\nin what places they have been accustomed to instruct the people in\nthese things by order of the gods; let them show us these places, as\nwe show them churches built for this purpose wherever the Christian\nreligion has been established.\" (_De Civit._ lib. ii. c. 6.) This\ndivine religion was too deeply acquainted with the heart of man ever\nto forget the weakness and inconstancy which characterize it; and\nhence it has ever been her invariable rule of conduct unceasingly\nto inculcate to him, with untiring patience, the salutary truths on\nwhich his temporal well-being and eternal happiness depend. Man easily\nforgets moral truths when he is not constantly reminded of them; or\nif they remain in his mind, they are there like sterile seeds, and do\nnot fertilize his heart. It is good and highly salutary for parents\nconstantly to communicate this instruction to their children, and that\nit should be made the principal object of private education; but it\nis necessary, moreover, that there should be a public ministry, never\nlosing sight of it, diffusing it among all classes and ages, repairing\nthe negligences of families, and reviving recollections and impressions\nwhich the passions and time constantly efface.\n\nThis system of constant preaching and instruction, practised at all\ntimes and in all places by the Catholic Church, is so important for\nthe enlightenment and morality of nations, that it must be looked\nupon as a great good, that the first Protestants, in spite of their\ndesire to destroy all the practices of the Church, have nevertheless\npreserved that of preaching. We need not be insensible on this account\nto the evils produced at certain times by the declamation of some\nfactious or fanatical ministers; but as unity had been broken, as\nthe people had been precipitated into the perilous paths of schism,\nwe say that it must have been extremely useful for the preservation\nof the most important notions with respect to God and man and the\nfundamental maxims of morality, that such truths should be frequently\nexplained to the people by men who had long studied them in the sacred\nScriptures. No doubt the mortal blow given to the hierarchy by the\nProtestant system, and the degradation of the priesthood which was the\nconsequence, have deprived its preachers of the sacred characteristics\nof the Holy Spirit; no doubt it is a great obstacle to the efficacy of\ntheir preachers, that they cannot present themselves as the anointed\nof the Lord, and that they are only, as an able writer has said, _men\nclothed in black, who mount the pulpit every Sunday to speak reasonable\nthings_; but at least the people continue to hear some fragments of\nthe excellent moral discourses contained in the sacred Scriptures,\nthey have often before their eyes the edifying examples spread over\nthe Old and New Testament, and, what is still more precious, they are\nreminded frequently of the events in the life of Jesus Christ,--of\nthat admirable life, the model of all perfection, which, even when\nconsidered in a human point of view, is acknowledged by all to be the\npurest sanctity _par excellence_, the noblest code of morality that was\never seen, the realization of the finest _beau id\u00e9al_ that philosophy\nin its loftiest thoughts has ever conceived under human form, and which\npoetry has ever imagined in its most brilliant dreams. This we say is\nuseful and highly salutary; for it will always be salutary for nations\nto be nourished with the wholesome food of moral truths, and to be\nexcited to virtue by such sublime examples.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\n DIFFICULTIES WHICH CHRISTIANITY HAD TO OVERCOME IN THE WORK OF SOCIAL\n REGENERATION.--OF SLAVERY.--COULD IT BE DESTROYED WITH MORE PROMPTNESS\n THAN IT WAS BY CHRISTIANITY?\n\n\nAlthough the Church attached the greatest importance to the propagation\nof truth, although she was convinced that to destroy the shapeless\nmass of immorality and degradation that met her sight, her first care\nshould be to expose error to the dissolving fire of true doctrines,\nshe did not confine herself to this; but, descending to real life,\nand following a system full of wisdom and prudence, she acted in such\na manner as to enable humanity to taste the precious fruit which the\ndoctrines of Jesus Christ produce even in temporal things. The Church\nwas not only a _great and fruitful school; she was also a regenerative\nassociation_; she did not diffuse her general doctrines by throwing\nthem abroad at hazard, merely hoping that they would fructify with\ntime; she developed them in all their relations, applied them to all\nsubjects, inoculated laws and manners with them, and realized them in\ninstitutions which afforded silent but eloquent instructions to future\ngenerations. Nowhere was the dignity of man acknowledged, slavery\nreigned everywhere; degraded woman was dishonored by the corruption of\nmanners, and debased by the tyranny of man. The feelings of humanity\nwere trodden under foot, infants were abandoned, the sick and aged were\nneglected, barbarity and cruelty were carried to the highest pitch\nof atrocity in the prevailing laws of war; in fine, on the summit of\nthe social edifice was seen an odious tyranny, sustained by military\nforce, and looking down with an eye of contempt on the unfortunate\nnations that lay in fetters at its feet.\n\nIn such a state of things it certainly was no slight task to remove\nerror, to reform and improve manners, abolish slavery, correct the\nvices of legislation, impose a check on power, and make it harmonize\nwith the public interest, give new life to individuals, and reorganize\nfamily and society; and yet nothing less than this was done by the\nChurch. Let us begin with slavery. This is a matter which is the more\nto be fathomed, as it is a question eminently calculated to excite\nour curiosity and affect our hearts. What abolished slavery among\nChristian nations? Was it Christianity? Was it Christianity alone,\nby its lofty ideas on human dignity, by its maxims and its spirit of\nfraternity and charity, and also by its prudent, gentle, and beneficent\nconduct? I trust I shall prove that it was. No one now ventures to\ndoubt that the Church exercised a powerful influence on the abolition\nof slavery; this is a truth too clear and evident to be questioned.\nM. Guizot acknowledges the successful efforts with which the Church\nlabored to improve the social condition. He says: \"No one doubts that\nshe struggled obstinately against the great vices of the social state;\nfor example, against slavery.\" But, in the next line, and as if he\nwere reluctant to establish without any restriction a fact which must\nnecessarily excite in favor of the Catholic Church the sympathies of\nall humanity, he adds: \"It has been often repeated that the abolition\nof slavery in the modern world was entirely due to Christianity. I\nbelieve that this is saying too much; slavery existed for a long time\nin the bosom of Christian society without exciting astonishment or much\nopposition.\" M. Guizot is much mistaken if he expects to prove that the\nabolition of slavery was not due exclusively to Christianity, by the\nmere representation that slavery existed for a long time amid Christian\nsociety. To proceed logically, he must first see whether the sudden\nabolition of it was possible, if the spirit of peace and order which\nanimates the Church could allow her rashly to enter on an enterprise\nwhich, without gaining the desired object, might have convulsed the\nworld. The number of slaves was immense; slavery was deeply rooted in\nlaws, manners, ideas, and interests, individual and social; a fatal\nsystem, no doubt, but the eradication of which all at once it would\nhave been rash to attempt, as its roots had penetrated deeply and\nspread widely in the bowels of the land.\n\nIn a census of Athens there were reckoned 20,000 citizens and 40,000\nslaves; in the Peloponnesian war no less than 20,000 passed over to\nthe enemy. This we learn from Thucydides. The same author tells us,\nthat at Chio the number of slaves was very considerable, and that\ntheir defection, when they passed over to the Athenians, reduced their\nmasters to great extremities. In general, the number of slaves was so\nvery great everywhere that the public safety was often compromised\nthereby. Therefore it was necessary to take precautions to prevent\ntheir acting in concert. \"It is necessary,\" says Plato (_Dial._ 6,\n_de Leg._), \"that slaves should not be of the same country, and that\nthey should differ as much as possible in manners and desires; for\nexperience has many times shown, in the frequent defections which have\nbeen witnessed, among the Messenians, and in other cities that had a\ngreat number of slaves of the same language, that great evils commonly\nresult from it.\" Aristotle in his Government (b. i. c. 5) gives\nvarious rules as to the manner in which slaves ought to be treated; it\nis remarkable that he is of the same opinion as Plato, for he says:\n\"That there should not be many slaves of the same country.\" He tells\nus in his Politics (b. ii. c. 7), \"That the Thessalians were reduced\nto great embarrassments on account of the number of their Penestes,\na sort of slaves; the same thing happened to the Spartans on account\nof the Helotes. The Penestes have often rebelled in Thessaly; and the\nSpartans, during their reverses, have been menaced by the plots of the\nHelotes.\" This was a difficulty which required the serious attention\nof politicians. They did not know how to prevent the inconveniences\ninduced by this immense multitude of slaves. Aristotle laments the\ndifficulty there was in finding the best way of treating them; and we\nsee that it was the subject of grave cares; I will transcribe his own\nwords: \"In truth,\" he says, \"the manner in which this class of men\nought to be treated is a thing difficult and full of embarrassment; for\nif they are treated mildly, they become insolent, and wish to become\nequal to their masters; if they are treated harshly, they conceive\nhatred, and conspire.\"\n\nAt Rome, the multitude of slaves was such that when, at a certain\nperiod, it was proposed to give them a distinctive dress, the Senate\nopposed the measure, fearing that if they knew their own numbers the\npublic safety would be endangered; and certainly this precaution was\nnot vain, for already, a long time before, the slaves had caused great\ncommotions in Italy. Plato, in support of the advice which I have just\nquoted, states, \"That the slaves had frequently devastated Italy with\npiracy and robbery.\" In more recent times Spartacus, at the head of\nan army of slaves, was the terror of that country for some time, and\nengaged the best generals of Rome. The number of slaves had reached\nsuch an excess, that many masters reckoned them by hundreds. When the\nPrefect of Rome, Pedanius Secundus, was assassinated, four hundred\nslaves who belonged to him were put to death. (_Tac. Ann._ b. xiv.)\nPudentila, the wife of Apulcius, had so many that she gave four hundred\nto her son. They became a matter of pomp, and the Romans vied with each\nother in their number. When asked this question, _quod pascit servos_,\nhow many slaves does he keep, according to the expression of Juvenal\n(_Sat._ 3, v. 140), they wished to be able to show a great number. The\nthing had reached such a pass that, according to Pliny, the cortege of\na family resembled an army.\n\nIt was not only in Greece and Italy that this abundance of slaves was\nfound; at Tyre they arose against their masters, and, by their immense\nnumbers, they were able to massacre them all. If we turn our eyes\ntowards barbarous nations, without speaking of some the best known, we\nlearn from Herodotus that the Scythians, on their return from Media,\nfound their slaves in rebellion, and were compelled to abandon their\ncountry to them. C\u00e6sar in his Commentaries (_de Bello Gall._ lib. vi.)\nbears witness to the multitude of slaves in Gaul. As their number was\neverywhere so considerable, it is clear that it was quite impossible\nto preach freedom to them without setting the world on fire. Unhappily\nwe have, in modern times, the means of forming a comparison which,\nalthough on an infinitely smaller scale, will answer our purpose. In\na colony where black slaves abound, who would venture to set them at\nliberty all at once? Now how much are the difficulties increased,\nwhat colossal dimensions does not the danger assume, when you have\nto do, not with a colony, but with the world? Their intellectual and\nmoral condition rendered them incapable of turning such an advantage\nto their own benefit and that of society; in their debasement, urged\non by the hatred and the desire of vengeance which ill-treatment had\nexcited in their minds, they would have repeated, on a large scale, the\nbloody scenes with which they had already, in former times, stained\nthe pages of history; and what would then have happened? Society,\nthus endangered, would have been put on its guard against principles\nfavoring liberty; henceforth it would have regarded them with prejudice\nand suspicion, and the chains of servitude, instead of being loosened,\nwould have been the more firmly riveted. Out of this immense mass of\nrude, savage men, set at liberty without preparation, it was impossible\nfor social organization to arise; for social organization is not the\ncreation of a moment, especially with such elements as these; and in\nthis case, since it would have been necessary to choose between slavery\nand the annihilation of social order, the instinct of preservation,\nwhich animates society as well as all beings, would undoubtedly have\nbrought about the continuation of slavery where it still existed, and\nits re-establishment where it had been destroyed. Those who complain\nthat Christianity did not accomplish the work of abolishing slavery\nwith sufficient promptitude, should remember that, even supposing a\nsudden or very rapid emancipation possible, and to say nothing of the\nbloody revolutions which would necessarily have been the result, the\nmere force of circumstances, by the insurmountable difficulties which\nit would have raised, would have rendered such a measure absolutely\nuseless. Let us lay aside all social and political considerations, and\napply ourselves to the economical question. First, it was necessary to\nchange all the relations of property. The slaves played a principal\npart therein; they cultivated the land, and worked as mechanics; in a\nword, among them was distributed all that is called labor; and this\ndistribution being made on the supposition of slavery, to take away\nthis would have made a disruption, the ultimate consequences of which\ncould not be estimated. I will suppose that violent spoliations had\ntaken place, that a repartition or equalization of property had been\nattempted, that lands had been distributed to the emancipated, and\nthat the richest proprietors had been compelled to hold the pickaxe\nand the plough; I will suppose all these absurdities and mad dreams\nto be realized, and I say that this would have been no remedy; for we\nmust not forget that the production of the means of subsistence must\nbe in proportion to the wants of those they are intended to support,\nand that this proportion would have been destroyed by the abolition of\nslavery. The production was regulated, not exactly according to the\nnumber of the individuals who then existed, but on the supposition that\nthe majority were slaves; now we know that the wants of a freeman are\ngreater than those of a slave.\n\nIf at the present time, after eighteen centuries, when ideas have\nbeen corrected, manners softened, laws ameliorated; when nations\nand governments have been taught by experience; when so many public\nestablishments for the relief of indigence have been founded; when so\nmany systems have been tried for the division of labor; when riches are\ndistributed in a more equitable manner; if it is still so difficult to\nprevent a great number of men from becoming the victims of dreadful\nmisery, if that is the terrible evil, which, like a fatal nightmare,\ntorments society, and threatens its future, what would have been the\neffect of a universal emancipation, at the beginning of Christianity,\nat a time when slaves were not considered by the law as _persons_,\nbut as _things_; when their conjugal union was not looked upon as a\nmarriage; when their children were property, and subject to the same\nrules as the progeny of animals; when, in fine, the unhappy slave\nwas ill-treated, tormented, sold, or put to death, according to the\ncaprices of his master? Is it not evident that the cure of such evils\nwas the work of ages? Do not humanity and political and social economy\nunanimously tell us this? If mad attempts had been made, the slaves\nthemselves would have been the first to protest against them; they\nwould have adhered to a servitude which at least secured to them food\nand shelter; they would have rejected a liberty which was inconsistent\neven with their existence. Such is the order of nature: man, above\nall, requires wherewith to live; and the means of subsistence being\nwanting, liberty itself would cease to please him. It is not necessary\nto allude to the individual examples of this, which we have in\nabundance; entire nations have given signal proofs of this truth.\nWhen misery is excessive, it is difficult for it not to bring with it\ndegradation, stifle the most generous sentiments, and take away the\nmagic of the words independence and liberty. \"The common people,\" says\nC\u00e6sar, speaking of the Gauls (lib. vi. _de Bello Gall._), \"are almost\non a level with slaves; of themselves they venture nothing; their\nvoice is of no avail. There are many of that class, who, loaded with\ndebts and tributes, or oppressed by the powerful, give themselves up\ninto servitude to the nobles, who exercise over those who have thus\ndelivered themselves up the same rights as over slaves.\" Examples of\nthe same kind are not wanting in modern times; we know that in China\nthere is a great number of slaves whose servitude is owing entirely to\nthe incapacity of themselves or their fathers to provide for their own\nsubsistence.\n\nThese observations, which are supported by facts that no one can deny,\nevidently show that Christianity has displayed profound wisdom in\nproceeding with so much caution in the abolition of slavery.\n\nIt did all that was possible in favor of human liberty; if it did\nnot advance more rapidly in the work, it was because it could not do\nso without compromitting the undertaking--without creating serious\nobstacles to the desired emancipation. Such is the result at which we\narrive when we have thoroughly examined the charges made against some\nproceedings of the Church. We look into them by the light of reason,\nwe compare them with the facts, and in the end we are convinced that\nthe conduct blamed is perfectly in accordance with the dictates of the\nhighest wisdom and the counsels of the soundest prudence. What, then,\ndoes M. Guizot mean, when, after having allowed that Christianity\nlabored with earnestness for the abolition of slavery, he accuses it\nof having consented for a long time to its continuance? Is it logical\nthence to infer that it is not true that this immense benefit is due\nexclusively to Christianity? That slavery endured for a long time in\npresence of the Church is true; but it was always declining, and it\nonly lasted as long as was necessary to realize the benefit without\nviolence--without a shock--without compromitting its universality and\nits continuation. Moreover, we ought to subtract from the time of its\ncontinuance many ages, during which the Church was often proscribed,\nalways regarded with aversion, and totally unable to exert a direct\ninfluence on the social organization. We ought also, to a great extent,\nto make exception of later times, as the Church had only begun to exert\na direct and public influence, when the irruption of the northern\nbarbarians took place, which, together with the corruption which\ninfected the empire and spread in a frightful manner, produced such\na perturbation, such a confused mass of languages, customs, manners,\nand laws, that it was almost impossible to make the regulating power\nproduce salutary fruits. If, in later times, it has been difficult\nto destroy feudality; if there remain to this day, after ages of\nstruggles, the remnants of that constitution; if the slave-trade,\nalthough limited to certain countries and circumstances, still merits\nthe universal reprobation which is raised throughout the world against\nits infamy; how can we venture to express our astonishment--how can\nwe venture to make it a reproach against the Church, that slavery\ncontinued some ages after she had proclaimed men's fraternity with each\nother, and their equality before God?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nIDEAS AND MANNERS OF ANTIQUITY WITH RESPECT TO SLAVERY.--THE CHURCH\nBEGINS BY IMPROVING THE CONDITION OF SLAVES.\n\n\nHappily the Catholic Church was wiser than philosophers; she knew\nhow to confer on humanity the benefit of emancipation, without\ninjustice or revolution. She knew how to regenerate society, but not\nin rivers of blood. Let us see what was her conduct with respect to\nthe abolition of slavery. Much has been already said of the spirit of\nlove and fraternity which animates Christianity, and that is sufficient\nto show that its influence in this work must have been great. But\nperhaps sufficient care has not been taken in seeking the positive\nand practical means which the Church employed for this end. In the\ndarkness of ages, in circumstances so complicated or various, will it\nbe possible to discover any traces of the path pursued by the Catholic\nChurch in accomplishing the destruction of that slavery under which a\nlarge portion of the human race groaned? Will it be possible to do any\nthing more than praise her Christian charity? Will it be possible to\npoint out a plan, a system, and to prove the existence and development\nof it, not by referring to a few expressions, to elevated thoughts,\ngenerous sentiments, and the isolated actions of a few illustrious men,\nbut by exhibiting positive facts, and historical documents, which show\nwhat were the _esprit de corps_ and tendency of the Church? I believe\nthat this may be done, and I have no doubt that I shall be able to do\nit, by availing myself of what is most convincing and decisive in the\nmatter, viz. the monuments of ecclesiastical legislation.\n\nIn the first place, it will not be amiss to remember what I have\nalready pointed out, viz. that when we have to do with the conduct,\ndesigns, and tendencies of the Church, it is by no means necessary to\nsuppose that these designs were conceived in their fullest extent by\nthe mind of any individual in particular, nor that the merit and all\nthe prudence of that conduct was understood by those who took part\nin it. It is not even necessary to suppose that the first Christians\nunderstood all the force of the tendencies of Christianity with respect\nto the abolition of slavery. What requires to be shown is, that the\nresult has been obtained by the doctrines and conduct of the Church, as\nwith Catholics, (although they know how to esteem at their just value\nthe merit and greatness of each man,) individuals, when the Church is\nconcerned, disappear. Their thoughts and will are nothing; the spirit\nwhich animates, vivifies, and directs the Church, is not the spirit of\nman, but that of God himself. Those who belong not to our faith will\nemploy other names; but at least we shall agree in this, that facts,\nconsidered in this way, above the mind and the will of individuals,\npreserve much better their real dimensions; and thus the great chain of\nevents in the study of history remains unbroken. Let it be said that\nthe conduct of the Church was inspired and directed by God; or that it\nwas the result of instinct; that it was the development of a tendency\ncontained in her doctrines; we will not now stay to consider the\nexpressions which may be used by Catholics, or by philosophers; what we\nhave to show is, that this instinct was noble and well-directed; that\nthis tendency had a great object in view, and knew how to attain it.\n\nThe first thing that Christianity did for slaves, was to destroy the\nerrors which opposed, not only their universal emancipation, but even\nthe improvement of their condition; that is, the first force which\nshe employed in the attack was, according to her custom, the _force\nof ideas_. This first step was the more necessary, as the same thing\napplies to all other evils, as well as to slavery; every social evil is\nalways accompanied by some error which produces or foments it. There\nexisted not only the oppression and degradation of a large portion of\nthe human race, but, moreover, an accredited error, which tended more\nand more to lower that portion of humanity. According to this opinion,\nslaves were a mean race, far below the dignity of freemen: they were a\nrace degraded by Jupiter himself, marked by a stamp of humiliation, and\npredestined to their state of abjection and debasement. A detestable\ndoctrine, no doubt, and contradicted by the nature of man, by history\nand experience; but which, nevertheless, reckoned distinguished men\namong its defenders, and which we see proclaimed for ages, to the\nshame of humanity and the scandal of reason, until Christianity came\nto destroy it, by undertaking to vindicate the rights of man. Homer\ntells us (_Odys._ 17) that \"Jupiter has deprived slaves of half the\nmind.\" We find in Plato a trace of the same doctrine, although he\nexpresses himself, as he is accustomed to do, by the mouth of another;\nhe ventures to advance the following: \"It is said that, in the mind\nof slaves, there is nothing sound or complete; and that a prudent man\nought not to trust that class of persons; which is equally attested by\nthe wisest of our poets.\" Here Plato cites the above-quoted passage\nof Homer (_Dial._ 8, _de Legibus_). But it is in the Politics of\nAristotle that we find this degrading doctrine in all its deformity\nand nakedness. Some have wished to excuse this philosopher, but in\nvain; his own words condemn him without appeal. In the first chapter\nof his work, he explains the constitution of the family, and attempts\nto state the relations of husband and wife, of master and slave; he\nstates that, as the wife is by nature different from the husband, so\nis the slave from the master. These are his words: \"Thus the woman and\nthe slave are distinguished by nature itself.\" Let it not be said that\nthis is an expression that escaped from the pen of the writer; it was\nstated with a full knowledge, and is a _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of his theory. In the\nthird chapter, where he continues to analyze the elements which compose\nthe family, after having stated \"that a complete family is formed of\nfree persons and slaves,\" he alludes particularly to the latter, and\nbegins by combating an opinion which he thinks too favorable to them:\n\"There are some,\" he says, \"who think that slavery is a thing out of\nthe order of nature, since it is the law itself which makes some free\nand others slaves, while nature makes no distinction.\" Before combating\nthis opinion, he explains the relations between master and slave, by\nusing the comparison of artist and instrument, and that of the soul\nand body; he continues thus: \"If we compare man to woman, we find that\nthe first is superior, therefore he commands; the woman is inferior,\ntherefore she obeys. The same thing ought to take place among all men.\n_Thus it is that those among them who are as inferior with respect to\nothers, as the body is with respect to the soul, and the animal to man;\nthose whose powers principally consist in the use of the body, the only\nservice that can be obtained from them, they are naturally slaves._\"\nWe should imagine, at first sight, that the philosopher spoke only of\nidiots; his words would seem to indicate this; but we shall see, by\nthe context, that such is not his intention. It is evident that if he\nspoke only of idiots, he would prove nothing against the opinion which\nhe desires to combat; for the number of them is nothing with respect to\nthe generality of men. If he spoke only of idiots, of what use would be\na theory founded on so rare and monstrous an exception?\n\nBut we have no need of conjectures as to the real intention of the\nphilosopher, he himself takes care to explain it to us, and tells us at\nthe same time for what reason he ventures to make use of expressions\nwhich seem, at first, to place the matter on another level. His\nintention is nothing less than to attribute to nature the express\ndesign of producing men of two kinds; one born for slavery, the other\nfor liberty. The passage is too important and too curious to be\nomitted. It is this: \"Nature has taken care to create the bodies of\nfree men different from those of slaves; the bodies of the latter are\nstrong, and proper for the most necessary labors: those of freemen, on\nthe contrary, well formed, although ill adapted for servile works, are\nproper for civil life, which consists in the management of things in\nwar and peace. Nevertheless, the contrary often happens. To a free man\nis given the body of a slave; and to a slave the soul of a free man.\nThere is no doubt that, if the bodies of some men were as much more\nperfect than others, as we see is the case in the image of the Gods,\nall the world would be of opinion that these men should be obeyed by\nthose who had not the same beauty. If this is true in speaking of the\nbody, it is still more so in speaking of the soul; although it is not\nso easy to see the beauty of the soul as that of the body. Thus it\ncannot be doubted that there are some men born for liberty, as others\nare for slavery; a slavery which is not only useful to the slaves\nthemselves, but, moreover, just.\" A miserable philosophy, which, in\norder to support that degraded state, was obliged to have recourse to\nsuch subtilties, and ventured to impute to nature the intention of\ncreating different castes, some born to command and others to obey; a\ncruel philosophy, which thus labored to break the bonds of fraternity\nwith which the Author of nature has desired to knit together the\nhuman race, pretending to raise a barrier between man and man, and\ninventing theories to support inequality; not that inequality which is\nthe necessary result of all social organization, but an inequality so\nterrible and degrading as that of slavery.\n\nChristianity raises its voice, and by the first words which it\npronounces on slaves, declares them equal to all men in the dignity\nof nature, and in the participation of the graces which the Divine\nSpirit diffuses upon earth. We must remark the care with which St.\nPaul insists on this point; it seems as if he had in view those\ndegrading distinctions which have arisen from a fatal forgetfulness\nof the dignity of man. The Apostle never forgets to inculcate to\nthe faithful that there is no difference between the slave and the\nfreeman. \"For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body,\nwhether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.\" (1 Cor. xii. 13.)\n\"For you are all children of God, by faith in Jesus Christ. For as\nmany of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ. There\nis neither Jew nor Greek; _there is neither bond or free_; there is\nneither male or female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.\" (Gal.\niii. 26-28.) \"Where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision\nnor uncircumcision, barbarian or Scythian, bond or free; but Christ\nis all and in all.\" (Colos. iii. 11.) The heart dilates at the sound\nof the voice thus loudly proclaiming the great principles of holy\nfraternity and equality. After having heard the oracles of Paganism\ninventing doctrines to degrade still more the unhappy slaves, we seem\nto awake from a painful dream, and to find ourselves in the light of\nday in the midst of the delightful reality. The imagination delights\nto contemplate the millions of men who, bent under degradation and\nignominy, at this voice raised their eyes towards Heaven, and were\nanimated with hope.\n\nIt was with this teaching of Christianity as with all generous and\nfruitful doctrines; they penetrate the heart of society, remain\nthere as a precious germ, and, developed by time, produce an immense\ntree which overshadows families and nations. When these doctrines\nwere diffused among men, they could not fail to be misunderstood and\nexaggerated. Thus there were found some who pretended that Christian\nfreedom was the proclamation of universal freedom. The pleasing words\nof Christ easily resounded in the ears of slaves: they heard themselves\ndeclared children of God, and brethren of Jesus Christ; they saw that\nthere was no distinction made between them and their masters, between\nthem and the most powerful lords of the earth; is it, then, strange\nthat men only accustomed to chains, to labor, to every kind of trouble\nand degradation, exaggerated the principles of Christian liberty, and\nmade applications of them which were neither just in themselves, nor\ncapable of being reduced to practice? We know, from St. Jerome, that\nmany, hearing themselves called to Christian liberty, believed that\nthey were thereby freed. Perhaps the Apostle alluded to this error\nwhen, in his first epistle to Timothy, he said, \"Whosoever are servants\nunder the yoke, let them count their masters worthy of all honor; lest\nthe name of the Lord and His doctrines be blasphemed.\" (1 Timothy vi.\n1.) This error had been so general, that after three centuries it was\nstill much credited; and the Council of Gangres, held about 324, was\nobliged to excommunicate those who, under pretence of piety, taught\nthat slaves ought to quit their masters, and withdraw from their\nservice. This was not the teaching of Christianity; besides, we have\nclearly shown that it would not have been the right way to achieve\nuniversal emancipation. Therefore this same Apostle, from whose mouth\nwe have heard such generous language in favor of slaves, frequently\ninculcates to them obedience to their masters; but let us observe, that\nwhile fulfilling this duty imposed by the spirit of peace and justice\nwhich animates Christianity, he so explains the motives on which the\nobedience of slaves ought to be based, he calls to mind the obligations\nof masters in such affecting and energetic words, and establishes so\nexpressly and conclusively the equality of all men before God, that\nwe cannot help seeing how great was his compassion for that unhappy\nportion of humanity, and how much his ideas on this point differed\nfrom those of a blind and hardened world. There is in the heart of\nman a feeling of noble independence, which does not permit him to\nsubject himself to the will of another, except when he sees that the\nclaims to his obedience are founded on legitimate titles. If they are\nin accordance with reason and justice, and, above all, if they have\ntheir roots in the great objects of human love and veneration, his\nunderstanding is convinced, his heart is gained, and he yields. But\nif the reason for the command is only the will of another, if it is\nonly man against man, these thoughts of equality ferment in his mind,\nthen the feeling of independence burns in his heart, he puts on a\nbold front, and his passions are excited. Therefore, when a willing\nand lasting obedience is to be obtained, it is necessary that the man\nshould be lost sight of in the ruler, and that he should only appear\nas the representative of a superior power, or the personification of\nthe motives which convince the subject of the justice and utility of\nhis submission; thus he does not obey the will of another because it is\nthat will, but because it is the representative of a superior power, or\nthe interpreter of truth and justice; then man no longer considers his\ndignity outraged, and obedience becomes tolerable and pleasing.\n\nIt is unnecessary to say that such were not the titles on which was\nfounded the obedience of slaves before Christianity: custom placed them\nin the rank of brutes; and the laws, outdoing it if possible, were\nexpressed in language which cannot be read without indignation. Masters\ncommanded because such was their pleasure, and slaves were compelled\nto obey, not on account of superior motives or moral obligations,\nbut because they were the property of their masters, horses governed\nby the bridle, and mere mechanical machines. Was it, then, strange\nthat these unhappy beings, drenched with misfortune and ignominy,\nconceived and cherished in their hearts that deep rancor, that violent\nhatred, and that terrible thirst for vengeance, which at the first\nopportunity exploded so fearfully? The horrible massacre of Tyre,\nthe example and terror of the universe, according to the expression\nof Justin; the repeated revolts of the Penestes in Thessaly, of the\nHelotes in Sparta; the defections of the slaves of Chio and Athens; the\ninsurrection under the command of Herdonius, and the terror which it\nspread in all the families of Rome; the scenes of blood, the obstinate\nand desperate resistance of the bands of Spartacus; was all this any\nthing but the natural result of the system of violence, outrage, and\ncontempt with which slaves were treated? Is it not what we have seen\nrepeated in modern times, in the catastrophes of the negro colonies?\nSuch is the nature of man, whoever sows contempt and outrage will\nreap fury and vengeance. Christianity was well aware of these truths;\nand this is the reason why, while preaching obedience, it took care\nto found it on Divine authority. If it confirmed to masters their\nrights, it also taught them an exalted sense of their obligation.\nWherever Christian doctrines prevailed, slaves might say: \"It is true\nthat we are unfortunate; birth, poverty, or the reverses of war have\ncondemned us to misfortune; but at least we are acknowledged as men and\nbrethren; between us and our masters there is a reciprocity of rights\nand obligations.\" Let us hear the Apostle: \"You, slaves, obey those who\nare your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in\nthe simplicity of your hearts, as to Jesus Christ himself. _Not serving\nto the eye, as it were pleasing men_, but, as the servants of Christ,\ndoing the will of God from the heart. With a good will serving, as\nto the Lord, and not to men. Knowing that whatsoever good things any\nman shall do, the same shall he receive from the Lord, _whether he be\nbond or free_. And you, masters, do the same thing to them, forbearing\nthreatenings, knowing that the Lord both of them and you is in heaven,\nand _there is no respect of persons with Him_.\" (Eph. vi. 5-9.) In the\nEpistle to the Colossians he inculcates the same doctrine of obedience\nanew, basing it on the same motives; for, to console the unfortunate\nslaves, he tells them: \"You shall receive of the Lord the reward of\ninheritance: serve ye the Lord Christ. For he that doth wrong shall\nreceive for that which he hath done wrongfully, and there is no respect\nof persons with God\" (Colos. iii. 24, 25); and lower down, addressing\nhimself to masters: \"Masters, do to your servants that which is just\nand equal, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.\" (iv. 1.)\n\nThe diffusion of such beneficent doctrines necessarily tended to\nimprove greatly the condition of slaves; their immediate effect was to\nsoften that excessive rigor, that cruelty which would be incredible if\nit were not incontrovertibly proved. We know that the master had the\nright of life and death, and that he abused that power even to putting\na slave to death from caprice, as Quintus Flaminius did in the midst of\na festival. Another caused one of these unfortunate beings to be thrown\nto the fishes, because he broke a glass of crystal. This is related of\nVedius Pollio; and this horrible cruelty was not confined to the circle\nof a few families subject to a master devoid of compassion; no, cruelty\nwas formed into a system, the fatal but necessary result of erroneous\nnotions on this point, and of the forgetfulness of the sentiments of\nhumanity. This violent system could only be supported by constantly\ntrampling upon the slave; and there was no cessation of tyranny until\nthe day when he, with superior power, attacked his master and destroyed\nhim. An ancient proverb said, \"So many slaves, so many enemies.\" We\nhave already seen the ravages committed by men thus rendered savage by\nrevenge, whenever they were able to break their chains; but certainly,\nwhen it was desired to terrify them, their masters did not yield to\nthem in ferocity. At Sparta, on one occasion when they feared the\nill-will of the Helotes, they assembled them all at the temple of\nJupiter, and put them to death. (_Thucyd._ b. iv.) At Rome, whenever\na master was assassinated, all his slaves were condemned to death.\nWe cannot read in Tacitus without a shudder (_Ann._ l. xiv. 43) the\nhorrible scene which was witnessed when the prefect of the town,\nPedanius Secundus, was assassinated by one of his slaves. Not less than\nfour hundred were to die; all, according to the ancient custom, were\nto be led to punishment. This cruel and pitiable spectacle, in which\nso many of the innocent were to suffer death, excited the compassion\nof the people, who raised a tumult to prevent this horrid butchery.\nThe Senate, in doubt, deliberated on the affair, when an orator named\nCassius maintained with energy that it was necessary to complete the\nbloody execution, not only in obedience to the ancient custom, but also\nbecause without it it would be impossible to preserve themselves from\nthe ill-will of the slaves. His words are all dictated by injustice and\ntyranny; he sees on all sides dangers and conspiracies; he can imagine\nno other safeguards than force and terror. The following passage is\nabove all remarkable in his speech, as showing in a few words the ideas\nand manners of the ancients in this matter: \"Our ancestors,\" says the\nsenator, \"always mistrusted the character of slaves, even of those who,\nborn on their possessions and in their houses, might be supposed to\nhave conceived from their cradle an affection for their masters; but as\nwe have slaves of foreign nations, differing in customs and religion,\nthis rabble can only be restrained by terror.\" Cruelty prevailed, the\nboldness of the people was repressed, the way was filled with soldiers,\nand the four hundred unfortunate beings were led to punishment.\n\nTo soften this cruel treatment, to banish these frightful atrocities,\nought to have been the first effect of the Christian doctrines; and\nwe may rest assured that the Church never lost sight of so important\nan object. She devoted all her efforts to improve as much as possible\nthe condition of slaves; in punishments she caused mildness to be\nsubstituted for cruelty; and what was more important than all, she\nlabored to put reason in the place of caprice, and to make the\nimpetuosity of masters yield to the calmness of judges; that is to say,\nshe every day assimilated the condition of slaves more and more to that\nof freemen, by making right and not might reign over them. The Church\nnever forgot the noble lesson which the Apostle gave when writing to\nPhilemon, and interceding in favor of a fugitive slave named Onesimus;\nhe spoke in his favor with a tenderness which this unhappy class had\nnever before inspired: \"I beseech thee,\" he says to him, \"for my son\nOnesimus. Receive him as my own bowels; no more as a slave, but as a\nmost dear brother. If he hath wronged thee in any thing, or is in thy\ndebt, put that to my account.\" (Epis. to Phil.) The Council of Elvira,\nheld in the beginning of the fourth century, subjects the woman who\nshall have beaten her slave so as to cause her death in three days to\nmany years of penance; the Council of Orleans, held in 549, orders\nthat if a slave guilty of a fault take refuge in a church, he is to be\nrestored to his master, but not without having exacted from the latter\na promise, confirmed by oath, that he will not do him any harm; that if\nthe master, in violation of his oath, maltreat the slave, he shall be\nseparated from the communion of the faithful and the sacraments. This\ncanon shows us two things: the habitual cruelty of masters, and the\nzeal of the Church to soften the treatment of slaves. To restrain this\ncruelty, nothing less than an oath was required; and the Church, always\nso careful in these things, yet considered the matter important enough\nto justify and require the invocation of the sacred name of God.\n\nThe favor and protection which the Church granted to slaves rapidly\nextended. It seems that in some places the custom was introduced of\nrequiring a promise on oath, not only that the slave who had taken\nrefuge in the church should not be ill-treated in his person, but\neven that no extraordinary work should be imposed on him, and that he\nshould wear no distinctive mark. This custom, produced no doubt by\nzeal for humanity, but which may have occasioned some inconveniences\nby relaxing too much the ties of obedience, and allowing excesses on\nthe part of slaves, appears to be alluded to in a regulation of the\nCouncil of Epaone (now Abbon, according to some), held about 517. This\nCouncil labors to stop the evil by prescribing a prudent moderation;\nbut without withdrawing the protection already granted. It ordains,\nin the 39th canon, \"That if a slave, guilty of any atrocious offence,\ntakes refuge in a church, he shall be saved from corporal punishment;\nbut the master shall not be compelled to swear that he will not impose\non him additional labor, or that he will not cut off his hair, in order\nto make known his fault.\" Observe that this restriction is introduced\nonly in the case when the slave shall have committed a heinous offence,\nand even in this case all the power allowed to the master consists in\nimposing on the slave extraordinary labor, or distinguishing him by\ncutting his hair.\n\nPerhaps such indulgence may be considered excessive; but we must\nobserve that when abuses are deeply rooted, they cannot be eradicated\nwithout a vigorous effort. At first sight it often appears as if the\nlimits of prudence were passed; but this apparent excess is only the\ninevitable oscillation which is observed before things regain their\nright position. The Church had therein no wish to protect crime, or\ngive unmerited indulgence; her object was to check the violence and\ncaprice of masters; she did not wish to allow a man to suffer torture\nor death because such was the will of another. The establishment of\njust laws and legitimate tribunals, the Church has never opposed;\nbut she has never given her consent to acts of private violence. The\nspirit of opposition to the exercise of private force, which includes\nsocial organization, is clearly shown to us in the 15th canon of the\nCouncil of Merida, held in 666. I have already shown that slaves\nformed a large portion of property. As the division of labor was made\nin conformity with this principle, slaves were absolutely necessary\nto those who possessed property, especially when it was considerable.\nNow the Church found this to be the case; and as she could not change\nthe organization of society on a sudden, she was obliged to yield\nto necessity, and admit slavery. But if she wished to introduce\nimprovements in the lot of slaves in general, it was good for her to\nset the example herself: this example is found in the canon I have\njust quoted. There, after having forbidden the bishops and priests\nto maltreat the servants of the Church by mutilating their limbs,\nthe Council ordains that if a slave commit an offence, he shall be\ndelivered to the secular judges, but so that the bishops shall moderate\nthe punishment inflicted on him. We see by this canon that the right\nof mutilation exercised by private masters was still in use; and\nperhaps it was still more strongly established, since we see that\nthe Council limits itself to interdicting that kind of punishment to\necclesiastics, without saying any thing as to laymen. No doubt, one of\nthe motives for this prohibition made to ecclesiastics, was to prevent\ntheir shedding human blood, and thus rendering themselves incapable\nof exercising their lofty ministry, the principal act of which is the\naugust sacrifice in which they offer a victim of peace and love; but\nthis does not in any way detract from the merit of the regulation, or\nat all diminish its influence on the improvement of the condition of\nslaves. It was the substitution of public vengeance for private; it\nwas again to proclaim the equality of slaves and freemen with respect\nto the effusion of their blood; it was to declare that the hands which\nhad shed the blood of a slave, had contracted the same stain as if they\nhad shed that of a freeman. Now, it was necessary to inculcate these\nsalutary truths on men's minds in every way, for they ran in direct\ncontradiction to the ideas and manners of antiquity; it was necessary\nto labor assiduously to destroy the shameful and cruel exceptions which\ncontinued to deprive the majority of mankind of a participation in the\nrights of humanity. There is, in the canon which I have just quoted,\na remarkable circumstance, which shows the solicitude of the Church\nto restore to slaves the dignity and respect of which they had been\ndeprived. To shave the hair of the head was among the Goths a very\nignominious punishment; which, according to Lucas de Tuy, was to them\nmore cruel than death itself. It will be understood, that whatever was\nthe force of prejudice on this point, the Church might have allowed\nthe shaving of the hair without incurring the stain which was attached\nto the shedding of blood. Yet she was not willing to allow it, which\nshows us how attentive she was to destroy the marks of humiliation\nimpressed on slaves. After having enjoined priests and bishops to\ndeliver criminal slaves to the judges, she commands them \"not to allow\nthem to be shaved ignominiously.\" No care was too great in this matter;\nto destroy one after another the odious exceptions which affected\nslaves, it was necessary to seize upon all favorable opportunities.\nThis necessity is clearly shown by the manner in which the eleventh\nCouncil of Toledo, held in 675, expresses itself. This Council, in its\n6th canon, forbids bishops themselves to judge crimes of a capital\nnature, as it also forbids them to order the mutilation of members.\nBehold in what terms it was considered necessary to state that this\nrule admitted of no exception; \"not even,\" says the Council, \"with\nrespect to the slaves of the Church.\" The evil was great, it could not\nbe cured without assiduous care. Even the right of life and death,\nthe most cruel of all, could not be extirpated without much trouble;\nand cruel applications of it were made in the beginning of the sixth\ncentury, since the Council of Epaone, in its 34th canon, ordains that\n\"the master who, _of his own authority_, shall take away the life of\nhis slave, shall be cut off for two years from the communion of the\nChurch.\" After the middle of the ninth century, similar attempts were\nstill made, and the Council of Worms, held in 868, labored to repress\nthem, by subjecting to two years of penance the master who, of his own\nauthority, shall have put his slave to death.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nMEANS EMPLOYED BY THE CHURCH TO ENFRANCHISE SLAVES.\n\n\nWhile improving the condition of slaves and assimilating it as much\nas possible to that of freemen, it was necessary not to forget the\nuniversal emancipation; for it was not enough to ameliorate slavery, it\nwas necessary to abolish it. The mere force of Christian notions, and\nthe spirit of charity which was spread at the same time with them over\nthe world, made so violent an attack on the state of slavery, that they\nwere sure sooner or later to bring about its complete abolition. It\nis impossible for society to remain for a long time under an order of\nthings which is formally opposed to the ideas with which it is imbued.\nAccording to Christian maxims, all men have a common origin and the\nsame destiny; all are brethren in Jesus Christ; all are obliged to\nlove each other with all their hearts, to assist each other in their\nnecessities, to avoid offending each other even in words; all are equal\nbefore God, for they will all be judged without exception of persons.\nChristianity extended and took root everywhere--took possession of\nall classes, of all branches of society; how, then, could the state\nof slavery last--a state of degradation which makes man the property\nof another, allows him to be sold like an animal, and deprives him of\nthe sweetest ties of family and of all participation in the advantages\nof society? Two things so opposite could not exist together; the\nlaws were in favor of slavery, it is true; it may even be said that\nChristianity did not make a direct attack on those laws. But, on the\nother hand, what did it do? It strove to make itself master of ideas\nand manners, communicated to them a new impulse, and gave them a\ndifferent direction. In such a case, what did laws avail? Their rigor\nwas relaxed, their observance was neglected, their equity began to be\ndoubted, their utility was disputed, their fatal effects were remarked,\nand they gradually fell into desuetude, so that sometimes it was not\nnecessary to strike a blow to destroy them. They were thrown aside\nas things of no use; or, if they deserved the trouble of an express\nabolition, it was only for the sake of ceremony; it was a body interred\nwith honor.\n\nBut let it not be supposed, after what I have just said, that in\nattributing so much importance to Christian ideas and manners, I mean\nthat the triumph of these ideas and manners was abandoned to that\nforce alone, without that co-operation on the part of the Church which\nthe time and circumstances required. Quite the contrary: the Church,\nas I have already pointed out, called to her aid all the means the\nmost conducive to the desired result. In the first place, it was\nrequisite, to secure the work of emancipation, to protect from all\nassault the liberty of the freed--liberty which unhappily was often\nattacked and put in great danger. The causes of this melancholy fact\nmay be easily found in the remains of ancient ideas and manners, in\nthe cupidity of powerful men, the system of violence made general by\nthe irruptions of the barbarians, in the poverty, neglect, and total\nwant of education and morality in which slaves must have been when they\nquitted servitude. It must be supposed that a great number of them did\nnot know all the value of liberty; that they did not always conduct\nthemselves, in their new state, according to the dictates of reason and\nthe exigences of justice; and that, newly entered on the possession\nof the rights of freemen, they did not know how to fulfil all their\nnew obligations. But these different inconveniences, inseparable\nfrom the nature of things, were not to hinder the consummation of an\nenterprise called for both by religion and humanity, and it was proper\nto be resigned to them from the consideration of the numerous motives\nfor excusing the conduct of the enfranchised; the state which these\nmen had just quitted had checked the development of their moral and\nintellectual faculties.\n\nThe liberty of newly-emancipated slaves was protected against the\nattacks of injustice, and clothed with an inviolable sanctity, from\nthe time that their enfranchisement was connected with things which\nthen exercised the most powerful ascendency. Now the Church, and all\nthat belonged to her, was in this influential position; therefore\nthe custom, which was then introduced, of performing the manumission\nin the churches, was undoubtedly very favorable to the progress of\nliberty. This custom, by taking the place of ancient usages, caused\nthem to be forgotten; it was, at the same time, a tacit declaration of\nthe value of human liberty in the sight of God, and a proclamation,\nwith additional authority, of the equality of men before Him; for the\nmanumission was made in the same place where it was so often read,\nthat before Him there was no exception of persons; where all earthly\ndistinctions disappeared, and all men were commingled and united by\nthe sweet ties of fraternity and love. This method of manumission more\nclearly invested the Church with the right of defending the liberty of\nthe enfranchised. As she had been witness to the act, she could testify\nto the spontaneity and the other circumstances which assured its\nvalidity; she could even insist on its observance, by representing that\nthe promised liberty could not be violated without profaning the sacred\nplace, without breaking a pledge which had been given in the presence\nof God himself. The Church did not forget to turn these circumstances\nto the advantage of the freed. Thus we see that the first Council of\nOrange, held in 441, ordains, in its 7th canon, that it was necessary\nto check, by ecclesiastical censures, whoever desired to reduce to any\nkind of servitude slaves who had been emancipated within the enclosure\nof the church. A century later we find the same prohibition repeated in\nthe 7th canon of the fifth Council of Orleans, held in 549.\n\nThe protection given by the Church to freed slaves was so manifest and\nknown to all, that the custom was introduced of especially recommending\nthem to her. This recommendation was sometimes made by will, as the\nCouncil of Orange, which I have just quoted, gives us to understand;\nfor it orders that the emancipated who had been recommended to the\nChurch by will, shall be protected from all kinds of servitude, by\necclesiastical censures.\n\nBut this recommendation was not always made in a testamentary form. We\nread in the sixth canon of the sixth Council of Toledo, held in 589,\nthat when any enfranchised persons had been recommended to the Church,\nneither they nor their children could be deprived of the protection of\nthe Church: here they speak in general, without limitation to cases in\nwhich there had been a will. The same regulation may be seen in another\nCouncil of Toledo, held in 633, which simply says, that the Church will\nreceive under her protection only the enfranchised of individuals who\nshall have taken care to recommend them to her.\n\nIn the absence of all particular recommendation, and even when the\nmanumission had not been made in the Church, she did not cease to\ninterest herself in defending the freed, when their liberty was\nendangered. He who has any regard for the dignity of man, and any\nfeeling of humanity in his heart, will certainly not find it amiss\nthat the Church interfered in affairs of this kind; indeed, she acted\nas every generous man should do, in the exercise of the right of\nprotecting the weak. We shall not be displeased, therefore, to find\nin the twenty-ninth canon of the Council of Agde in Languedoc, held\nin 506, a regulation commanding the Church, in case of necessity, to\nundertake the defence of those to whom their masters had given liberty\nin a lawful way.\n\nThe zeal of the Church in all times and places for the redemption of\ncaptives has no less contributed to the great work of the abolition\nof slavery. We know that a considerable portion of slaves owed their\nservitude to the reverses of war. The mild character which we see in\nmodern wars would have appeared fabulous to the ancients. Woe to the\nvanquished! might then be said with perfect truth; there was nothing\nbut slavery or death. The evil was rendered still greater by a fatal\nprejudice, which was felt with respect to the redemption of captives--a\nprejudice which was, nevertheless, founded on a trait of remarkable\nheroism. No doubt the heroic firmness of Regulus is worthy of all\nadmiration. The hair stands upon our head when we read the powerful\ndescription of Horace; the book falls from our hands at this terrible\npassage:\n\n \"Fertur pudic\u00e6 conjugis osculum\n Parvosque natos, ut capitis minor,\n Ab se removisse, et virilem\n Torvus humi posuisse vultum.\"--Lib. iii. od. 5.\n\nNevertheless, if we lay aside the deep impression which such heroism\nproduces on us, and the enthusiasm at all that shows a great soul, we\nmust confess that this virtue bordered on ferocity; and that, in the\nterrible discourse of Regulus, that is a cruel policy, against which\nthe sentiments of humanity would strongly recoil, if the mind were not,\nas it were, prostrated at the sight of the sublime disinterestedness of\nthe speaker. Christianity could not consent to such doctrines; it could\nnot allow the maxim to be maintained that, in order to render men brave\nin battle, it was necessary to deprive them of hope. The wonderful\ntraits of valor, the magnificent scenes of force and constancy, which\nshine in every page of the history of modern nations, eloquently show\nthat the Christian religion was not deceived; gentleness of manners\nmay be united with heroism. The ancients were always in excess, either\nin cowardice or ferocity; between these two extremes there is a middle\nway, and that has been taught to mankind by the Christian religion.\nChristianity, in accordance with its principles of fraternity and love,\nregarded the redemption of captives as one of the worthiest objects of\nits charitable zeal. Whether we consider the noble traits of particular\nactions, which have been preserved to us by history, or observe the\nspirit which guided the conduct of the Church, we shall find therein\none of the most distinguished claims of the Christian religion to the\ngratitude of mankind.\n\nA celebrated writer of our times, M. de Chateaubriand, has described\nto us a Christian priest who, in the forests of France, voluntarily\nmade himself a slave, who devoted himself to slavery for the ransom\nof a Christian soldier, and thus restored a husband to his desolate\nwife, and a father to three unfortunate orphan children. The sublime\nspectacle which Zachary offers us, when enduring slavery with calm\nserenity for the love of Jesus Christ, and for the unhappy being for\nwhom he has sacrificed his liberty, is not a mere fiction of the\npoet. More than once, in the first ages of the Church, such examples\nwere seen; and he who has wept over the sublime disinterestedness and\nunspeakable charity of Zachary, may be sure that his tears are only\na tribute to the truth. \"We have known,\" says St. Clement the Pope,\n\"many of ours who have devoted themselves to captivity, in order to\nransom their brethren.\" (_First Letter to the Corinth._ c. 55.) The\nredemption of captives was so carefully provided for by the Church\nthat it was regulated by the ancient canons, and to fulfil it, she\nsold, if necessary, her ornaments, and even the sacred vessels. When\nunhappy captives were in question, her charity and zeal knew no bounds,\nand she went so far as to ordain that, however bad might be the state\nof her affairs, their ransom should be provided for in the first\ninstance. (_Caus._ 12, 5, 2.) In the midst of revolutions produced by\nthe irruption of barbarians, we see that the Church, always constant\nin her designs, forgot not the noble enterprise in which she was\nengaged. The beneficent regulations of the ancient canons fell not\ninto forgetfulness or desuetude, and the generous words of the holy\nBishop of Milan, in favor of slaves, found an echo which ceased not to\nbe heard amid the chaos of those unhappy times. We see by the fifth\ncanon of the Council of M\u00e2con, held in 585, that priests undertook\nthe ransom of captives by devoting to it the Church property. The\nCouncil of Rheims, held in 625, inflicts the punishment of suspension\nfrom his functions on the bishop who shall have destroyed the sacred\nvessels; but with generous foresight, it adds, \"for any other motive\nthan the redemption of captives;\" and long afterwards, in the twelfth\ncanon of the Council of Verneuil, held in 844, we find that the\nproperty of the Church was used for that merciful purpose. When the\ncaptive was restored to liberty, the Church did not deprive him of\nher protection; she was careful to continue it, by giving him letters\nof recommendation, for the double purpose of protecting him from new\ntrouble during his journey, and of furnishing him with the means of\nrepairing his losses during his captivity. We find a proof of this\nnew kind of protection in the second canon of the Council of Lyons,\nheld in 583, which ordains that bishops shall state in the letters of\nrecommendation which they give to captives, the date and price of their\nransom. The zeal for this work was displayed in the Church with so\nmuch ardor, that it went so far as to commit acts of imprudence which\nthe ecclesiastical authority was compelled to check. These excesses,\nand this mistaken zeal, prove how great was the spirit of charity.\nWe know by a Council, called that of St. Patrick, held in Ireland in\nthe year 451 or 456, that some of the clergy ventured to procure the\nfreedom of captives by inducing them to run away. The Council, by its\nthirty-second canon, very prudently checks this excess, by ordaining\nthat the ecclesiastic who desires to ransom captives must do so with\nhis own money; for to steal them, by inducing them to run away, was to\nexpose the clergy to be considered as robbers, which was a dishonor to\nthe Church. A remarkable document, which, while showing us the spirit\nof order and equity which guides the Church, at the same time enables\nus to judge how deeply was engraved on men's minds the maxim, that _it\nis holy, meritorious, and generous to give liberty to captives_; for\nwe see that some persons had persuaded themselves that the excellence\nof the work justified seizing them forcibly. The disinterestedness of\nthe Church on this point is not less laudable. When she had employed\nher funds in the ransom of a captive, she did not desire from him any\nrecompense, even when he had it in his power to discharge the debt.\nWe have a certain proof of this in the letters of St. Gregory, where\nwe see that that Pope reassures some persons who had been freed with\nthe money of the Church, and who feared that after a time they would\nbe called upon to pay the sum expended for their advantage. The Pope\norders that no one, at any time, shall venture to disturb either them\nor their heirs, seeing that the sacred canons allow the employment of\nthe goods of the Church for the ransom of captives. (L. 7, ep. 14.)\n\nThe zeal of the Church for so holy a work must have contributed in\nan extraordinary way to diminish the number of slaves; the influence\nof it was so much the more salutary, as it was developed precisely\nat the time when it was most needed, that is, in those ages when the\ndissolution of the Roman empire, the irruption of the barbarians, the\nfluctuations of so many peoples, and the ferocity of the invading\nnations, rendered wars so frequent, revolutions so constant, and the\nempire of force so habitual and prevailing. Without the beneficent and\nliberating intervention of Christianity, the immense number of slaves\nbequeathed by the old society to the new, far from diminishing, would\nhave been augmented more and more; for wherever the law of brute force\nprevails, if it be not checked and softened by a powerful element,\nthe human race becomes rapidly debased, the necessary result of which\nis the increase of slavery. This lamentable state of agitation and\nviolence was in itself very likely to render the efforts which the\nChurch made to abolish slavery useless; and it was not without infinite\ntrouble that she prevented what she succeeded in preserving on one\nside, from being destroyed on the other. The absence of a central\npower, the complication of social relations, almost always badly\ndetermined, often affected by violence, and always deprived of the\nguarantee of stability and consistency, was the reason why there was\nno security either for things or persons, and that while properties\nwere unceasingly invaded, persons were deprived of their liberty. So\nthat it was at that time necessary to fight against the violence of\nindividuals, as had been formerly done against manners and legislation.\nWe see that the third canon of the Council of Lyons, held about 566,\nexcommunicates those who unjustly retain free persons in slavery; in\nthe seventeenth canon of the Council of Rheims, held in 625, it is\nforbidden, under the same penalty, to pursue free persons in order to\nreduce them to slavery: in the twenty-seventh canon of the Council of\nLondon, held in 1102, the barbarous custom of dealing in men, like\nanimals, is proscribed: and in the seventh canon of the Council of\nCoblentz, held in 922, he who takes away a Christian to sell him is\ndeclared guilty of homicide; a remarkable declaration, when we see\nliberty valued at as high a price as life itself. Another means of\nwhich the Church availed herself to abolish slavery was, to preserve\nfor the unfortunate who had been reduced to that state by misery, a\nsure means of quitting it.\n\nWe have already remarked above that indigence was one of the causes\nof slavery, and we have seen that this was frequently the cause among\nthe Gauls, as is evidenced by a passage of C\u00e6sar. We also know that\nby virtue of an ancient law, he who had fallen into slavery could not\nrecover his liberty without the consent of his master; as the slave\nwas really property, no one could dispose of him without the consent\nof his master, and least of all himself. This law was in accordance\nwith Pagan doctrines, but Christianity regarded the thing differently;\nand if the slave was still in her eyes a property, he did not cease\nto be a man. Thus on this point the Church refused to follow the\nstrict rules of other properties; and when there was the least doubt,\nat the first favorable opportunity she took the side of the slave.\nThese observations make us understand all the value of the new law\nintroduced by the Church, which ordained that persons who had been\nsold by necessity should be able to return to their former condition\nby restoring the price which they had received. This law, which is\nexpressly laid down in a French Council, held about 616 at Boneuil,\naccording to the common opinion, opened a wide field for the conquests\nof liberty; it supported in the heart of the slave a hope which urged\nhim to seek and put into operation the means of obtaining his ransom,\nand it placed his liberty within the power of any one who, touched with\nhis unhappy lot, was willing to pay or lend the necessary sum. Let us\nremember what we have said of the ardent zeal which was awakened in\nso many hearts for works of this kind; let us call to mind that the\nproperty of the Church was always considered as well employed when it\nwas used for the succor of the unfortunate, and we shall understand the\nincalculable influence of the regulation which we have just mentioned.\nWe shall see that it was to close one of the most abundant sources of\nslavery, and prepare a wide path to universal emancipation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nCONTINUATION OF THE SAME SUBJECT.\n\n\nThe conduct of the Church with respect to the Jews also contributed\nto the abolition of slavery. This singular people, who bear on their\nforehead the mark of proscription, and are found dispersed among all\nnations, like fragments of insoluble matter floating in a liquid, seek\nto console themselves in their misfortune by accumulating treasures,\nand appear to wish to avenge themselves for the contemptuous neglect\nin which they are left by other nations, by gaining possession of\ntheir wealth by means of insatiable usury. In times when revolutions\nand so many calamities must necessarily have produced distress, the\nodious vice of unfeeling avarice must have had a fatal influence. The\nharshness and cruelty of ancient laws and manners concerning debtors\nwere not effaced, liberty was far from being estimated at its just\nvalue, and examples of persons who sold it to relieve their necessities\nwere not wanting; it was therefore important to prevent the power of\nthe wealthy Jews from reaching an exorbitant extent, to the detriment\nof the liberty of Christians. The unhappy notoriety which, after so\nmany centuries, attaches to the Jews in this matter, proves that this\ndanger was not imaginary; and facts of which we are now witnesses\nare a confirmation of what we advance. The celebrated Herder, in his\n_Adrastus_, ventures to prognosticate that the children of Israel, from\ntheir systematic and calculating conduct, will in time make slaves of\nall Christians. If this extraordinary and extravagant apprehension\ncould enter the head of a distinguished man, in circumstances which are\ncertainly infinitely less favorable to the Jews, what was to be feared\nfrom this people in the unhappy times of which we speak? From these\nconsiderations, every impartial observer, every man who is not under\nthe influence of the wretched desire of taking the part of every kind\nof sect, in order to have the pleasure of accusing the Catholic Church,\neven at the risk of speaking against the interests of humanity; every\nobserver who is not one of those who are less alarmed by an irruption\nof Caffres than by any regulation by which the ecclesiastical power\nappears in the smallest degree to extend the circle of its prerogative;\nevery man, I say, who is neither thus bitter, little, nor pitiful, will\nsee, not only without being scandalized, but even with pleasure, that\nthe Church, with prudent vigilance, watched the progress of the Jews,\nand lost no opportunity of favoring their Christian slaves, until they\nwere no longer allowed to have any.\n\nThe third Council of Orleans, held in 538, by its 13th canon, forbids\nJews to compel Christian slaves to do things contrary to the religion\nof Jesus Christ. This regulation, which guarantied the liberty of the\nslave in the sanctuary of conscience, rendered him respectable even in\nthe eyes of his master: it was besides a solemn proclamation of the\ndignity of man, it was a declaration that slavery could not extend\nits dominion over the sacred region of the mind. Yet this was not\nenough; it was proper also that the recovery of their liberty should\nbe facilitated to the slaves of Jews. Three years only pass away; a\nfourth Council is held at Orleans; let us observe the progress which\nthe question had made in so short a time. This Council, by its 30th\ncanon, allows the Christian slaves who shall take refuge in the church\nto be ransomed, on paying to their Jewish master the proper price.\nIf we pay attention, we shall see that such a regulation must have\nproduced abundant results in favor of liberty, as it gave Christian\nslaves the opportunity of flying to the churches, and there imploring,\nwith more effect, the charity of their brethren, to gain the price of\ntheir ransom. The same Council, in its 31st canon, ordains that the\nJew who shall pervert a Christian slave shall be condemned to lose\nall his slaves; a new sanction given to the security of the slave's\nconscience--a new way opened to liberty. The Church constantly advanced\nwith that unity of plan--that admirable consistency--which even her\nenemies have acknowledged in her. In the short interval between the\nperiod alluded to and the latter part of the same century, her progress\nwas more perceptible. We observe, in the canonical regulations of\nthe latter period, a wider scope, and, if we may so speak, greater\nboldness. In the Council of M\u00e2con, held in 581 or 582, canon 16, Jews\nare expressly forbidden to have Christian slaves; and it is allowed to\nransom those who are in their possession for twelve sous. We find the\nsame prohibition in the 14th canon of the Council of Toledo, held in\n589; so that at this time the Church shows what her desire is; she is\nunwilling that a Christian should be in any way the slave of a Jew.\nConstant in her design, she checked the evil by all the means in her\npower; if it was necessary, limiting the right of selling slaves, when\nthere was danger of their falling into the hands of Jews. Thus we see\nthat, by the 9th canon of the Council of Ch\u00e2lons, held in 650, it is\nforbidden to sell slaves out of the kingdom of Clovis, lest they should\nfall into the power of Jews. Yet the intention of the Church on this\npoint was not understood by all, and her views were not seconded as\nthey ought to have been; but she did not cease to repeat and inculcate\nthem. In the middle of the seventh century there were found clergy and\nlaity who sold their Christian slaves to Jews. The Church labored to\ncheck this abuse. The tenth Council of Toledo, held in 657, by its 7th\ncanon, forbids Christians, and especially clerics, to sell their slaves\nto Jews; the Council adds these noble words: \"They cannot be ignorant\nthat these slaves have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ;\nwherefore they ought rather to buy than sell them.\"\n\nThis ineffable goodness of a God made man, who had shed His blood for\nthe redemption of all men, was the powerful motive which urged the\nChurch to interest herself with so much zeal in the enfranchisement\nof slaves; and, indeed, was it not enough to inspire horror for so\ndegrading an inequality, to think that these same men, reduced to\nthe level of brutes, had been, as well as their masters, as well as\nthe most powerful monarchs upon earth, the objects of the merciful\nintentions of the Most High? \"Since our Redeemer, the Creator of all\nthings,\" said Pope S. Gregory, \"has deigned, in His goodness, to assume\nthe flesh of man, in order to restore to us our pristine liberty,\nby breaking, through the means of His Divine grace, the bonds of\nservitude, which held us captives, it is a salutary deed to restore to\nmen, by enfranchisement, their native liberty; for, in the beginning,\nnature made them all free, and they have only been subjected to the\nyoke of servitude by the law of nations.\" (L. 5, lett. 72.)\n\nDuring all times the Church has considered it very necessary to\nlimit, as much as possible, the alienation of her property; and it\nmay be said that the general rule of her conduct in this point was\nto trust very little to the discretion of any one of her ministers\nindividually; she thus endeavored to prevent dilapidations, which\notherwise would have been frequent. As her possessions were dispersed\non all sides, and intrusted to ministers chosen from all classes of\nthe people, and exposed to the various influences which the relations\nof blood, friendship, and a thousand other circumstances, the effects\nof difference of character, knowledge, prudence, and even of times and\nplaces, always exercise, the Church showed herself very watchful in\ngiving her sanction to the power of alienation; and, when requisite,\nshe knew how to act with salutary rigor against those ministers\nwho, neglecting their duty, wasted the funds confided to them. We\nhave seen that, in spite of all this, she was not stopped by any\nconsideration when the ransom of captives was in question; it may be\nalso shown that, with respect to property in slaves, she saw things in\na different light, and changed her rigor into indulgence. When slaves\nhad faithfully served the Church, the Bishops could grant them their\nliberty, and add a gift to assist them in maintaining themselves.\nThis judgment as to the merit of slaves appears to have been confided\nto the discretion of the Bishops; and it is evident that such a\nregulation opened a wide door to their charity; at the same time,\nit stimulated the slaves to behave themselves, so as to deserve so\nprecious a recompense. As it might happen that the succeeding Bishop\nmight raise doubts as to the sufficiency of the motives which induced\nhis predecessor to give liberty to a slave, and attempt afterwards\nto call it in question, it was ordained that they should respect the\nappointments of their predecessors on this point, and leave to the\nenfranchised not only their liberty, but also the gratuity which had\nbeen given to them in lands, vineyards, or houses: this is prescribed\nin the 7th canon of the Council of Agde in Languedoc, held in the year\n506. Let it not be objected that manumission is forbidden by the canons\nof this Council in other places; they speak only in general terms, and\nallude not to cases where slaves had merited well. Alienations or\nmortgages made by a Bishop who left no property were to be revoked.\nThis regulation itself shows that it alludes to cases in which the\nBishops had acted against the canons. Yet if he had given liberty to\nany slaves, the rigor of the law was mitigated in their favor, and\nit was ordained that the enfranchised should continue to enjoy their\nliberty. This is ordained by the 9th canon of the Council of Orleans,\nheld in 541. This canon only imposes on the enfranchised the obligation\nof lending their services to the Church; services which were evidently\nonly those of the enfranchised. On the other hand, she recompensed them\nwith the protection which she always granted to men in this condition.\n\nAs another proof of the indulgence of the Church with respect to\nslaves, may be cited the 10th canon of the Council of Celchite,\nin England, held in 816, the result of which must have been to\nenfranchise, in a few years, all the English slaves of the Churches\nexisting in the countries where the Council was observed. Indeed, this\ncanon ordained that, at the death of a Bishop, all his English slaves\nshould be set at liberty; it added, that each of the other Bishops and\nAbbots might enfranchise three slaves on the occasion, by giving each\nof them three sous. Such regulations smoothed the way more and more,\nand prepared circumstances and men's minds, so that, some time later,\nwas witnessed that noble scene, where, at the Council of Armagh, in\n1172, liberty was given to all the English who were slaves in Ireland.\n\nThe advantageous conditions enjoyed by the slaves of the Church were so\nmuch the more valuable, because a regulation newly introduced prevented\ntheir losing them. If they could have passed into the hands of other\nmasters, in this case they would have lost the benefits which they\nderived from living under the rule of so kind a mistress. But happily,\nit was forbidden to exchange them for others; and if they left the\npower of the Church, it was for freedom. We have a positive proof of\nthis regulation in the decretals of Gregory IX. (l. 3, t. 19, chaps.\n3 and 4). It should be observed that in this document the slaves of\nthe Church are regarded as consecrated to God; thereon is founded the\nregulation which prevents their passing into other hands and leaving\nthe Church, except as freemen. We also see there that the faithful, for\nthe good of their souls, had the custom of offering their slaves to\nGod and the Saints. By placing them thus in the power of the Church,\nthey put them out of common dealing and prevented their again falling\ninto profane servitude. It is useless to enlarge on the salutary effect\nwhich must have been produced by these ideas and manners, in which we\nsee religion so intimately allied with the cause of humanity; it is\nenough to observe, that the spirit of that age was highly religious,\nand that which was attached to the cause of religion was sure to ride\nin safety.\n\nReligious ideas, by constantly developing their strength and directing\ntheir action to all branches, were intended in a special manner to\nrelieve men by all possible means from the yoke of slavery. On this\nsubject we may be allowed to remark a canonical regulation of the time\nof Gregory the Great. In a Council at Rome, held in 595, and presided\nover by that Pope, a new means of escaping from their degraded state\nwas offered to slaves, by deciding that liberty should be given to all\nthose who desired to embrace the monastic life. The words of the holy\nPope are worthy of attention; they show the ascendency of religious\nmotives, and how much these motives preponderated over considerations\nand interests of a worldly nature. This important document is found in\nthe letters of St. Gregory; it may be read in the notes at the end of\nthe volume.\n\nTo imagine that such regulations would remain barren, is to mistake\nthe spirit of those times: on the contrary, they produced the most\nimportant effects. We may form an idea of them by reading in the decree\nof Gratian (_Distin._ 54, c. 12), that they led to scandal; slaves fled\nfrom the houses of their masters and took refuge in monasteries, under\npretext of religion. It was necessary to check this abuse, against\nwhich complaints arose on all sides. Without waiting to consider what\nthese abuses themselves indicate, is it difficult to imagine that\nthese regulations of the Church must have had valuable results? They\nnot only gained liberty for a great many slaves, but also raised them\nvery much in the eyes of the world, for they placed them in a state\nwhich every day gained importance and acquired an immense prestige and\na powerful influence. We may form an idea of the profound change which\ntook place every day in the organization of society, thanks to these\nvarious means, by fixing our attention for a moment on what resulted\nwith respect to the ordination of slaves. The discipline of the Church\non this point was in accordance with her doctrines. The slave was a man\nlike other men, and he could be ordained as well as the greatest noble.\nYet while he was subject to the power of his master, he was devoid of\nthe independence necessary for the dignity of the sacred ministry;\ntherefore it was required that he should not be ordained until he had\nbeen previously set at liberty. Nothing could be more just, reasonable,\nand prudent, than the limit thus placed on a discipline otherwise\nso noble and generous--a discipline which was in itself an eloquent\nprotest in favor of the dignity of man. The Church solemnly declared\nthat the misfortune of being a slave did not reduce him below the level\nof other men, for she did not think it unworthy of her to choose her\nministers from among those who had been in servitude. By placing in so\nhonorable a sphere those who had been slaves, she labored with lofty\ngenerosity to disperse the prejudices which existed against those\nwho were placed in that unhappy condition, and created strong and\neffective ties between them and the most venerated class of freemen.\nThe abuse which then crept in of conferring orders on slaves, without\nthe consent of their masters, is above all worthy of our attention;\nan abuse, it is true, altogether contrary to the sacred canons, and\nwhich was checked by the Church with praiseworthy zeal, but which is\nnot the less useful in enabling the observer duly to appreciate the\nprofound effect of religious ideas and institutions. Without attempting\nin any way to excuse what was blamable therein, we may very well make\nuse of the abuse itself, by considering that it frequently happens\nthat abuses are only exaggerations of a good principle. Religious\nideas accord but ill with slavery, although supported by laws; thence\nthe incessant struggle, repeated under different aspects, but always\ndirected towards the same end, viz. universal emancipation. It appears\nto us that we may now the more confidently avail ourselves of this kind\nof argument, as we have seen the most dreadful attempts at revolution\ntreated with indulgence, on account of the principles with which the\nrevolutionists were imbued and the objects which they had in view;\nobjects which, as every one knows, were nothing less than an entire\nchange in the organization of society. The abuse to which we have\nalluded, is attested by the curious documents which are found collected\nin the decree of Gratian (_Dist._ 54, c. 9, 10, 11, 12). When we\nexamine these documents with attention, we find, 1st, that the number\nof slaves thus freed was very considerable, since the complaints on\nthis subject were almost universal: 2d, that the Bishops were generally\nin favor of the slaves; that they carried their protection very far;\nthat they labored in all ways to realize these doctrines of equality;\nindeed, it is affirmed in these documents that there was hardly a\nBishop who could not be charged with this reprehensible compliance: 3d,\nthat slaves were aware of this spirit of protection, and were eager\nto throw off their chains and cast themselves into the arms of the\nChurch: 4th, that this combination of circumstances must have produced\nin men's minds a movement very favorable to liberty; and that this\naffectionate communication established between slaves and the Church,\nthen so powerful and influential, must soon have weakened slavery, and\nrapidly have promoted the advance of nations towards that liberty which\ncompletely triumphed a few centuries later. The Church of Spain, whose\ncivilizing influence has received so many eulogiums from men certainly\nbut little attached to Catholicity, equally displays her lofty views\nand consummate prudence on this point. Charitable zeal in favor of\nslaves was so ardent, the tendency to raise them to the sacred ministry\nso decided, that it was necessary to allow free scope to this generous\nimpulse, while reconciling it as much as possible with the sacredness\nof the ministry. Such was the twofold object of the discipline\nintroduced into Spain, by virtue of which it was allowed to confer\nsacred orders on the slaves of the Church, on their being previously\nenfranchised. This is ordered by the 74th canon of the fourth Council\nof Toledo, held in 633; it is also inferred from the 11th canon of the\nninth Council of Toledo, which ordains that Bishops shall not introduce\nthe slaves of the Church among the clergy without having previously\ngiven them their liberty.\n\nIt is remarkable that this regulation was extended by the 18th canon\nof the Council of Merida, in 666, which gives to parish-priests the\nright of selecting clerks among the slaves of their own church, with\nthe obligation of maintaining them according to their means. This wise\ndiscipline prevented, without any injustice, all the difficulties that\nmight have ensued from the ordination of slaves; while it was a very\nmild way of effecting the most beneficent results, since in conferring\norders on the slaves of the Church, it was easy to choose from among\nthem such as were most deserving by their intellectual and moral\nqualifications. At the same time, it was affording the Church a most\nfavorable and honorable mode of liberating her slaves, by enrolling\nthem among her ministers. Finally, the Church by her generous conduct\ntowards slaves, gave a salutary example to the laity. We have seen that\nshe allowed the parochial clergy, as well as the bishops, the privilege\nof setting them free; and this must have rendered it less painful for\nlaymen to emancipate their slaves, when circumstances seemed to call\nthe latter to the sacred ministry.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nDOCTRINES OF S. AUGUSTINE AND S. THOMAS AQUINAS ON THE SUBJECT OF\nSLAVERY.--R\u00c9SUM\u00c9 OF THE SUBJECT.\n\n\nThus did the Church, by a variety of means, break the chains of\nslavery, without ever exceeding the limits marked out by justice and\nprudence: thus did she banish from among Christians that degrading\ncondition, so contrary to their exalted ideas on the dignity of\nman, and their generous feelings of fraternity and love. Wherever\nChristianity shall be introduced, chains of iron shall be turned into\ngentle ties, and humiliated men shall raise their ennobled heads. With\nwhat pleasure do we read the remarks of one of the greatest men of\nChristianity, S. Augustine, on this point (_De Civit. Dei_, l. xix. c.\n14, 15, 16). He establishes in a few words the obligation incumbent\nupon all who rule--fathers, husbands, and masters--to watch over the\ngood of those who are under them: he lays down the advantage of those\nwho obey, as one of the foundations for obedience; he says that the\njust do not rule from ambition or pride, but from duty and the desire\nof doing good to their subjects: \"Neque enim dominandi cupiditate\nimperant, sed officio consulendi, nec principandi superbia, sed\nprovidendi misericordia;\" and by these noble maxims he proscribes all\nopinions which tend to tyranny, or found obedience on any degrading\nnotions; but on a sudden, as if this great mind apprehended some reply\nin violation of human dignity, he grows warm, he boldly faces the\nquestion; he rises to his full height, and, giving free scope to the\nnoble thoughts that ferment in his mind, he invokes the idea of nature\nand the will of God in favor of the dignity of man thus menaced. He\nsays: \"Thus wills the order of nature; thus has man been created by\nGod. He has given him to rule over the fishes of the sea, the birds of\nthe air, and the reptiles that crawl on the face of the earth. _He has\nordained that reasoning creatures, made according to His own image,\nshall rule only over creatures devoid of reason. He has not established\nthe dominion of man over man, but that of man over the brute._\" This\npassage of S. Augustine is one of those bold features which shine forth\nin writers of genius, when grieved by the sight of a painful object,\nthey allow their generous ideas and feelings to have free scope, and\ncease to restrain their daring energies. Struck by the force of the\nexpression, the reader, in suspense and breathless, hastens to read the\nsucceeding lines; he fears that the author may be mistaken, seduced\nby the nobleness of his heart, and carried away by the force of his\ngenius. But, with inexpressible pleasure, he finds that the writer\nhas in no degree departed from the path of true doctrine, when, like\na brave champion, he has descended into the arena to defend the cause\nof justice and humanity. Thus does S. Augustine now appear to us: the\nsight of so many unfortunate beings groaning in slavery, victims of the\nviolence and caprice of their masters, afflicted his generous mind. By\nthe light of reason and the doctrines of Christianity, he saw no reason\nwhy so considerable a portion of the human race should be condemned\nto live in such debasement; wherefore, when proclaiming the doctrines\nof submission and obedience, he labors to discover the cause of such\nignominy; and not being able to find it in the nature of man, he seeks\nfor it in sin, in malediction. \"The primitive just men,\" says he, \"were\nrather established as pastors over their flocks, than as kings over\nother men; whereby God gives us to understand what was called for by\nthe order of creation, and what was required by the punishment of sin;\nfor the condition of slavery has, with reason, been imposed on the\nsinner. Thus we do not find the word slave in the Scriptures before\nthe day when the just man, Noah, gave it as a punishment to his guilty\nson; whence it follows that this word came from sin, and not from\nnature.\" This manner of considering slavery as the offspring of sin,\nas the fruit of the Divine malediction, was of the highest importance.\nBy protecting the dignity of human nature, that doctrine completely\ndestroyed all the prejudices of natural superiority which the pride of\nfree men could entertain. Thereby also, slavery was deprived of all\nits supposed value as a political principle or means of government:\nit could only be regarded as one of the numberless scourges inflicted\non the human race by the anger of the Most High. Henceforth slaves\nhad a motive for resignation, while the absolute power of masters was\nchecked, and the compassion of all free men was powerfully excited.\nAll were born in sin, all might have been in a state of slavery. To\nmake a boast of liberty would have been like the conduct of a man\nwho, during an epidemic, should boast of having preserved his health,\nand imagine that on that account he had a right to insult the unhappy\nsick. In a word, the state of slavery was a scourge, nothing more; like\npestilence, war, famine, or any thing else of the kind. The duty of\nall men was to labor to remedy and abolish it. Such doctrines did not\nremain sterile. Proclaimed in the face of day, they were heard in all\nparts of the Catholic world; and not only were they put in practice, as\nwe have seen by numberless examples, but they were carefully preserved\nas a precious theory, throughout the confusion of the times. After the\nlapse of eight centuries, we see them repeated by one of the brightest\nlights of the Catholic Church, S. Thomas Aquinas (I. p. q. xcvi. art.\n4). That great man does not see in slavery either difference of race or\nimaginary inferiority or means of government; he only considers it as a\nscourge inflicted on humanity by the sins of the first man.\n\nSuch is the repugnance with which Christians have looked upon slavery:\nwe see from this, how false is the assertion of M. Guizot: \"It does\nnot seem that Christian society was surprised or much offended by\nit.\" It is true there was not that blind disturbance and irritation\nwhich, despising all barriers and paying no attention to the rules of\njustice or the counsels of prudence, ran with foolish haste to efface\nthe mark of degradation and ignominy. But if that disturbance and\nirritation are meant which are caused by the sight of oppression and\noutrages committed against man, sentiments which can well accord with\nlonganimity and holy resignation, and which, without checking for a\nmoment the action of charitable zeal, nevertheless avoid precipitating\nevents, preferring mature arrangement in order to secure a complete\nresult; how can this perturbation of mind and holy indignation be\nbetter proved to have existed in the bosom of the Church than by the\nfacts and doctrines which we have just quoted? What more eloquent\nprotest against the continuance of slavery can you have than the\ndoctrine of these two illustrious doctors? They declare it, as we\nhave just seen, to be the fruit of malediction, the chastisement of\nthe prevarication of the human race; and they only acknowledge its\nexistence by considering it as one of the great scourges that afflict\nhumanity.\n\nI have explained, with sufficient evidence, the profound reasons which\ninduced the Church to recommend obedience to slaves, and she cannot be\nreproached on that account with forgetting the rights of humanity. We\nmust not suppose on that account that Christian society was wanting\nin the boldness necessary for telling the whole truth; but it told\nonly the pure and wholesome truth. What took place with respect to the\nmarriages of slaves is a proof of what I advance. We know that their\nunion was not regarded as a real marriage, and that even that union,\nsuch as it was, could not be contracted without the consent of their\nmasters, under pain of being considered as void. Here was a flagrant\nviolation of reason and justice. What did the Church do? She directly\nreprobated so gross a violation of the rights of nature. Let us hear\nwhat Pope Adrian I. said on this subject: \"According to the words of\nthe Apostles, as in Jesus Christ we ought not to deprive either slaves\nor freemen of the sacraments of the Church, so it is not allowed in\nany way to prevent the marriage of slaves; and if their marriages have\nbeen contracted in spite of the opposition and repugnance of their\nmasters, nevertheless they ought not to be dissolved in any way.\" (_De\nConju. Serv._, lib. iv. tom. 9, c. 1.) And let it not be supposed that\nthis regulation, which secured the liberty of slaves on one of the\nmost important points, was restricted to particular circumstances;\nno, it was something more; it was a proclamation of their freedom in\nthis matter. The Church was unwilling to allow that man, reduced to\nthe level of the brute, should be forced to obey the caprice or the\ninterest of another, without regard to the feelings of his heart. St.\nThomas was of the same opinion, for he openly maintains that, with\nrespect to the contracting of marriage, slaves are not obliged to obey\ntheir masters (2^a. 2, q. 104, art. 5).\n\nIn the hasty sketch which I have given, I believe that I have kept the\npromise which I made at the beginning, not to advance any proposition\nwithout supporting it by undeniable documents, and not to allow myself\nto be misled by enthusiasm in favor of Catholicity, so as to concede\nto it that to which it is not entitled. By passing, rapidly it is\ntrue, the course of ages, we have shown, by convincing proofs, which\nhave been furnished by times and places the most various, that it\nwas Catholicity that abolished slavery, in spite of ideas, manners,\ninterests, and laws, which opposed obstacles apparently invincible;\nand that it has done so without injustice, without violence, without\nrevolutions,--with the most exquisite prudence and the most admirable\nmoderation. We have seen the Catholic Church make so extensive, so\nvaried, and so efficacious an attack on slavery, that that odious chain\nwas broken without a single violent stroke. Exposed to the action of\nthe most powerful agents, it gradually relaxed and fell to pieces. Her\nproceedings may be thus recapitulated:--\n\nFirst, she loudly teaches the truth concerning the dignity of man; she\ndefines the obligations of masters and slaves; she declares them equal\nbefore God, and thus completely destroys the degrading theories which\nstain the writings even of the greatest philosophers of antiquity.\nShe then comes to the application of her doctrines: she labors to\nimprove the treatment of slaves; she struggles against the atrocious\nright of life and death; she opens her temples to them as asylums,\nand when they depart thence, prevents their being ill-treated; she\nlabors to substitute public tribunals for private vengeance. At the\nsame time that the Church guarantees the liberty of the enfranchised,\nby connecting it with religious motives, she defends that of those\nborn free; she labors to close the sources of slavery, by displaying\nthe most active zeal for the redemption of captives, by opposing the\navarice of the Jews, by procuring for men who were sold, easy means of\nrecovering their liberty. The Church gives an example of mildness and\ndisinterestedness; she facilitates emancipation, by admitting slaves\ninto monasteries and the ecclesiastical state; she facilitates it by\nall the other means that charity suggests; and thus it is that, in\nspite of the deep roots of slavery in ancient society--in spite of\nthe perturbation caused by the irruptions of the barbarians--in spite\nof so many wars and calamities of every kind, which in great measure\nparalyzed the effect of all regulating and beneficent action--yet\nwe see slavery, that dishonor and leprosy of ancient civilization,\nrapidly diminish among Christians, until it finally disappears. Surely\nin all this we do not discover a plan conceived and concerted by men.\nBut we do observe therein, in the absence of that plan, such unity of\ntendencies, such a perfect identity of views, and such similarity in\nthe means, that we have the clearest demonstration of the civilizing\nand liberating spirit contained in Catholicity. Accurate observers will\nno doubt be gratified in beholding, in the picture which I have just\nexhibited, the admirable concord with which the period of the empire,\nthat of the irruption of the barbarians, and that of feudality, all\ntended towards the same end. They will not regret the poor regularity\nwhich distinguishes the exclusive work of man; they will love, I repeat\nit, to collect all the facts scattered in the seeming disorder, from\nthe forests of Germany to the fields of B\u0153otia--from the banks of\nthe Thames to those of the Tiber. I have not invented these facts;\nI have pointed out the periods, and cited the Councils. The reader\nwill find, at the end of the volume, in the original and in full,\nthe texts of which I have just given an abstract--a _r\u00e9sum\u00e9:_ thus\nhe may fully convince himself that I have not deceived him. If such\nhad been my intention, surely I should have avoided descending to the\nlevel ground of facts; I should have preferred the vague regions of\ntheory; I should have called to my aid high sounding and seductive\nlanguage, and all the means the most likely to enchant the imagination\nand excite the feelings; in fine, I should have placed myself in one\nof those positions where a writer can suppose at his pleasure things\nwhich have never existed, and made the best use of the resources of\nimagination and invention. The task which I have undertaken is rather\nmore difficult, perhaps less brilliant, but certainly more useful.\n\nWe may now inquire of M. Guizot what were the _other causes_, the\n_other ideas_, the _other principles of civilization_, the great\ndevelopment of which, to avail myself of his words, was necessary\n\"to abolish this evil of evils, this iniquity of iniquities.\" Ought\nhe not to explain, or at least point out, these causes, ideas, and\nprinciples of civilization, which, according to him, assisted the\nChurch in the abolition of slavery, in order to save the reader the\ntrouble of seeking or divining them? If they did not arise in the bosom\nof the Church, _where_ did they arise? Were they found in the ruins\nof ancient civilization? But could these remains of a scattered and\nalmost annihilated civilization effect what that same civilization,\nin all its vigor, power, and splendor, never did or thought of\ndoing?--Were they in the _individual independence of the barbarians_?\nBut that individuality, the inseparable companion of violence, must\nconsequently have been the source of oppression and slavery. Were they\nfound in the _military patronage_ introduced, according to M. Guizot,\nby the barbarians themselves; patronage which laid the foundation\nof that aristocratical organization which was converted at a later\nperiod into feudality? But what could this patronage--an institution\nlikely, on the contrary, to perpetuate slavery among the indigent in\nconquered countries, and to extend it to a considerable portion of the\nconquerors themselves--what could this patronage do for the abolition\nof slavery? Where, then, is the idea, the custom, the institution,\nwhich, born out of Christianity, contributed to the abolition of\nslavery? Let any one point out to us the epoch of its formation, the\ntime of its development; let him show us that it had not its origin\nin Christianity, and we will then confess that the latter cannot\nexclusively lay claim to the glorious title of having abolished that\ndegraded condition; and he may be sure that this shall not prevent our\nexalting that idea, custom, or institution which took part in the great\nand noble enterprise of liberating the human race.\n\nWe may be allowed, in conclusion, to inquire of the Protestant\nchurches, of those ungrateful daughters who, after having quitted the\nbosom of their mother, attempt to calumniate and dishonor her, where\nwere you when the Catholic Church accomplished in Europe the immense\nwork of the abolition of slavery? and how can you venture to reproach\nher with sympathizing with servitude, degrading man, and usurping his\nrights? Can you, then, present any such claim entitling you to the\ngratitude of the human race? What part can you claim in that great work\nwhich prepared the way for the development and grandeur of European\ncivilization? Catholicity alone, without your concurrence, completed\nthe work; and she alone would have conducted Europe to its lofty\ndestinies, if you had not come to interrupt the majestic march of its\nmighty nations, by urging them into a path bordered by precipices,--a\npath the end of which is concealed by darkness which the eye of God\nalone can pierce.[15]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nCONTRAST BETWEEN TWO ORDERS OF CIVILIZATION.\n\n\nWE have seen that European civilization owes to the Catholic Church its\nfinest ornament, its most valuable victory in the cause of humanity,\nthe abolition of slavery. It was the Church that, by her doctrines,\nas beneficent as elevated, by a system as efficacious as prudent,\nby her unbounded generosity, her indefatigable zeal, her invincible\nfirmness, abolished slavery in Europe; that is to say, she took the\nfirst step towards the regeneration of humanity, and laid the first\nstone for the wide and deep foundation of European civilization; we\nmean the emancipation of slaves, the abolition for ever of so degrading\na state,--universal liberty. It was impossible to create and organize\na civilization full of grandeur and dignity, without raising man from\nhis state of abjection, and placing him above the level of animals.\nWhenever we see him crouching at another's feet, awaiting with anxiety\nthe orders of his master or trembling at the lash; whenever he is\nsold like a beast, or a price is set upon his powers and his life,\ncivilization will never have its proper development, it will always be\nweak, sickly, and broken; for thus humanity bears a mark of ignominy on\nits forehead.\n\nAfter having shown that it was Catholicity that removed that obstacle\nto all social progress, by, as it were, cleansing Europe of the\ndisgusting leprosy with which it was infected from head to foot,\nlet us examine what it has done towards creating and erecting the\nmagnificent edifice of European civilization. If we seriously reflect\non the vitality and fruitfulness of this civilization, we shall find\ntherein new and powerful claims on the part of the Catholic Church to\nthe gratitude of nations. In the first place, it is proper to glance at\nthe vast and interesting picture which European civilization presents\nto us, and to sum up in a few words its principal perfections; thereby\nwe shall be enabled the more easily to account to ourselves for the\nadmiration and enthusiasm with which it inspires us.\n\nThe individual animated by a lively sense of his own dignity, abounding\nin activity, perseverance, energy, and the simultaneous development\nof all his faculties; woman elevated to the rank of the consort of\nman, and, as it were, recompensed for the duty of obedience by the\nrespectful regards lavished upon her; the gentleness and constancy of\nfamily ties, protected by the powerful guarantees of good order and\njustice; an admirable public conscience, rich in maxims of sublime\nmorality, in laws of justice and equity, in sentiments of honor\nand dignity; a conscience which survives the shipwreck of private\nmorality, and does not allow unblushing corruption to reach the height\nwhich it did in antiquity; a general mildness of manners, which in\nwar prevents great excesses, and in peace renders life more tranquil\nand pleasing; a profound respect for man, and all that belongs to\nhim, which makes private acts of violence very uncommon, and in all\npolitical constitutions serves as a salutary check on governments;\nan ardent desire of perfection in all departments; an irresistible\ntendency, sometimes ill-directed, but always active, to improve the\ncondition of the many; a secret impulse to protect the weak, to succour\nthe unfortunate--an impulse which sometimes pursues its course with\ngenerous ardor, and which, whenever it is unable to develop itself,\nremains in the heart of society, and produces there the uneasiness\nand disquietude of remorse; a cosmopolitan spirit of universality, of\npropagandism, an inexhaustible fund of resources to grow young again\nwithout danger of perishing, and for self-preservation in the most\nimportant junctures; a generous impatience, which longs to anticipate\nthe future, and produces an incessant movement and agitation, sometimes\ndangerous, but which are generally the germs of great benefits,\nand the symptoms of a strong principle of life; such are the great\ncharacteristics which distinguish European civilization; such are the\nfeatures which place it in a rank immensely superior to that of all\nother civilizations, ancient and modern.\n\nRead the history of antiquity; extend your view over the whole world;\nwherever Christianity does not reign, and where the barbarous or\nsavage life no longer prevails, you will find a civilization which in\nnothing resembles our own, and which cannot be compared with it for\na moment. In some of these states of civilization, you will perhaps\nfind a certain degree of regularity and some marks of power, for\nthey have endured for centuries; but how have they endured? Without\nmovement, without progress; they are devoid of life; their regularity\nand duration are those of a marble statue, which, motionless itself,\nsees the waves of generations pass by. There have also been nations\nwhose civilization displayed motion and activity; but what motion and\nwhat activity? Some, ruled by the mercantile spirit, never succeeded\nin establishing their internal happiness on a firm basis; their only\nobject was to invade new countries which tempted their cupidity, to\npour into their colonies their superabundant population, and establish\nnumerous factories in new lands: others, continually contending and\nfighting for a few measures of political freedom, forgot their social\norganization, took no care of their civil liberty, and acted in the\nnarrowest circle of time and space; they would not be even worthy\nof having their names preserved for posterity, if the genius of the\nbeautiful had not shone there with indescribable charm, and if the\nmonuments of their knowledge, like a mirror, had not preserved the\nbright rays of Eastern learning: others, great and terrible, it is\ntrue, but troubled by intestine dissensions, bear inscribed upon their\nfront the formidable destiny of conquest; this destiny they fulfilled\nby subjugating the world, and immediately their rapid and inevitable\nruin approached: others, in fine, excited by violent fanaticism, raged\nlike the waves of ocean in a storm; they threw themselves upon other\nnations like a devastating torrent, and threatened to involve Christian\ncivilization itself in their deafening uproar; but their efforts were\nvain; their waves broke against insurmountable barriers; they repeated\ntheir attempts, but, always compelled to retire, they fell back again,\nand spread themselves on the beach with a sullen roar: and now look at\nthe Eastern nations; behold them like an impure pool, which the heat\nof the sun is about to dry up; see the sons and successors of Mahomet\nand Omar on their knees at the feet of the European powers, begging a\nprotection, which policy sometimes affords them, but only with disdain.\nSuch is the picture presented to us by every civilization, ancient\nand modern, except that of Europe, that is, the Christian. It alone\nat once embraces every thing great and noble in the others; it alone\nsurvives the most thorough revolutions; it alone extends itself to all\nraces and climates, and accommodates itself to forms of government\nthe most various; it alone, in fine, unites itself with all kinds of\ninstitutions, whenever, by circulating in them its fertile sap, it can\nproduce its sweet and salutary fruits for the good of humanity. And\nwhence comes the immense superiority of European civilization over all\nothers? How has it become so noble, so rich, so varied, so fruitful;\nwith the stamp of dignity, of nobility, and of loftiness; without\ncastes, without slaves, without eunuchs, without any of those miseries\nwhich prey upon other ancient and modern nations? It often happens\nthat we Europeans complain and lament more than the most unfortunate\nportion of the human race ever did; and we forget that we are the\nprivileged children of Providence, and that our evils, our share of\nthe unavoidable patrimony of humanity, are very slight, are nothing\nin comparison with those which have been, and still are, suffered by\nother nations. Even the extent of our good fortune itself renders us\ndifficult to please, and exceedingly fastidious. We are like a man of\nhigh rank, accustomed to live respected and esteemed in the midst of\nease and pleasure, who is indignant at a slighting word, is filled with\ndisquietude and affliction at the most trifling contradiction, and\nforgets the multitude of men who are plunged in misery, whose nakedness\nis covered with a few rags, and who meet with a thousand insults and\nrefusals before they can obtain a morsel of bread to satisfy the\ncravings of hunger.\n\nThe mind, when contemplating European civilization, experiences so\nmany different impressions, is attracted by so many objects that at\nthe same time claim its attention and preference, that, charmed by the\nmagnificent spectacle, it is dazzled, and knows not where to commence\nthe examination. The best way in such a case is to simplify, to\ndecompose the complex object, and reduce it to its simplest elements.\n_The individual, the family, and society_; these we have thoroughly to\nexamine, and these ought to be the subjects of our inquiries. If we\nsucceed in fully understanding these three elements, as they really are\nin themselves, and apart from the slight variations which do not affect\ntheir essence, European civilization, with all its riches and all its\nsecrets, will be presented to our view, like a fertile and beautiful\nlandscape lit up by the morning sun.\n\nEuropean civilization is in possession of the principal truths with\nrespect to the individual, to the family, and to society; it is to\nthis that it owes all that it is and all that it has. Nowhere have the\ntrue nature, the true relations and object of these three things been\nbetter understood than in Europe; with respect to them we have ideas,\nsentiments, and views which have been wanting in other civilizations.\nNow, these ideas and feelings, strongly marked on the face of European\nnations, have inoculated their laws, manners, institutions, customs,\nand language; they are inhaled with the air, for they have impregnated\nthe whole atmosphere with their vivifying aroma. To what is this owing?\nTo the fact, that Europe, for many centuries, has had within its bosom\na powerful principle which preserves, propagates, and fructifies the\ntruth; and it was especially in those times of difficulty, when the\ndisorganized society had to assume a new form, that this regenerating\nprinciple had the greatest influence and ascendency. Time has passed\naway, great changes have taken place, Catholicity has undergone vast\nvicissitudes in its power and influence on society; but civilization,\nits work, was too strong to be easily destroyed; the impulse which had\nbeen given to Europe was too powerful and well secured to be easily\ndiverted from its course. Europe was like a young man gifted with a\nstrong constitution, and full of health and vigor; the excesses of\nlabor or of dissipation reduce him and make him grow pale; but soon the\nhue of health returns to his countenance, and his limbs recover their\nsuppleness and vigor.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\n\nOF THE INDIVIDUAL--OF THE FEELING OF INDIVIDUAL INDEPENDENCE ACCORDING\nTO M. GUIZOT.\n\n\nTHE individual is the first and simplest element of society. If the\nindividual is not well constituted, if he is ill understood and ill\nappreciated, there will always be an obstacle to the progress of\nreal civilization. First of all, we must observe, that we speak here\nonly of the individual, of man as he is in himself, apart from the\nnumerous relations which surround him when we come to consider him\nas a member of society. But let it not be imagined from this, that\nI wish to consider him in a state of absolute isolation, to carry\nhim to the desert, to reduce him to the savage state, and analyze\nthe individuality as it appears to us in a few wandering hordes, a\nmonstrous exception, which is only the result of the degradation of our\nnature. Equally useless would it be to revive the theory of Rousseau,\nthat pure Utopianism which can only lead to error and extravagance.\nWe may separately examine the pieces of a machine, for the better\nunderstanding of its particular construction; but we must take care not\nto forget the purpose for which they are intended, and not lose sight\nof the whole, of which they form a part. Without that, the judgment we\nshould form of them would certainly be erroneous. The most wonderful\nand sublime picture would be only a ridiculous monstrosity, if its\ngroups and figures were considered in a state of isolation from its\nother parts; in this way, the prodigies of Michael Angelo and Raffael\nmight be taken for the dreams of a madman. Man is not alone in the\nworld, nor is he born to live alone. Besides what is he in himself,\nhe is a part of the great scheme of the Universe. Besides the destiny\nwhich belongs to him in the vast plan of creation, he is raised, by the\nbounty of his Maker, to another sphere, above all earthly thoughts.\nGood philosophy requires that we should forget nothing of all this. It\nnow remains for us to consider the individual and individuality.\n\nIn considering man, we may abstract from his quality of citizen,--an\nabstraction which, far from leading to any extravagant paradoxes, is\nlikely to make us thoroughly understand a remarkable peculiarity of\nEuropean civilization, one of the distinctive characteristics, which\nwill be alone sufficient to enable us to avoid confounding it with\nothers. All will readily understand that there is a distinction to\nbe made between the man and the citizen, and that these two aspects\nlead to very different considerations; but it is more difficult to\nsay how far the limits of this distinction should extend; to what\nextent the feeling of independence should be admitted; what is the\nsphere which ought to be assigned to purely individual development; in\nfine, whatever is peculiar to our civilization on this point. We must\njustly estimate the difference which we find herein between our state\nof society and that of others; we must point out its source, and its\nresult; we must carefully weigh its real influence on the advance of\ncivilization. This task is difficult; I repeat it,--for we have here\nvarious questions, great and important, it is true, but delicate and\nprofound, and very easily mistaken,--it is not without much trouble\nthat we can fix our eyes with certainty on these vague, indeterminate,\nand floating objects, which are connected together by no perceptible\nties.\n\nWe here meet with the famous _personal independence_, which, according\nto M. Guizot, was brought by the barbarians from the North, and played\nso important a part, that we ought to look upon it as one of the\nchief and most productive principles of European civilization. This\ncelebrated publicist, analyzing the elements of this civilization,\nand pointing out the share which the Roman empire and the Church had\ntherein, in his opinion, finds a remarkable principle of productiveness\nin the feeling of individuality, which the Germans brought with\nthem, and inoculated into the manners of Europe. It will not be\nuseless to discuss the opinion of M. Guizot on this important and\ndelicate matter. By thus explaining the state of the question, we\nshall remove the important errors of some persons, errors produced\nby the authority of this writer, whose talent and eloquence have\nunfortunately given plausibility and semblance of truth to what is in\nreality only a paradox. The first care we ought to take, in combating\nthe opinions of this writer, is not to attribute to him what he has\nnot really said; besides, as the matter we are treating of is liable\nto many mistakes, we shall do well to transcribe the words of M.\nGuizot at length. \"What we require to know,\" he says, \"is the general\ncondition of society among the barbarians. Now it is very difficult,\nnow-a-days, to give an account of it. We can understand, without too\nmuch trouble, the municipal system of Rome, and the Christian Church;\ntheir influence has continued down to our times; we find traces of\nthem in many institutions and existing facts. We have a thousand means\nof recognising and explaining them. The manners, the social condition\nof the barbarians, have entirely perished; we are compelled to divine\nthem, by the most ancient historical documents, or by an effort of\nimagination.\"\n\nWhat has been preserved to us of the manners of the barbarians is,\nindeed, little; this is an assertion which I will not deny. I will not\ndispute with M. Guizot about the authority which ought to belong to\nfacts which require to be filled up by an effort of the imagination,\nand which compel us to have recourse to the dangerous expedient of\ndivining. As for the rest, I am aware of the nature of these questions;\nand the reflections which I have just made, as well as the terms which\nI have used, prove that I do not think it possible to proceed with\nrule and compass in such an examination. Nevertheless, I have thought\nit proper to warn the reader on this point, and combat the delusion\ninto which he might be led by a doctrine which, when fully examined,\nis, I repeat it, only a brilliant paradox. \"There is a feeling, a\nfact,\" continues M. Guizot, \"which it is above all necessary to\nunderstand well, in order to represent to ourselves with truth what a\nbarbarian was: this is, the pleasure of individual independence--the\npleasure of playing amid the chances of the world and of life, with\npower and liberty; the joys of activity without labor; the taste\nfor an adventurous destiny, full of surprises, vicissitudes, and\nperils. Such was the ruling feeling of the barbarian state, the moral\nnecessity which put these masses of men in motion. To-day, in the\nregular society in which we live, it is difficult to represent to\none's self this feeling, with all the influence which it exercised\nover the barbarians of the fourth and fifth centuries. There is\nonly one work, in my opinion, in which this character of barbarism\nis described with all its force, viz. _The History of the Conquest\nof England by the Normans_, of M. Thierry--the only book where the\nmotives, the inclinations, the impulses which actuate man in a social\nstate bordering on barbarism, are felt and described with a truth\nreally Homeric. Nowhere do we see so clearly what a barbarian was,\nand what was his life. We also find something of this, although in a\nvery inferior degree, in my opinion, in a manner much less simple,\nmuch less true, in the romances of Mr. Cooper on the American savages.\nThere is in the life of the savages of America, in the relations and\nfeelings which exist in those forests, something which reminds one,\nto a certain extent, of the manners of the ancient Germans. No doubt\nthese pictures are a little ideal, a little poetical; the unfavorable\nside of barbarian life and manners is not displayed in all its crudity.\nI do not speak merely of the evils which these manners produce in\nthe individual social condition of the barbarian himself. In this\npassionate love of personal independence, there was something more\nrude and coarse than one would imagine from the work of M. Thierry;\nthere was a degree of brutality, of indolence, of apathy, which is not\nalways faithfully described in his pictures. Nevertheless, when one\nexamines the thing to the bottom, in spite of brutality, coarseness,\nand this stupid _egotism_, the taste for individual independence is a\nnoble moral feeling, which draws its power from the moral nature of\nman: it is the pleasure of feeling himself a man--the sentiment of\npersonality, of spontaneous action in his free development. Gentlemen,\nit was by the German barbarians that this feeling was introduced\ninto the civilization of Europe; it was unknown to the Roman world,\nunknown to the Christian Church, unknown to almost all the ancient\ncivilizations:--when you find liberty in the ancient civilizations,\nit is political liberty, the liberty of the citizen. It is not with\nhis personal liberty that the man is prepossessed, but with his\nliberty as a citizen. He belongs to an association--he is devoted to\nan association--he is ready to sacrifice himself for an association.\nIt was the same with the Christian Church: there prevailed a feeling\nof great attachment to the Christian corporation--of devotion to its\nlaws--a strong desire of extending its empire; the religious feeling\nproduced a reaction on the man himself--on his soul--an internal\nstruggle to subdue his own will, and make it submit to the demands of\nhis faith. But the feeling of personal independence, the taste for\nliberty showing itself at any hazard, with hardly any other object than\nits own satisfaction--this feeling, I repeat, was unknown to the Roman\nand Christian society. It was brought in by the barbarians, and placed\nin the cradle of modern civilization. It has played so great a part,\nit has produced such noble results, that it is impossible not to bring\nit to light as one of the fundamental elements thereof.\" (_Histoire\nG\u00e9n\u00e9rale de la Civilisation en Europe_, le\u00e7on 2.) This feeling of\npersonal independence, exclusively attributed to a nation--this\nvague, undefinable feeling--a singular mixture of nobleness and\nbrutality, of barbarism and civilization--is in some degree poetical,\nand is very likely to seduce the fancy; but, unfortunately, there\nis in the contrast, intended to increase the effect of the picture,\nsomething extraordinary, I will even say contradictory, which excites\nthe suspicion of cool reason that there is some hidden error which\ncompels it to be on its guard. If it be true that this phenomenon\never existed, what was its origin? Will it be said that it was the\nresult of climate? But how can it be imagined that the snows of the\nnorth protected what was not found in the ardent south? How comes it\nthat the feeling of personal independence was wanting precisely in\nthose southern countries of Europe, where the feeling of political\nindependence was developed with so much force? and would it not be a\nstrange thing, not to say an absurdity, if these different climates had\ndivided these two kinds of liberty between them, like an inheritance?\nIt will be said, perhaps, that this feeling arose from the social\nstate. But in that case, it cannot be made the characteristic mark\nof one nation: it must be said, in general terms, that the feeling\nbelonged to all the nations who were in the same social condition as\nthe Germans. Besides, even according to this hypothesis, how could\nthat which was peculiar to barbarism have been a germ, a fruitful\nprinciple of civilization? This feeling, which must have been effaced\nby civilization, could not even preserve itself in the midst thereof,\nmuch less contribute to its development. If its perpetuation in some\nform was absolutely necessary, why did not the same thing take place\nin the bosom of other civilizations? Surely the Germans were not the\nonly people who passed from barbarism to civilization. But I do not\npretend to say that the barbarians of the north did not present some\nremarkable peculiarity in this point of view; and I do not deny that\nwe find in European civilization a feeling of personality, if I may so\nspeak, unknown to other civilizations. But what I venture to affirm\nis, that it is little philosophical to have recourse to mysteries and\nenigmas to explain the _individuality_ of the Germans, and that it\nis useless to seek in their barbarism the cause of the superiority\nwhich European civilization possesses in this respect. To form a clear\nidea of this question, which is as complicated as it is important,\nit is first of all necessary to specify, in the best way we can, the\nreal nature of the barbarian _individuality_. In a pamphlet which I\npublished some time ago, called _Observations Sociales, Politiques,\net Economiques, sur les Biens du Clerg\u00e9_, I have incidentally touched\nupon this individuality, and attempted to give clear ideas on this\npoint. As I have not changed my opinion since that time, but, on the\ncontrary, as it has been confirmed, I will transcribe what I then\nsaid, as follows: \"What was this feeling? Was it peculiar to those\nnations? Was it the result of the influence of climate, of a social\nposition? Was it perchance a feeling formed in all places and at all\ntimes, but which is here modified by particular circumstances? What\nwas its force, its tendency? How far was it just or unjust, noble or\ndegrading, profitable or injurious? What benefits did it confer on\nsociety; what evils? How were these evils combated, by whom, by what\nmeans, and with what result? These questions are numerous, but they\nare not so complicated as they appear at first sight; when once the\nfundamental idea shall be cleared up, the others will be understood\nwithout difficulty, and the theory, when simplified, will immediately\nbe confirmed and supported by history. There is a strong, active,\nan indestructible feeling in the human heart which urges men to\nself-preservation, to avoid evils, and to attain to their well-being\nand happiness. Whether you call it self-love, instinct of preservation,\ndesire of happiness or of perfection, egotism, _individuality_, or\nwhatever name you give to it, this feeling exists; we have it within\nus. We cannot doubt of its existence; it accompanies us at every step,\nin all our actions, from the time when we first see the light till we\ndescend into the tomb. This feeling, if you will observe its origin,\nits nature, and its object, is nothing but a great law of all beings\napplied to man; a law which, being a guarantee for the preservation and\nperfecting of individuals, admirably contributes to the harmony of the\nuniverse. It is clear that such a feeling must naturally incline us\nto hate oppression, and to suffer with impatience what tends to limit\nand fetter the use of our faculties. The cause is easily found; all\nthis gives us uneasiness, to which our nature is repugnant; even the\ntenderest infant bears with impatience the tie that fastens him in his\ncradle; he is uneasy, he is disturbed, he cries.\n\n\"On the other hand, the individual, when he is not totally devoid\nof knowledge of himself, when his intellectual faculties are at all\ndeveloped, will feel another sentiment arise in his mind which has\nnothing in common with the instinct of self-preservation with which\nall beings are animated, a sentiment which belongs exclusively to\nintelligence; I mean, the feeling of dignity, of value of ourselves,\nof that fire which, enkindled in our hearts in our earliest years, is\nnourished, extended, and supported by the aliment afforded to it by\ntime, and acquires that immense power, that expansion which makes us\nso restless, active, and agitated during all periods of our life.\nThe subjection of one man to another wounds this feeling of dignity;\nfor even supposing it to be reconciled with all possible freedom and\nmildness, with the most perfect respect for the person subjected, this\nsubjection reveals a weakness or a necessity which compels him in some\ndegree to limit the free use of his faculties. Such is the second\norigin of the feeling of personal independence. It follows from what\nI have just said, that man always bears within himself a certain love\nof independence, that this feeling is necessarily common to all times\nand countries, for we have found its roots in the two most natural\nfeelings of man--viz. _the desire of well-being and the consciousness\nof his own dignity_. It is evident that these feelings may be modified\nand varied indefinitely, on account of the infinity of situations in\nwhich the individual may be placed, morally and physically. Without\nleaving the sphere which is marked out for them by their very essence,\nthese feelings may vary as to strength or weakness on the most\nextensive scale; they may be moral or immoral, just or unjust, noble\nor vile, advantageous or injurious. Consequently they may contribute\nto the individual the greatest variety of inclinations, of habits, of\nmanners; and thereby give very different features to the physiognomy\nof nations, according to the particular and characteristic manner in\nwhich they affect the individual. These notions being once cleared up\nby a real knowledge of the constitution of the heart of man, we see\nhow all questions which relate to the feeling of individuality must be\nresolved; we also see that it is useless to have recourse to mysterious\nlanguage or poetical explanations, for in all this there is nothing\nthat can be submitted to a rigorous analysis. The ideas which man\nforms of his own well-being and dignity, the means which he employs to\npromote the one and preserve the other, these are what will settle the\ndegrees of energy, will determine the nature and signalize the tendency\nof all these feelings; that is to say, all will depend on the physical\nand moral state of society and the individual. Now, supposing all other\ncircumstances to be equal, give a man true ideas of his own well-being\nand dignity, such as reason and above all the Christian religion teach,\nand you will form a good citizen; give false, exaggerated, absurd\nideas, such as are entertained by perverted schools and promulgated\nby agitators at all times and in all countries, and you spread the\nfruitful seeds of disturbance and disorder.\n\n\"In order to complete the clearing up of the important point which\nwe have undertaken to explain, we must apply this doctrine to the\nparticular fact which now occupies us. If we fix our attention on\nthe nations who invaded and overturned the Roman empire, confining\nourselves to the facts which history has preserved of them, to the\nconjectures which are authorized by the circumstances in which they\nwere placed, and to the general data which modern science has been\nable to collect from the immediate observation of the different tribes\nof America, we shall be able to form an idea of what was the state of\nsociety and of the individual among the invading barbarians. In their\nnative countries, among their mountains, in their forests covered\nwith frost and snow, they had their family ties, their relationships,\ntheir religion, traditions, customs, manners, attachment to their\nhereditary soil, their love of national independence, their enthusiasm\nfor the great deeds of their ancestors, and for the glory acquired\nin battle; in fine, their desire of perpetuating in their children a\nrace strong, valiant, and free; they had their distinctions of family,\ntheir division into tribes, their priests, chiefs, and government.\nWithout discussing the character of their forms of government, and\nlaying aside all that might be said of their monarchy, their public\nassemblies, and other similar points, questions which are foreign to\nour subject, and which besides are always in some degree hypothetical\nand imaginary, I shall content myself with making a remark which\nnone of my readers will deny, viz. that among them the organization\nof society was such as might have been expected from rude and\nsuperstitious ideas, gross habits, and ferocious manners; that is to\nsay, that their social condition did not rise above the level which\nhad naturally been marked out for it by two imperious necessities:\nfirst, that complete anarchy should not prevail in their forests; and\nsecond, that in war they should have some one to lead their confused\nhordes. Born in rigorous climates, crowding on each other by their\nrapid increase, and on that account obtaining with difficulty even\nthe means of subsistence, these nations saw before their eyes the\nabundance and the luxuries of ample and well-cultivated regions; they\nwere at the same time urged on by extreme want, and strongly excited\nby the presence of plunder. There was nothing to oppose them but the\nfeeble legions of an effeminate and decaying civilization; their own\nbodies were strong, their minds full of courage and audacity; their\nnumbers augmented their boldness; they left their native soil without\npain; a spirit of adventure and enterprise developed itself in their\nminds, and they threw themselves on the Empire like a torrent which\nfalls from the mountains, and inundates the neighboring plains. However\nimperfect was their social condition, and however rude were its ties,\nit sufficed, nevertheless, in their native soil, and amid their ancient\nmanners; if the barbarians had remained in their forests, it may be\nsaid that that form of government, which answered its purpose in its\nway, would have been perpetuated; for it was born of necessity, it was\nadapted to circumstances, it was rooted in their habits, sanctioned by\ntime, and connected with traditions and recollections of every kind.\nBut these ties were too weak to be transported without being broken.\nThese forms of government were, as we have just seen, so suited to the\nstate of barbarism, and consequently so circumscribed and limited,\nthat they could not be applied without difficulty to the new situation\nin which these nations found themselves almost suddenly placed. Let\nus imagine these savage children of the forest precipitated on the\nsouth; their fierce chiefs precede them, and they are followed by\ncrowds of women and children; they take with them their flocks and\nrude baggage; they cut to pieces numerous legions on their way; they\nform intrenchments, cross ditches, scale ramparts, ravage the country,\ndestroy forests, burn populous cities, and take with them immense\nnumbers of slaves captured on the way. They overturn every thing that\nopposes their fury, and drive before them multitudes who flee to\navoid fire and sword. In a short time see these same men, elated with\nvictory, enriched by immense booty, inured by so many battles, fires,\nsackings, and massacres, transported, as if by enchantment, into a new\nclimate, under another sky, and swimming in abundance, in pleasure,\nin new enjoyments of every kind. A confused mixture of idolatry and\nChristianity, of truth and falsehood, is become their religion; their\nprincipal chiefs are dead in battle; families are confounded in\ndisorder, races mixed, old manners and customs altered and lost. These\nnations, in fine, are spread over immense countries, in the midst of\nother nations, differing in language, ideas, manners, and usages;\nimagine, if you can, this disorder, this confusion, this chaos, and\ntell me whether the ties which formed the society of these nations are\nnot destroyed and broken into a thousand pieces, and whether you do\nnot see barbarian and civilized society disappear together, and all\nantiquity vanish without any thing new taking its place? And at this\nmoment, fix your eyes upon the gloomy child of the North, when he feels\nall the ties that bound him to society suddenly loosened, when all\nthe chains that restrained his ferocity break; when he finds himself\nalone, isolated, in a position so new, so singular, so extraordinary,\nwith an obscure recollection of his late country and without affection\nfor that which he has just occupied; without respect for law, fear of\nman, or attachment to custom. Do you not see him, in his impetuous\nferocity, indulge without limit his habits of violence, wandering,\nplunder, and massacre? He confides in his strong arm and activity of\nfoot, and led by a heart full of fire and courage, by an imagination\nexcited by the view of so many different countries and by the hazards\nof so many travels and combats, he rashly undertakes all enterprises,\nrejects all subjection, throws off all restraint, and delights in\nthe dangers of fresh struggles and adventures. Do you not find here\nthe mysterious individuality, the feeling of personal independence,\nin all its philosophical reality and all the truth which is assigned\nto it by history? This brutal individuality, this fierce feeling of\nindependence, which was not reconcileable with the well-being or with\nthe true dignity of the individual, contained a principle of eternal\nwar and a continually wandering mode of life, and must necessarily\nproduce the degradation of man and the complete dissolution of society.\nFar from containing the germ of civilization, it was this that was best\nadapted to reduce Europe to the savage state; it stifled society in its\ncradle; it destroyed every attempt made to reorganize it, and completed\nthe annihilation of all that remained of the ancient civilization.\"\n\nThe observations which have just been made may be more or less well\nfounded, more or less happy, but at least they do not present the\ninexplicable inconsistency, not to say contradiction, of allying\nbarbarism and brutality with civilization and refinement; they do\nnot give the name of an eminent and fruitful principle of European\ncivilization to that which a little further on is pointed out as one\nof the strongest obstacles to the progress of social organization.\nAs M. Guizot, on this last point, agrees with the opinion which I\nhave just stated, and shows the incoherence of his own doctrines, the\nreader will allow me to quote his own words. \"It is clear,\" he says,\n\"that if men have no ideas extending beyond their own existence, if\ntheir intellectual horizon is limited to themselves, if they give\nthemselves up to the caprices of their own passions and wills, if they\nhave not among them a certain number of common notions and feelings,\naround which they rally; it is clear, I say, that no society can be\npossible among them; that such individual, when he enters into any\nassociation, will be a principle of disturbance and dissolution.\nWhenever individuality almost absolutely prevails, or man only\nconsiders himself, or his ideas do not extend beyond himself, or he\nobeys only his own passions, society, I mean one with any thing of\nextent or permanency, becomes almost impossible. Now such was the moral\ncondition of the conquerors of Europe at the period of which we speak.\nI have pointed out, in the last lecture, that we owe the energetic\nfeeling of individual liberty and humanity to the Germans. Now, in a\nstate of extreme rudeness and ignorance, this feeling is egotism in all\nits brutality, in all its unsociability. From the fifth to the eighth\ncentury, such was the case among the Germans. They consulted only their\nown interests, their own passions, their own wills; how could this\naccord with the social state? It was attempted to make them enter it;\nthey attempted it themselves; they soon left it from some sudden act,\nsome sally of passion or misunderstanding. Every moment we see society\nattempted to be formed; every moment we see it broken by the act of\nman, by the want of the moral conditions necessary for its subsistence.\nSuch, gentlemen, were the two prevailing causes of the state of\nbarbarism. As long as they lasted, barbarism continued.\" (_Histoire\nG\u00e9n\u00e9rale de la Civilisation en Europe_, le\u00e7on 3.)\n\nWith respect to his theory of _individuality_, M. Guizot has met with\nthe common fate of men of great talents. They are forcibly struck\nby a singular phenomenon, they conceive an ardent desire of finding\nits cause, and they fall into frequent errors, led away by a secret\ntendency always to point out a new, unexpected, astonishing origin.\nIn his vast and penetrating view of European civilization, in his\nparallel between this and the most distinguished ones of antiquity, he\ndiscovered a very remarkable difference between the individuals of the\nformer and of the latter. He saw in the man of modern Europe, something\nnobler, more independent than in the Greek or Roman; it was necessary\nto point out the origin of this difference. Now this was not an easy\ntask, considering the peculiar situation in which the philosophical\nhistorian found himself. From the first glance which he took at the\nelements of European civilization, the Church presented herself to him\nas one of the most powerful and the most influential agents on the\norganization of society; and he saw issue from her the impulse which\nwas most capable of leading the world to a great and happy future. He\nhad already expressly acknowledged this, and had paid homage to the\ntruth in magnificent language; in order to explain this phenomenon,\nshould he again have recourse to Christianity, to the Church? This\nwould have been conceding to her the whole of the great work of\ncivilization; and M. Guizot was desirous, at all hazards, of giving her\ncoadjutors. Therefore, fixing his eyes upon the barbarian hordes, he\nexpects to discover in the swarthy brows, the savage countenances, and\nthe menacing looks of these children of the forest, a type, somewhat\nrude but still very just, of the noble independence, the elevation, and\ndignity which the European bears in his features.\n\nAfter having explained the mysterious personality of the Germans, and\nshown that, far from being an element of civilization, it was a source\nof disorder and barbarism; it is besides necessary to examine the\ndifference which exists between the civilization of Europe and other\ncivilizations, with respect to the feeling of dignity; it is necessary\nto determine with precision what modifications have been undergone by\na feeling, which, considered by itself, is, as we have seen, common to\nall men. In the first place, there is no foundation for this assertion\nof M. Guizot, _that the feeling of personal independence, the taste\nfor liberty, displaying itself at all hazards, with scarcely any other\nobject than its own satisfaction, was unknown to Roman society_. It\nis clear that in such a comparison, it is not meant to allude to the\nfeeling of independence in the savage state, in the state of barbarism;\nfor as well might it be said that civilized nations could not have the\ndistinctive character of barbarism. But laying aside that circumstance\nof ferocity, we will say that the feeling was very active, not only\namong the Romans, but also among the other most celebrated nations of\nantiquity. \"When you find in ancient civilization,\" says M. Guizot,\n\"liberty, it is political liberty, the liberty of the citizen. It\nis not with his personal liberty that the man is prepossessed, it\nis with his liberty as a citizen; he belongs to an association, he\nis devoted to an association, he is ready to sacrifice himself for\nan association.\" I will not deny that this spirit of sacrifice for\nthe benefit of an association did exist among ancient nations; I\nacknowledge also that it was accompanied by remarkable peculiarities,\nwhich I intend to explain further on; yet it may be doubted whether\n_the taste for liberty, with scarcely any other object than its own\nsatisfaction_, was not more active with ancient nations than with\nus. Indeed, what was the object of the Ph\u0153nicians, the Greeks of the\nArchipelago and of Asia Minor, the Carthaginians, when they undertook\nthose voyages which, for such remote times, were as bold and perilous\nas those of our most intrepid sailors? Was it, indeed, to sacrifice\nthemselves for an association that they sought new territories with\nso much ardour, in order to amass there money, gold, and all kinds of\narticles of value? Were they not led by the desire of acquiring _to\ngratify themselves_? Where, then, is the association? Where do you find\nit here? Do you see any thing but the individual, with his passions and\ntastes, and his ardour in satisfying them? And the Greeks--those Greeks\nso enervated, so voluptuous, so spoiled by pleasures, had they not the\nmost lively feeling of personal independence, the most ardent desire\nof living with perfect freedom, with no other object but to gratify\nthemselves? Their poets singing of nectar and of love; their free\ncourtesans receiving the homage of the most illustrious citizens, and\nmaking sages forget their philosophical moderation and gravity; and the\npeople celebrating their festivals amid the most fearful dissoluteness;\ndid they also only sacrifice on the altars of association? Had they\nnot the desire of gratifying themselves? With respect to the Romans,\nperhaps it would not be so easy to demonstrate this, if we had to\nspeak of what are called the glorious times of the Republic; but we\nhave to deal with the Romans of the empire, with those who lived at\nthe time of the irruption of the barbarians; with those Romans, greedy\nof pleasures, and devoured by that thirst for excess of which history\nhas preserved such shameful pictures. Their superb palaces, their\nmagnificent villas, their delicious baths, their splendid festive\nhalls, their tables loaded with riches, their effeminate dresses, their\nvoluptuous dissipation; do they not show us individuals who, without\nthinking of the association to which they belonged, only thought of\ngratifying their own passions and caprices; lived in the greatest\nluxury, with every delicacy and all imaginable splendour; had no\ncare but to enjoy society, to lull themselves asleep in pleasure, to\ngratify all their passions, and give way to a burning love of their own\nsatisfactions and amusements?\n\nIt is not easy, then, to imagine why M. Guizot exclusively attributes\nto the barbarians _the pleasure of feeling themselves men, the feeling\nof personality, of human spontaneousness in its free development_. Can\nwe believe that such sentiments were unknown to the victors of Marathon\nand Plat\u00e6a, to those nations who have immortalized their names by so\nmany monuments? When, in the fine arts, in the sciences, in eloquence,\nin poetry, the noblest traits of genius shone forth on all sides,\nhad they not among them the pleasure of feeling themselves men, the\nfeeling and the power of the free development of all their faculties?\nand in a society where glory was so passionately loved, as we see it\nwas among the Romans, in a society which shows us men like Cicero\nand Virgil, and which produced a Tacitus, who still, after nineteen\ncenturies, makes every generous heart thrill with emotion, _was there\nno pleasure in feeling themselves men, no pride in appreciating their\nown dignity? Was there no feeling of the spontaneousness of man in his\nown free development?_ How can we imagine that the barbarians of the\nnorth surpassed the Greeks and Romans in this respect? Why, then, these\nparadoxes, this confusion of ideas? Of what avail are these brilliant\nexpressions meaning nothing? Of what use are these observations, of a\nfalse delicacy, where the mind at first sight discovers vagueness and\ninexactitude; and where it finds, after a complete examination, nothing\nbut incoherency and revery?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nHOW THE INDIVIDUAL WAS ABSORBED BY ANCIENT SOCIETY.\n\n\nIF we profoundly study this question, without suffering ourselves to\nbe led into error and extravagance, by the desire of passing for deep\nobservers; if we call to our aid a just and cool philosophy, supported\nby the facts of history, we shall see that the principal difference\nbetween the ancient civilizations and our own with respect to the\nindividual is, that, in antiquity, _man, considered as man, was not\nproperly esteemed_. Ancient nations did not want either _the feeling of\npersonal independence, or the pleasure of feeling themselves men_; the\nfault was not in the heart, but in the head. What they wanted was the\ncomprehension of the dignity of man; the high idea which Christianity\nhas given us of ourselves, while, at the same time, with admirable\nwisdom, it has shown us our infirmities. What ancient societies wanted,\nwhat all those, where Christianity does not prevail, have wanted, and\nwill continue to want, is the respect and the consideration which\nsurround every individual, _every man, inasmuch as he is a man_. Among\nthe Greeks the Greeks are every thing; strangers, barbarians, are\nnothing: in Rome, the title of Roman citizen makes the man; he who\nwants this is nothing. In Christian countries, the infant who is born\ndeformed, or deprived of some member, excites compassion, and becomes\nan object of the tenderest solicitude; it is enough that he is man,\nand unfortunate. Among the ancients, this human being was regarded\nas useless and contemptible; in certain cities, as for example at\nLaced\u00e6mon, it was forbidden to nourish him, and, by command of the\nmagistrates charged with the regulation of births, horrible to relate!\nhe was thrown into a ditch. He was a _human being_; but what matter?\nHe was a human being who would be of no use; and society, without\ncompassion, did not wish to undertake the charge of his support. If\nyou read Plato and Aristotle, you will see the horrible doctrine which\nthey professed on the subject of abortion and infanticide; you will see\nthe means which these philosophers imagined, in order to prevent the\nexcess of population; and you will be sensible of the immense progress\nwhich society has made, under the influence of Christianity, in all\nthat relates to man. Are not the public games, those horrible scenes\nwhere hundreds of men were slaughtered to amuse an inhuman multitude,\nan eloquent testimony to the little value attached to man, when he was\nsacrificed with so much barbarism for reasons so frivolous?\n\nThe right of the strongest was exercised among the ancients in a\nhorrible manner; and this is one of the causes to which must be\nattributed the state of annihilation, so to speak, in which we see the\nindividual with respect to society. Society was strong, the individual\nwas weak; society absorbed the individual, and arrogated to itself\nall imaginable rights over him; and if ever he made opposition to\nsociety, he was sure to be crushed by it with an iron hand. When we\nread the explanation which M. Guizot gives us of this peculiarity of\nancient civilizations, we might suppose that there existed among them a\npatriotism unknown to us; a patriotism which, carried to exaggeration,\nand stripped of the feeling of personal independence, produced a kind\nof annihilation of the individual in presence of society. If he had\nreflected deeply on the matter, M. Guizot would have seen that the\ndifference is not in the feelings of antiquity, but in the immense\nfundamental revolution which has taken place in ideas; hence he would\neasily have concluded, that the difference observed in their feelings\nmust have been owing to the differences in the ideas themselves.\nIndeed, it is not strange that the individual, seeing the little esteem\nin which he was held, and the unlimited power which society arrogated\nto itself over his independence and his life, (for it went so far\nas to grind him to powder, when he opposed it,) on his side formed\nan exaggerated idea of society and the public authority, so as to\nannihilate himself in his own heart before this fearful colossus. Far\nfrom considering himself as a member of an association the object of\nwhich was the safety and happiness of every individual, the benefits\nof which required from him some sacrifices in return, he regarded\nhimself as a thing devoted to this association, and compelled, without\nhesitation, to offer himself as a holocaust on its altars. Such is\nthe condition of man; when a power acts upon him, for a long time,\nunlimitedly, his indignation is excited against it, and he rejects it\nwith violence; or else he humbles, he debases, he annihilates himself\nbefore the strong influence which binds and prostrates him. Let us see\nif this be not the contrast which ancient societies constantly afford\nus; the blindest submission and annihilation on the one hand, and, on\nthe other, the spirit of insubordination, of resistance, showing itself\nin terrible explosions. It is thus, and thus only, that it is possible\nto understand how societies, whose normal condition was confusion and\nagitation, present us with such astonishing examples as Leonidas with\nhis three hundred Spartans perishing at Thermopyl\u00e6, S\u00e6vola thrusting\nhis hand into the fire, Regulus returning to Carthage to suffer and\ndie, and Marcus Curtius, all armed, leaping into the chasm which had\nopened in the midst of Rome. All these phenomena, which at first sight\nappear inexplicable, are explained when we compare them with what has\ntaken place in the revolutions of modern times. Terrible revolutions\nhave thrown some nations into confusion; the struggle of ideas and\ninterests, inflaming their passions, has made them forget their true\nsocial relations, during intervals of greater or less duration. What\nhas happened? At the same time that unlimited freedom was proclaimed,\nand the rights of individuals were incessantly extolled, there arose\nin the midst of society a cruel power, which, concentrating in its own\nhands all public authority, inflicted on them the severest blows. At\nsuch periods, when the formidable maxim of the ancients, the _salus\npopuli_, that pretext for so many frightful attempts was in full force,\nthere arose, on the other hand, that mad and ferocious patriotism which\nsuperficial men admire in the citizens of ancient republics.\n\nSome writers have lavished eulogiums on the ancients, and, above\nall, on the Romans. It seemed as if, to gratify their ardent wishes,\nmodern civilization must be moulded according to the ancient. They\nmade absurd attempts; they attacked the existing social system with\nunexampled violence; they labored to destroy, or at least to stifle,\nChristian ideas concerning the individual and society, and they\nsought their inspiration from the shades of the ancient Romans. It is\nremarkable that, during the short time that the attempt lasted, there\nwere seen, as in ancient Rome, admirable traits of strength, of valor,\nof patriotism, in fearful contrast with cruelties and crimes without\nexample. In the midst of a great and generous nation there appeared\nagain, to affright the human race, the bloody spectres of Marius and\nSylla; so true it is that man is everywhere the same, and that the same\norder of ideas in the end produces the same order of events. Let the\nChristian ideas disappear, let old ones regain their force, and you\nwill see that the modern world will resemble the ancient one. Happily\nfor humanity, this is impossible. All the attempts hitherto made to\nproduce such a result have been necessarily of short continuance,\nand such will be the case in future. But the bloody page which these\ncriminal attempts have left in history offers an abundant subject\nfor reflection to the philosopher who desires to become thoroughly\nacquainted with the intimate and delicate relations between ideas and\nfacts. There he will see fully exhibited the vast scheme of social\norganization, and he will be able to appreciate at its just value the\nbeneficial or injurious influence of the various religious and the\ndifferent philosophical systems.\n\nThe periods of revolutions, that is to say, those stormy times when\ngovernments are swallowed up one after another like edifices built upon\na volcanic soil, have all this distinctive character, _the tyranny of\nthe interests of public authority over private interests_. Never is\nthis power feebler, or less lasting; but never is it more violent,\nmore mad. Every thing is sacrificed to its safety or its vengeance;\nthe shade of its enemies pursues it and makes it continually tremble;\nits own conscience torments it and leaves it no repose; the weakness\nof its organization, its instable position, warn it at every step\nof its approaching fall, and in its impotent despair it makes the\nconvulsive efforts of one dying in agony. What, then, in its eyes are\nthe lives of citizens, if they excite the slightest, the most remote\nsuspicion? If the blood of thousands of victims could procure for it\na moment of security, and add a few days to its existence, \"Perish\nmy enemies,\" it says; \"this is required for the safety of the state,\nthat is, for mine!\" Why this frenzy, this cruelty? It is because the\nancient government, having been overturned by force, and the new having\nbeen enthroned in the same way, the idea of right has disappeared from\nthe sphere of power. Legitimacy does not protect it, even its novelty\nbetrays its little value; every thing forebodes its short existence.\nStripped of the reason and justice which it is obliged to invoke in\nits own support, it seeks for both in the _very necessity of power_, a\nsocial necessity, which is always visible, and it proclaims that the\nsafety of the people is the supreme care. Then the property and lives\nof individuals are nothing; they are annihilated in the presence of the\nbloody spectre which arises in the midst of society; armed with force,\nand surrounded by guards and scaffolds, it says, \"I am the public\npower; to me is confided the safety of the people; it is I who watch\nover the interests of society.\"\n\nNow, do you know what is the result of this absolute want of respect\nfor the individual, of this complete annihilation of man in presence of\nthe alarming power which claims to represent society? It is that the\nfeeling of association reappears in different directions; no longer a\nfeeling directed by reason, foresight, and beneficence, but a blind,\ninstinctive feeling, which urges man not to remain alone, without\ndefence, in the midst of a society which is converted into a field of\nbattle and a vast conspiracy; men then unite either to sustain power,\nwhen, influenced by the whirlwind of revolution, they are identified\nwith it, and regard it as their only rampart, or to overturn it, if,\nsome motive having urged them into the opposite ranks, they see their\nmost terrible enemy in the existing power, and a sword continually\nsuspended over their heads. These men belong to an association, are\ndevoted to an association, are ready to sacrifice themselves for it,\nfor they cannot live alone; they know, they comprehend, at least\ninstinctively, that the individual is nothing; for as the restraints\nthat maintain social order have been broken, the individual no longer\nhas a tranquil sphere where he can live in peace and independence,\nconfident that a power founded on legitimacy and guided by reason and\njustice watches over the preservation of public order and the respect\ndue to individual rights. Then timid men are alarmed and humbled, and\nbegin to represent that first scene of servitude where the oppressed\nis seen to kiss the hand of the oppressor, and the victim to reverence\nthe executioner. Daring men resist and contend, or rather, conspiring\nin the dark, they prepare terrible explosions. No one then belongs to\nhimself; the individual is absorbed on all sides, either by the force\nwhich oppresses or by that which conspires. The tutelary divinity of\nindividuals is justice; when justice vanishes, they are no more than\nimperceptible grains of dust carried away by the wind, or drops of\nwater in the stormy waves of ocean. Imagine to yourself societies where\nthis passing frenzy does not prevail, it is true, but which are yet\ndevoid of true ideas on the rights and duties of individuals, and of\nthose of public authority; societies where there are some wandering,\nuncertain, obscure, imperfect notions thereon, stifled by a thousand\nprejudices and errors; societies under which, nevertheless, public\nauthority is organized under one form or another, and has become\nconsolidated, thanks to the force of habit, and the absence of all\nother government better calculated to satisfy urgent necessities; you\nwill then have an idea of the ancient societies, we should rather\nsay, societies without Christianity, and you will understand the\nannihilation of the individual before the force of public power, either\nunder an Asiatic despotism or the turbulent democracy of the ancient\nrepublics. And what you will then see will be precisely what you have\nobserved in modern societies at times of revolution, only with this\ndifference, that in these the evil is transitory and noisy, like the\nravages of the tempest, while among the ancients it was the normal\nstate, like the vitiated atmosphere which injures and corrupts all that\nbreathe it.\n\nLet us examine the cause of these two opposite phenomena, the lofty\npatriotism of the Greeks and Romans, and the state of prostration and\npolitical degradation in which other nations lay, and in which those\nstill lie who are not under the influence of Christianity; what is the\ncause of this individual abnegation which is found at the bottom of\ntwo feelings so contrary? and why do we not find among any of those\nnations that individual development which is observed in Europe, and\nwhich with us is connected with a reasonable patriotism, from which the\nfeeling of a legitimate personal independence is not excluded? It is\nbecause in antiquity man did not know himself, or what he was; it is\nbecause his true relations with society were viewed through a thousand\nprejudices and errors, and consequently were very ill understood. This\nwill show that admiration for the patriotism, disinterestedness, and\nheroic self-denial of the ancients has been sometimes carried too far,\nand that these qualities, far from revealing in the men of antiquity a\ngreater perfection of the individual, a superior elevation of mind to\nthat of the men of modern times, rather indicate ideas less elevated\nand feelings less independent than our own. Perhaps some blind admirers\nof the ancients will be astonished at these assertions. Let them\nconsider the women of India throwing themselves on the funeral-pile\nafter the death of their husbands, and slaves putting themselves to\ndeath because they could not survive their masters, and they will see\nthat personal self-denial is not an infallible sign of elevation of\nmind. Sometimes man does not understand his own dignity; he considers\nhimself devoted to another being, absorbed by him, and then he regards\nhis own existence only as a secondary thing, which has no object but to\nminister to the existence of another. We do not wish to underrate the\nmerit which rightly belongs to the ancients; we do not wish to lower\ntheir heroism, as far as it is just and laudable, any more than we\nwish to attribute to the moderns an egotistical individuality, which\nprevents their sacrificing themselves for their country: our only\nobject is to assign to every thing its place, by dissipating prejudices\nwhich are excusable up to a certain point, but do lamentable mischief\nby falsifying the principal features of ancient and modern history.\n\nThis annihilation of the individual among the ancients arose also\nfrom the weakness and imperfection of his moral development, and from\nhis want of a rule for his own guidance, which compelled society to\ninterfere in all that concerned him, as if public reason was called\nupon to supply the defect of private reason. If we pay attention,\nwe shall observe that in countries where political liberty was the\nmost cherished, civil liberty was almost unknown. While the citizens\nflattered themselves that they were very free, because they took part\nin the public deliberations, they wanted that liberty which is most\nimportant to man, that which we now call civil liberty. We may form\nan idea of the thoughts and manners of the ancients on this point, by\nreading one of their most celebrated writers, Aristotle. In the eyes\nof this philosopher, the only title which renders a man worthy of the\nname of citizen, seems to be the participation in the government of the\nrepublic; and these ideas, apparently very democratic and calculated\nto extend the rights of the most numerous class, far from proceeding,\nas one would suppose, from an exaggeration of the dignity of man, was\nconnected in his mind with a profound contempt for man himself. His\nsystem was to reserve all honor and consideration for a very limited\nnumber; the classes of citizens who were thus condemned to degradation\nand nullity were all laborers, artisans, and tradesmen. (_Pol._ l.\nvii. c. 9, 12; l. viii. c. 1, 2; l. iii. c. 1.) This theory supposed,\nas may be seen, very curious ideas on individuals and society, and\nis an additional confirmation of what I have said respecting the\neccentricities, not to say monstrosities, which we see in the ancient\nrepublics. Let us never forget that one of the principal causes of\nthe evil was the want of an intimate knowledge of man; it was the\nlittle value which was placed upon his dignity as man; the individual,\ndeprived of guides to direct him, could not conciliate esteem; in a\nword, there was wanting the light of Christianity, which was alone\ncapable of illuminating the chaos.\n\nThe feeling of the dignity of man is deeply engraven on the heart of\nmodern society; we find everywhere, written in striking characters,\nthis truth, that man, by virtue of his title of man, is respectable\nand worthy of high consideration; hence it is that all the schools of\nmodern times that have foolishly undertaken to exalt the individual, at\nthe imminent risk of producing fearful perturbations in society, have\nadopted as the constant theme of their instructions, this dignity and\nnobility of man. They thus distinguish themselves in the most decided\nmanner from the democrats of antiquity; the latter acted in a narrow\nsphere, without departing from a certain order of things, without\nlooking beyond the limits of their own country; in the spirit of modern\ndemocrats, on the contrary, we find a tendency to invade all branches,\nan ardent propagandism which embraces the whole world. They never\ninvoke mean ideas; _man, his reason, his imprescriptible rights_, these\nare their perpetual theme. Ask them what is their design, and they will\ntell you that they desire to level all things, to avenge the sacred\ncause of humanity. This exaggeration of ideas, the pretext and motive\nfor so many crimes, shows us a valuable fact, viz. the immense progress\nwhich Christianity has given to ideas with relation to the dignity\nof our nature. When they have to mislead societies which owe their\ncivilization to Christianity, they find no better means than to invoke\nthe dignity of human nature. The Christian religion, the enemy of all\nthat is criminal, could not consent to see society overturned, under\nthe pretence of defending and raising the dignity of man; this is the\nreason why a great number of the most ardent democrats have indulged in\ninsults and sarcasms against religion. On the other hand, as history\nloudly proclaims that all our knowledge and feeling of what is true,\njust, and reasonable on this point, is due to the Christian religion,\nit has been recently attempted to make a monstrous alliance between\nChristian ideas and the most extravagant of democratic theories. A\ncelebrated man has undertaken this enterprise; but true Christianity,\nthat is, Catholicity, rejects these adulterous alliances; it ceases\nto acknowledge its most eminent apologists when they have quitted the\npath of eternal truth. De Lamennais now wanders in the darkness of\nerror, embracing a deceitful shadow of Christianity; and the voice of\nthe supreme Pastor of the Church has warned the faithful against being\ndazzled by the illusion of a name illustrious by so many titles.[16]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\nTHE PROGRESS OF INDIVIDUALITY UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY.\n\n\nIF we give a just and legitimate meaning to the word individuality,\ntaking the feeling of personal independence in an acceptation which is\nnot repugnant to the perfection of the individual, and does not oppose\nthe constitutive principles of all society; moreover, if we seek the\nvarious causes which have influenced the development of this feeling,\nwithout speaking of that which we have already pointed out as one of\nthe most important, viz. the true notion of man, and his connections\nwith his fellows, we shall find many of them which are quite worthy of\nattention in Catholicity. M. Guizot was greatly deceived when, putting\nthe faithful of the Church in the same rank with the ancient Romans,\nhe asserted that both were equally wanting in the feeling of personal\nindependence. He describes the faithful as absorbed by the association\nof the Church, entirely devoted to her, ready to sacrifice themselves\nfor her; so that, according to him, it was the interests of the\nassociation which induced them to act. There is an error here; but as\nthis error has originated in a truth, it is our duty to distinguish the\nideas and the facts with much attention.\n\nThere is no doubt that from the cradle of Christianity the faithful\nhave had an extreme attachment to the Church, and it was always well\nunderstood among them, that they could not leave the communion of\nthe Church without ceasing to be numbered among the true disciples\nof Jesus Christ. It is equally undeniable that, in the words of M.\nGuizot, \"There prevailed in the Christian Church a feeling of strong\nattachment to the Christian corporation, of devotion to its laws, and\nan ardent desire to extend its empire;\" but it is not true that the\norigin and source of all these feelings was the spirit of association\nalone, to the exclusion of all development of real individuality.\nThe Christian belonged to an association, but that association was\nregarded by him as a means of obtaining eternal happiness, as the ship\nin which he was embarked, amid the tempests of the world, to arrive\nsafe in the port of eternity: and although he believed it impossible\nto be saved out of the Church, he did not understand from that that\nhe was devoted to the Church, but to God. The Roman was ready to\nsacrifice himself for his country; the Christian, for his faith. When\nthe Roman died, he died for his country; the faithful did not die for\nthe Church, but for God. If we open the monuments of Church history,\nand read the acts of the martyrs, we shall then see what passed in\nthat terrible moment, when the Christian, fully arousing himself,\nshowed in the presence of the instruments of torture, burning piles,\nand the most horrible punishments, the true principle which acted on\nhis mind. The judge asks his name; he declares it, and adds, \"I am a\nChristian.\" He is asked to sacrifice to the gods. \"We only sacrifice to\none God, the Creator of heaven and earth.\" He is reproached with the\ndisgrace of following a man who has been nailed to the cross; for him\nthe ignominy of the cross is a glory, and he loudly proclaims that the\nCrucified is his Saviour and his God. He is threatened with tortures;\nhe despises them, for they are passing, and rejoices in being able to\nsuffer something for his Master. The cross of punishment is already\nprepared, the pile is lighted before his eyes, the executioner raises\nthe fatal axe to strike off his head; what does it matter to him? all\nthis is but for a moment, and after that moment comes a new life of\nineffable and endless happiness. We thus see what influenced his heart;\nit was the love of his God and the interest of his eternal happiness.\nConsequently, it is utterly false that the Christian, like men of the\nancient republics, destroyed his individuality in the association to\nwhich he belonged, allowing himself to be absorbed in that association\nlike a drop of water in the immensity of ocean. The Christian belonged\nto an association which gave him the rule of his faith and conduct;\nhe regarded that association as founded and directed by God himself;\nbut his mind and his heart were raised to God, and when following the\nvoice of the Church, he believed that he was engaged with his own\nindividual affair, which was nothing less than his eternal happiness.\nThis distinction is quite necessary in an affair which has relations\nso various and delicate that the slightest confusion may produce\nconsiderable errors. Here a hidden fact reveals itself to us, which\nis infinitely precious, and throws much light upon the development\nand perfecting of the individual in Christian civilization. It is\nabsolutely necessary that there should be a social order to which\nthe individual must submit; but it is also proper that he should not\nbe absorbed by society to such an extent that he cannot be conceived\nbut as forming part of it, and remains deprived of his own sphere\nof action. If this were the case, never would true civilization be\ncompletely developed; as it consists in the simultaneous perfecting of\nthe individual and of society, it is necessary, for its existence, that\nboth should have a well determined sphere, where their peculiar and\nrespective movements may not check and embarrass each other.\n\nAfter these reflections, to which I especially call the attention of\nall thinking men, I will point out a thing which has, perhaps, not yet\nbeen remarked; it is, that Christianity has eminently contributed to\ncreate that individual sphere in which man, without breaking the ties\nwhich connect him with society, is free to develop all his peculiar\nfaculties. From the mouth of an Apostle went forth that generous\nexpression which strictly limits political power: \"We ought to obey\nGod rather than man.\" (Acts v. 29.) \"Obedire oportet Deo magis quam\nhominibus.\" The Apostle thereby proclaims that the individual should\ncease to acknowledge power, when power exacts from him what he believes\nto be contrary to his conscience. It was among Christians that this\ngreat example was witnessed for the first time; individuals of all\ncountries, of all ages, of both sexes, of all conditions, braving\nthe anger of authority, and all the fury of popular passions, rather\nthan pronounce a single word contrary to the principles which they\nprofessed in the sanctuary of conscience; and this, not with arms in\ntheir hands, in the midst of popular commotions, where their impetuous\npassions are excited, which communicate to the mind temporary energy,\nbut in the solitude and obscurity of dungeons, amid the fearful\ncalmness of the tribunals, that is, in that situation where man, alone\nand isolated, cannot show force and dignity without revealing the\nelevation of his ideas, the nobleness of his feelings, the unalterable\nfirmness of his conscience, and the greatness of his soul. Christianity\nengraved this truth deeply on the heart of man, that individuals\nhave duties to perform, even when the whole world is aroused against\nthem; that they have an immense destiny to fulfil, and that it is\nentirely their own affair, the responsibility of which rests upon\ntheir own free will. This important truth, unceasingly inculcated by\nChristianity at all times, to both sexes, to all conditions, must have\npowerfully contributed to excite in man an active and ardent feeling of\npersonality. This feeling, with all its sublimity, combining with the\nother inspirations of Christianity, all full of dignity and grandeur,\nhas raised the human mind from the dust, where ignorance and rude\nsuperstitions, and systems of violence, which oppressed it on all\nsides, had placed and retained it. How strange and surprising to the\nears of Pagans must have been those energetic words of Justin, which\nnevertheless expressed the disposition of mind of the majority of the\nfaithful, when, in his Apology, addressed to Antoninus Pius, he said,\n\"As we have not placed our hopes on present things, we contemn those\nwho kill us, death being, moreover, a thing which cannot be avoided.\"\n\nThis full and entire self-consciousness, this heroic contempt of\ndeath, this calm spirit of a man who, supported by the testimony of\nintimate feeling, sets at defiance all the powers of earth, must have\ntended the more to enlarge the mind, as they did not emanate from\nthat cold stoical impassibility, the constant effort of which was to\nstruggle against the nature of things without any solid motive. The\nChristian feeling had its origin in a sublime freedom from all that\nis earthly, in a profound conviction of the holiness of duty, and in\nthat undeniable maxim, that man, in spite of all the obstacles which\nthe world places in his way, should walk with a firm step towards\nthe destiny which is marked out for him by his Creator. These ideas\nand feelings together communicated to the soul a strong and vigorous\ntemper, which, without reaching in any thing the savage harshness of\nthe ancients, raised man to all his dignity, nobleness, and grandeur.\nIt must be observed that these precious effects were not confined to a\nsmall number of privileged individuals, but that, in conformity with\nthe genius of the Christian religion, they extended to all classes; for\none of the noblest characters of that divine religion is the unlimited\nexpansion which it gives to all that is good; it knows no distinction\nof persons, and makes its voice penetrate the obscurest places of\nsociety. It was not only to the elevated classes and philosophers,\nbut to the generality of the faithful, that St. Cyprian, the light of\nAfrica, addressed himself, when, summing up in a few words all the\ngrandeur of man, he marked with a bold hand the sublime position where\nour soul ought to maintain itself with constancy. \"Never,\" he says,\n\"never will he who feels himself to be the child of God admire the\nwords of man. _He falls from his noblest state who can admire any thing\nbut God._\" (_De Spectaculis._) Sublime words, which make us boldly\nraise our heads, and fill our hearts with noble feelings; words which,\ndiffusing themselves over all classes, like a fertilizing warmth, were\ncapable of inspiring the humblest of men with what previously seemed\nexclusively reserved for the transports of the poet:\n\n Os homini sublime dedit, c\u0153lumque tueri\n Jussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere cultus.\n\nThe development of the moral life, the interior life, that life\nin which man, reflecting on himself, is accustomed to render a\ncircumstantial account of all his actions, of the motives which actuate\nhim, of the goodness or the wickedness of those motives, and the\nobject to which they tend, is principally due to Christianity, to its\nunceasing influence on man in all his conditions, in all situations, in\nall moments of his life. Such a progress of the individual life in all\nthat it has most intimate, most active, and most interesting for the\nheart of man, was incompatible with that absorption of the individual\nby society, with that blind self-denial, in which man forgot himself,\nto think only of the association of which he formed a part. This moral\nand interior life was unknown to the ancients, because they wanted\nprinciples for supporting, rules for guiding, and inspirations for\nexciting and nourishing it. Thus at Rome, where the political element\ntries its ascendency over minds, when enthusiasm becomes extinguished\nby the effect of intestine dissensions, when every generous feeling\nbecomes stifled by the insupportable despotism which succeeds to the\nlast agitations of the republic, we see baseness and corruption develop\nthemselves with fearful rapidity. The activity of mind which before\noccupied itself in debates of the Forum and the glorious exploits\nof war, no longer finding food, gave itself up to sensual pleasures\nwith an abandonment which we can hardly imagine now-a-days, in spite\nof the looseness of morals which we so justly deplore. Thus we see\namong the ancients only these two extremes, either the most exalted\npatriotism, or the complete prostration of the faculties of the soul,\nwhich abandons itself without reserve to the dictates of its irregular\npassions; there man was the slave either of his own passions, of\nanother man, or of society.\n\nSince the moral tie which united men to Catholic society has been\nbroken, since religious belief has been weakened, in consequence of\nthe individual independence which Protestantism has proclaimed in\nreligious matters, it has unhappily become possible for us to conceive,\nby means of examples found in European civilization, what man still\ndeprived of real knowledge of himself, his origin and destiny, must\nhave been. We will indicate in another place the points of resemblance\nwhich are found between ancient and modern society in the countries\nwhere the influence of religious ideas is enfeebled. It is enough now\nto remark, that if Europe had completely lost Christianity, according\nto the insane desires of some men, a generation would not have passed\naway without there being revived among us the individual and society\nsuch as they were among the ancients, except the modifications which\nthe difference of the material state of the two civilizations would\nnecessarily produce.\n\nThe doctrine of free will, so loudly proclaimed by Catholicity, and\nsustained by her with such vigour, not only against the old Pagan\nteaching, but particularly against sectarians at all times, and\nespecially against the founders of the pretended Reformation, has\nalso contributed more than is imagined to develop and perfect the\nindividual, to raise his ideas of independence, nobleness, and dignity.\nWhen man comes to consider himself as constrained by the irresistible\nforce of destiny, and attached to a chain of events over which he has\nno control--when he comes to suppose that the operations of his mind,\nthose active proofs of his freedom, are but vain illusions--he soon\nannihilates himself; he feels himself assimilated to the brute; he\nceases to be the prince of living beings, the ruler of the earth; he\nis nothing more than a machine fixed in its place, which is compelled\nto perform its part in the great system of the universe. The social\norder ceases to exist; merit and demerit, praise and blame, reward\nand punishment, are only unmeaning words. If man enjoys or suffers,\nit is only in the same way as a shrub, which is sometimes breathed\nupon softly by the zephyrs, and sometimes blasted by the north wind.\nHow different it is when man is conscious of his liberty! Then he is\nmaster of his destiny; good and evil, life and death, are before his\neyes; he can choose, and nothing can violate the sanctuary of his\nconscience. There the soul is enthroned, there she is seated, full of\ndignity, and the whole world raging against her, the universe falling\nupon her fragile body, cannot force her will. The moral order is\ndisplayed before us in all its grandeur; we see good in all its beauty,\nand evil in all its deformity; the desire of doing well stimulates,\nand the fear of doing ill restrains us; the sight of the recompense\nwhich can be obtained by an effort of free will, and which appears\nat the end of the path of virtue, renders that path more sweet and\npeaceful, and communicates activity and energy to the soul. If man is\nfree, there remains something great and terrible, even in his crime, in\nhis punishment, and even in the despair of hell. What is man deprived\nof liberty and yet punished? What is the meaning of this absurd\nproposition, a chief dogma of the founders of Protestantism? This man\nis a weak and miserable victim, in whose torture a cruel omnipotence\ndelights; a God who has created him in order to see him suffer; a\ntyrant with infinite power, that is, the most dreadful of monsters. But\nif man is free, when he suffers, he suffers because he has deserved\nit; and if we contemplate him in the midst of despair, plunged into\nan ocean of horrors, his brow furrowed by the just lightnings of the\nEternal, we seem to hear him still pronounce those terrible words with\na haughty bearing and proud look, _non serviam, I will not obey_.\n\nIn man, as in the universe, all is wonderfully united; all the\nfaculties of man have delicate and intimate relations with each other,\nand the movement of one chord in the soul makes all the others vibrate.\nIt is necessary to call attention to this reciprocal dependence of all\nour faculties on each other, in order to anticipate an objection which\nmay be made. We shall be told, all that has been said only proves that\nCatholicity has developed the individual in a mystical sense. No, the\nobservations which I have made show something more than this; they\nprove that we owe to Catholicity the clear idea and lively feeling\nof moral order in all its greatness and beauty; they prove that we\nowe her the real strength of what we call conscience, and that if the\nindividual believes himself to be called to a mighty destiny, confided\nto his own free will, and the care of which belongs entirely to him, it\nis to Catholicity he owes that belief; they prove that Catholicity has\ngiven man the true knowledge which he has of himself, the appreciation\nof his dignity, the respect which is paid to him as man; they prove\nthat she has developed in our souls the germs of the noblest and most\ngenerous feelings; for she has raised our thoughts by the loftiest\nconceptions, dilated our hearts by the assurance of a liberty which\nnothing can take away, by the promise of an infinite reward, eternal\nhappiness, while she leaves in our hands life and death, and makes us\nin a certain manner the arbiters of our own destiny. In all this there\nis more than mere mysticism; it is nothing less than the development\nof the entire man; nothing less than the true, the only noble, just,\nand reasonable individuality; nothing less than the collected powerful\nimpulses which urge the individual towards perfection in every sense;\nit is nothing less than the first, the most indispensable, the most\nfruitful element of real civilization.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nOF THE FAMILY.--MONOGAMY.--INDISSOLUBILITY OF THE CONJUGAL TIE.\n\n\nWE have seen what the individual owes to Catholicity; let us now see\nwhat the family owes her. It is clear that the individual, being the\nfirst element of the family, if it is Catholicity which has tended\nto perfect him, the improvement of the family will thus have been\nvery much her work; but without insisting on this inference, I wish\nto consider the conjugal tie in itself, for which purpose it is\nnecessary to call attention to woman. I will not repeat here what she\nwas among the Romans, and what she is still among the nations who\nare not Christians; history, and still more the literature of Greece\nand Rome, afford us sad or rather shameful proofs on this subject;\nand all the nations of the earth offer us too many evidences of the\ntruth and exactness of the observation of Buchanan, viz. that wherever\nChristianity does not prevail, there is a tendency to the degradation\nof woman. Perhaps on this point Protestantism will be unwilling to\ngive way to Catholicity; it will assert that in all that affects\nwoman the Reformation has in no degree prejudiced the civilization\nof Europe. We will not now inquire what evils Protestantism has\noccasioned in this respect; this question will be discussed in another\npart of the work; but it cannot be doubted, that when Protestantism\nappeared, the Catholic religion had already completed its task as far\nas woman is concerned. No one, indeed, is ignorant that the respect\nand consideration which are given to women, and the influence which\nthey exercise on society, date further back than the first part of\nthe 16th century. Hence it follows that Catholicity cannot have had\nProtestantism as a coadjutor; it acted entirely alone in this point,\none of the most important of all true civilization; and if it is\ngenerally acknowledged that Christianity has placed woman in the rank\nwhich properly belongs to her, and which is most conducive to the good\nof the family and of society, this is a homage paid to Catholicity; for\nat the time when woman was raised from abjection, when it was attempted\nto restore her to the rank of companion of man, as worthy of him, those\ndissenting sects that also called themselves Christians did not exist,\nand there was no other Christianity than the Catholic Church.\n\nIt has been already remarked in the course of this work, that when\nI give titles and honours to Catholicity, I avoid having recourse\nto vague generalities, and endeavour to support my assertions by\nfacts. The reader will naturally expect me to do the same here, and\nto point out to him what are the means which Catholicity has employed\nto give respect and dignity to woman; he shall not be deceived in his\nexpectation. First, and before descending to details, we must observe\nthat the grand ideas of Christianity with respect to humanity must\nhave contributed, in an extraordinary manner, to the improvement of\nthe lot of woman. These ideas, which applied without any difference\nto woman as well as to man, were an energetic protest against the\nstate of degradation in which one-half of the human race was placed.\nThe Christian doctrine made the existing prejudices against woman\nvanish for ever; it made her equal to man by unity of origin and\ndestiny, and in the participation of the heavenly gifts; it enrolled\nher in the universal brotherhood of man, with his fellows and with\nJesus Christ; it considered her as the child of God, the coheiress of\nJesus Christ; as the companion of man, and no longer as a slave and\nthe vile instrument of pleasure. Henceforth that philosophy which had\nattempted to degrade her, was silenced; that unblushing literature\nwhich treated women with so much insolence found a check in the\nChristian precepts, and a reprimand no less eloquent than severe in the\ndignified manner in which all the ecclesiastical writers, in imitation\nof the Scriptures, expressed themselves on woman. Yet, in spite of\nthe beneficent influence which the Christian doctrines must have\nexercised by themselves, the desired end would not have been completely\nattained, had not the Church undertaken, with the warmest energy, to\naccomplish a work the most necessary, the most indispensable for the\ngood organization of the family and society, I mean the reformation of\nmarriage. The Christian doctrine on this point is very simple: _one\nwith one exclusively, and for ever_. But the doctrine would have been\npowerless, if the Church had not undertaken to apply it, and if she had\nnot carried on this task with invincible firmness; for the passions,\nabove all those of man, rebel against such a doctrine; and they would\nundoubtedly have trodden it under foot, if they had not met with an\ninsurmountable barrier, which did not leave them the most distant hope\nof triumph. Can Protestantism, which applauded with such senseless joy\nthe scandal of Henry VIII., and accommodated itself so basely to the\ndesires of the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, boast of having contributed\nto strengthen that barrier? What a surprising difference! During many\ncenturies, amid circumstances the most various, and sometimes the\nmost terrible, the Catholic Church struggles with intrepidity against\nthe passions of potentates, to maintain unsullied the sanctity of\nmarriage. Neither promises nor threats could move Rome; no means could\nobtain from her any thing contrary to the instructions of her Divine\nMaster: Protestantism, at the first shock, or rather at the first\nshadow of the slightest embarrassment, at the mere fear of displeasing\na prince who certainly was not very powerful, yields, humbles itself,\nconsents to polygamy, betrays its own conscience, opens a wide door\nto the passions, and gives up to them the sanctity of marriage, the\nfirst pledge for the good of the family, the foundation-stone of true\ncivilization.\n\nProtestant society on this point, wiser than the miscalled reformers\nwho attempted to guide it, with admirable good sense repudiated the\nconsequences of the conduct of its chiefs; although it did not preserve\nthe doctrines of Catholicity, it at least followed the salutary impulse\nwhich it had received from them, and polygamy was not established\nin Europe. But history records facts which show the weakness of the\npretended reformation, and the vivifying power of Catholicity. It tells\nus to whom it is owing that the law of marriage, that palladium of\nsociety, was not falsified, perverted, destroyed, amid the barbarous\nages, amid the most fearful corruption, violence, and ferocity, which\nprevailed everywhere, as well at the time when invading nations passed\npell-mell over Europe, as in that of feudality, and when the power of\nkings had already been preponderant,--history will tell what tutelary\nforce prevented the torrent of sensuality from overflowing with all\nits violence, with all its caprices, from bringing about the most\nprofound disorganization, from corrupting the character of European\ncivilization, and precipitating it into that fearful abyss in which the\nnations of Asia have been for so many centuries.\n\nPrejudiced writers have carefully searched the annals of ecclesiastical\nhistory for the differences between popes and kings, and have taken\noccasion therein to reproach the Court of Rome with its intolerant\nobstinacy respecting the sanctity of marriage; if the spirit of\nparty had not blinded them, they would have understood that, if this\nintolerant obstinacy had been relaxed for a moment, if the Roman\nPontiff had given way one step before the impetuosity of the passions,\nthis first step once made, the descent into the abyss would have\nbeen rapid; they would have admired the spirit of truth, the deep\nconviction, the lively faith with which that august see is animated;\nno consideration, no fear, has been able to silence her, when she\nhad occasion to remind all, and especially kings and potentates, of\nthis commandment: \"They shall be two in one flesh; man shall not\nseparate what God has joined.\" By showing themselves inflexible on\nthis point, even at the risk of the anger of kings, not only have the\npopes performed the sacred duty which was imposed on them by their\naugust character as chiefs of Christianity, but they have executed a\npolitical _chef d'\u0153uvre_, and greatly contributed to the repose and\nwell-being of nations. \"For,\" says Voltaire, \"the marriages of princes\nin Europe decide the destiny of nations; and never has there been a\ncourt entirely devoted to debauchery, without producing revolutions and\nrebellions.\" (_Essai sur l'Histoire g\u00e9n\u00e9rale_, t. iii. c. 101.)\n\nThis correct remark of Voltaire will suffice to vindicate the pope,\ntogether with Catholicity, from the calumnies of their wretched\ndetractors: it becomes still more valuable, and acquires an immense\nimportance, if it is extended beyond the limits of the political order\nto the social. The imagination is affrighted at the thought of what\nwould have happened, if these barbarous kings, in whom the splendor\nof the purple ill disguised the sons of the forest, if those haughty\nseigneurs, fortified in their castles, clothed in mail, and surrounded\nby their timid vassals, had not found a check in the authority of\nthe Church; if at the first glance at a new beauty, if at the first\npassion which, when enkindled in their hearts, would have inspired\nthem with a disgust for their legitimate spouses, they had not had the\nalways-present recollection of an inflexible authority. They could,\nit is true, load a bishop with vexations; they could silence him with\nthreats or promises; they might control the votes of a particular\nCouncil by violence, by intrigue, by subornation; but, in the distance,\nthe power of the Vatican, the shadow of the Sovereign Pontiff, appeared\nto them like an alarming vision; they then lost all hope; all struggles\nbecame useless; the most violent endeavors would never have given them\nthe victory; the most astute intrigues, the most humble entreaties,\nwould have obtained the same reply: \"One with one only, and for ever.\"\n\nIf we read but the history of the middle ages, of that immense scene\nof violence, where the barbarian, striving to break the bonds which\ncivilization attempted to impose on him, appears so vividly; if we\nrecollect that the Church was obliged to keep guard incessantly and\nvigilantly, not only to prevent the ties of a marriage from being\nbroken, but even to preserve virgins (and even those who were dedicated\nto God) from violence; we shall clearly see that, if she had not\nopposed herself, as a wall of brass, to the torrent of sensuality,\nthe palaces of kings and the castles of seigneurs would have speedily\nbecome their seraglios and harems. What would have happened in the\nother classes? They would have followed the same course; and the women\nof Europe would have remained in the state of degradation in which\nthe Mussulman women still are. As I have mentioned the followers of\nMohammed, I will reply in passing to those who pretend to explain\nmonogamy and polygamy by climate alone. Christians and Mohammedans\nhave been for a long time under the same sky, and their religions have\nbeen established, by the vicissitudes of the two races, sometimes in\ncold and sometimes in mild and temperate climates; and yet we have not\nseen the religions accommodate themselves to the climates; but rather,\nthe climates have been, as it were, forced to bend to the religions.\nEuropean nations owe eternal gratitude to Catholicity, which has\npreserved monogamy for them, one of the causes which undoubtedly have\ncontributed the most to the good organization of the family, and the\nexaltation of woman. What would now be the condition of Europe, what\nrespect would woman now enjoy, if Luther, the founder of Protestantism,\nhad succeeded in inspiring society with the indifference which he\nshows on this point in his commentary on Genesis? \"As to whether we\nmay have several wives,\" says Luther, \"the authority of the patriarchs\nleaves us completely free.\" He afterwards adds that \"_it is a thing\nneither permitted nor prohibited, and that he does not decide any\nthing thereupon_.\" Unhappy Europe! if a man, who had whole nations as\nfollowers, had uttered such words some centuries earlier, at the time\nwhen civilization had not yet received an impulse strong enough to make\nit take a decided line on the most important points, in spite of false\ndoctrines. Unhappy Europe! if at the time when Luther wrote, manners\nhad not been already formed, if the good organization given to the\nfamily by Catholicity had not been too deeply rooted to be torn up by\nthe hand of man. Certainly the scandal of the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel\nwould not then have remained an isolated example, and the culpable\ncompliance of the Lutheran doctors would have produced bitter fruits.\nWhat would that vacillating faith, that uncertainty, that cowardice\nwith which the Protestant Church was seen to tremble at the mere demand\nof such a prince as the Landgrave, have availed, to control the fierce\nimpetuosity of barbarous and corrupted nations? How would a struggle,\nlasting for ages, have been sustained by those who, at the first\nmenace of battle, gave way, and were routed before the shock?\n\nBesides monogamy, it may be said that there is nothing more important\nthan the indissolubility of marriage. Those who, departing from the\ndoctrine of the Church, think that it is useful in certain cases to\nallow divorce, so as to dissolve the conjugal tie, and permit each\nof the parties to marry again, still will not deny that they regard\ndivorce as a dangerous remedy, which the legislator only avails himself\nof with regret, and only on account of crime or faithlessness; they\nwill see, also, that a great number of divorces would produce very\ngreat evils, and that in order to prevent these in countries where the\ncivil laws allow the abuse of divorce, it is necessary to surround this\npermission with all imaginable precaution; they will consequently grant\nthat the most efficacious manner of preventing corruption of manners,\nof guarantying the tranquillity of families, and of opposing a firm\nbarrier to the torrent of evils which is ready to inundate society,\nis to establish the indissolubility of marriage as a moral principle,\nto base it upon motives which exercise a powerful ascendency over the\nheart, and to keep a constant restraint on the passions, to prevent\nthem from slipping down so dangerous a declivity. It is clear that\nthere is no work more worthy of being the object of the care and zeal\nof the true religion. Now, what religion but the Catholic has fulfilled\nthis duty? What other religion has more perfectly accomplished so\nsalutary and difficult a task? Certainly not Protestantism, for it\ndid not even know how to penetrate the depth of the reasons which\nguided the conduct of the Church on this point. I have taken care to\ndo justice in another place to the wisdom which Protestant society has\ndisplayed in not giving itself up entirely to the impulse which its\nchiefs wished to communicate to it. But it must not be supposed from\nthis that Protestant doctrines have not had lamentable consequences in\ncountries calling themselves reformed. Let us hear what a Protestant\nlady, Madame de Sta\u00ebl, says in her book on Germany, speaking of a\ncountry which she loves and admires: \"Love,\" she says, \"is a religion\nin Germany, but a poetical religion which tolerates very freely all\nthat sensibility can excuse. It cannot be denied that in the Protestant\nprovinces the facility of divorce is injurious to the sanctity of\nmarriage. _They change husbands as quietly as if they were arranging\nthe incidents of a drama_: the good nature of the man and woman\nprevents the mixture of any bitterness with their easy ruptures; and\nas there is among the Germans more imagination than real passion, the\nmost curious events take place with singular tranquillity. Yet it is\nthus that manners and characters lose all consistency; the paradoxical\nspirit destroys the most sacred institutions, and there are no well\nestablished rules on any subject.\" (_De l'Allemagne_, p. 1, c. 3.)\nMisled by their hatred against the Roman Church, and excited by their\nrage for innovation in all things, the Protestants thought they had\nmade a great reform in secularizing marriage, if I may so speak, and in\nrejecting the Catholic doctrine, which declared it a real sacrament.\nThis is not the place to enter upon a dogmatical discussion of this\nmatter; I shall content myself with observing, that by depriving\nmarriage of the august seal of a sacrament, Protestantism showed that\nit had little knowledge of the human heart. To consider marriage, not\nas a simple civil contract, but as a real sacrament, was to place it\nunder the august shade of religion, and to raise it above the stormy\natmosphere of the passions; and who can doubt that this was absolutely\nnecessary to restrain the most active, capricious, and violent passion\nof the heart of man? The civil laws are insufficient to produce such\nan effect. Motives are required, which, being drawn from a higher\nsource, exert a more efficacious influence. The Protestant doctrine\noverturned the power of the Church with respect to marriage, and gave\nup matters of this kind exclusively to the civil power. Some one will\nperhaps think that the increase of the secular power on this point\ncould not but serve the cause of civilization, and that to drive the\necclesiastical authority from this ground was a magnificent triumph\ngained over exploded prejudices, a valuable victory over unjust\nusurpation. Deluded man! If your mind possessed any lofty thought, if\nyour heart felt the vibration of those harmonious chords which display\nthe passions of man with so much delicacy and exactness, and teach the\nbest means of directing them, you would see, you would feel, that to\nplace marriage under the mantle of religion, and to withdraw it as much\nas possible from profane interference, was to purify, to embellish,\nand to surround it with the most enchanting beauty; for thus is that\nprecious treasure, which is blasted by a look, and tarnished by the\nslightest breath, inviolably preserved. Would you not wish to have the\nnuptial bed veiled and strictly guarded by religion?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\nOF THE PASSION OF LOVE.\n\n\nBut it will be said to Catholics, \"Do you not see that your doctrines\nare too hard and rigorous? They do not consider the weakness and\ninconstancy of the human heart, and require sacrifices above its\nstrength. Is it not cruel to attempt to subject the most tender\naffections, the most delicate feelings, to the rigor of a principle?\nCruel doctrine, which endeavors to hold together, bound to each other\nby a fatal tie, those who no longer love, who feel a mutual disgust,\nwho perhaps hate each other with a profound hatred! When you answer\nthese two beings who long to be separated, who would rather die than\nremain united, with an eternal Never, showing them the divine seal\nwhich was placed upon their union at the solemn moment, do you not\nforget all the rules of prudence? Is not this to provoke despair?\nProtestantism, accommodating itself to our infirmity, accedes more\neasily to the demands, sometimes of caprice, but often also of\nweakness; its indulgence is a thousand times preferable to your rigor.\"\nThis requires an answer; it is necessary to remove the delusion which\nproduces these arguments, too apt, unhappily, to mislead the judgment,\nbecause they begin by seducing the heart. In the first place, it\nis an exaggeration to say that the Catholic system reduces unhappy\ncouples to the extremity of despair. There are cases in which prudence\nrequires that they should separate, and then neither the doctrines\nnor the practice of the Catholic Church oppose the separation. It is\ntrue that this does not dissolve the conjugal tie, and that neither\nof the parties can marry again. But it cannot be said that one of\nthem is subject to tyranny; they are not compelled to live together,\nconsequently they do not suffer the intolerable torment of remaining\nunited when they abhor each other. Very well, we shall be told, the\nseparation being pronounced, the parties are freed from the punishment\nof living together; but they cannot contract new ties, consequently\nthey are forbidden to gratify another passion which, perhaps, their\nheart conceals, and which may have been the cause of the disgust or the\nhatred whence arose the unhappiness or discord of their first union.\nWhy not consider the marriage as altogether dissolved? Why should not\nthe parties become entirely free? Permit them to obey the feelings of\ntheir hearts, which, newly fixed on another object, already foresee\nhappier days. Here, no doubt, the answer seems difficult, and the force\nof the difficulty becomes urgent; but, nevertheless, it is here that\nCatholicity obtains the most signal triumph; it is here it clearly\nshows how profound is its knowledge of the heart of man, how prudent\nits doctrines, and how wise and provident its conduct. Its rigor,\nwhich seems excessive, is only necessary severity; this conduct, far\nfrom meriting the reproach of cruelty, is a guarantee for the repose\nand well-being of man. But it is a thing which it is difficult to\nunderstand at first sight; thus we are compelled to develop this\nmatter by entering into a profound examination of the principles which\njustify by the light of reason the conduct pursued by the Catholic\nChurch; let us examine this conduct, not only in respect to marriage,\nbut in all that relates to the direction of the heart of man.\n\nIn the direction of the passions there are two systems, the one of\ncompliance, the other of resistance. In the first of these they are\nyielded to as they advance; an invincible obstacle is never opposed to\nthem; they are never left without hope. A line is traced around them\nwhich, it is true, prevents them from exceeding a certain boundary; but\nthey are given to understand that if they come to place their foot upon\nthis limit, it will retire a little further; so that the compliance\nis in proportion to the energy and obstinacy of their demands. In the\nsecond system, a line is equally marked out to the passions which they\ncannot pass; but it is a line fixed, immovable, and everywhere guarded\nby a wall of brass. In vain do they attempt to pass it; they have not\neven the shadow of hope; the principle which resists them will never\nchange, will never consent to any kind of compromise. Therefore, no\nresource remains but to take that course which is always open to man,\nthat of sin. The first system allows the fire to break out, to prevent\nan explosion; the second hinders the beginning of it, in the fear of\nbeing compelled to arrest its progress. In the first, the passions are\nfeared and regulated at their birth, and hopes of restraining them when\nthey have grown up are entertained; in the second, it is thought that,\nif it is difficult to restrain them when they are feeble, it will be\nstill more so when they are strengthened. In the one, they act on the\nsupposition that the passions are weakened by indulgence; in the other,\nit is believed that gratification, far from satiating, only renders\nthem every day more devouring.\n\nIt may be said, generally speaking, that Catholicity follows the second\nof these systems; that is to say, with respect to the passions, her\nconstant rule is to check them at the first step, to deprive them of\nall hope from the first, and to stifle them, if possible, in their\ncradle. It must be observed, that we speak here of the severity with\nrespect to the passions themselves, not with respect to man, who\nis their prey; it is very consistent to give no truce to passion,\nand to be indulgent towards the person under its influence; to be\ninexorable towards the offence, and to treat the offender with extreme\nmildness. With respect to marriage, this system has been acted on by\nCatholicity with astonishing firmness; Protestantism has taken the\nopposite course. Both are agreed on this point, that divorce, followed\nby the dissolution of the conjugal tie, is a very great evil; but\nthere is this difference between them, that the Catholic system does\nnot leave even the hope of a conjuncture in which this dissolution\nwill be permitted; it forbids it absolutely, without any restriction;\nit declares it impossible: the Protestant system, on the contrary,\nconsents to it in certain cases. Protestantism does not possess the\ndivine seal which guaranties the perpetuity of marriage, and renders it\nsacred and inviolable; Catholicity does possess this seal, impresses\nit on the mysterious tie, and from that moment marriage remains under\nthe shadow of an august symbol. Which of the two religions is the most\nprudent in this point? Which acts with the most wisdom? To answer this\nquestion, let us lay aside the dogmatical reasons, and the intrinsical\nmorality of the human actions which form the subject of the laws which\nwe are now examining; and let us see which of the two systems is the\nmost conducive to the difficult task of managing and directing the\npassions. After having considered the nature of the human heart, and\nconsulted the experience of every day, it may be affirmed that the best\nway to repress a passion is to leave it without hope; to comply with\nit, to allow it continual indulgences, is to excite it more and more;\nit is to play with fire amid a heap of combustibles, by allowing the\nflame to be lit, from time to time, in the vain confidence of being\nalways able to put out the conflagration. Let us take a rapid glance\nat the most violent passions of the heart of man, and observe what\nis their ordinary course, according to the system which is pursued\nin their regard. Look at the gambler, who is ruled by an indefinable\nrestlessness, which is made up of an insatiable cupidity and an\nunbounded prodigality, at the same time. The most enormous fortune\nwill not satisfy him; and yet he risks all, without hesitation, to the\nhazard of a moment. The man who still dreams of immense treasures amid\nthe most fearful misery, restlessly pursues an object which resembles\ngold, but which is not it, for the possession thereof does not satisfy\nhim. His heart can only exist amid uncertainty, chances, and perils.\nSuspended between hope and fear, he seems to be pleased with the rapid\nsuccession of lively emotions which unceasingly agitate and torment\nhim. What remedy will cure this malady--this devouring fever? Will you\nrecommend to him a system of compliance? will you tell him to gamble,\nbut only to a certain amount, at certain times, and in certain places?\nWhat will you gain by this? Nothing at all. If these means were good\nfor any thing, there would be no gambler in the world who would not be\ncured of his passion; for there is no one who has not often marked out\nfor himself these limits, and often said to himself, \"You shall only\nplay till such an hour, in such a place, and to such an amount.\" What\nis the effect of these palliations--of these impotent precautions--on\nthe unhappy gambler? That he miserably deceives himself. The passion\nconsents, only in order to gain strength, and the better to secure the\nvictory: thus it gains ground; it constantly enlarges its sphere; and\nleads its victim again into the same, or into greater excesses. Do\nyou wish to make a radical cure? If there be a remedy, it must be to\nabstain completely; a remedy which may appear difficult at first, but\nwill be found the easiest in practice. When the passion finds itself\ndeprived of all hope, it will begin to diminish, and in the end will\ndisappear. No man of experience will raise the least doubt as to the\ntruth of what I have said; every one will agree with me, that the only\nway to destroy the formidable passion of gambling is to deprive it at\nonce of all food, to leave it without hope.\n\nLet us pass to another example, more analogous to the subject which I\nintend to explain. Let us suppose a man under the influence of love.\nDo you believe that the best way to cure his passion will be to give\nhim opportunities, even though very rare, of seeing the object of\nhis passion? Do you think that it will be salutary to authorize him\nto _continue_, while you forbid him to _multiply_, these dangerous\ninterviews? Will such a precaution quench the flame which burns in his\nheart? You may be sure that it will not. The limits will even augment\nits force. If you allow it any food, even with the most parsimonious\nhand, if you permit it the least success, you see it constantly\nincrease, until it upset every thing that opposes it. But take away\nall hope, send the lover on a long journey, or place before him an\nimpediment which precludes the probability, or even the possibility,\nof success; then, except in very rare cases, you will obtain at\nfirst distraction, and then forgetfulness. Is not this the daily\nteaching of experience? Is it not the remedy which necessity every\nday suggests to the fathers of families? The passions resemble fire.\nThey are extinguished by a large quantity of water; but a few drops\nonly render them more ardent. Let us raise our thoughts still higher;\nlet us observe the passions acting in a wider field, in more extended\nregions. Whence comes it that so many strong passions are awakened\nat times of public disturbance? It is, because then they all hope to\nbe gratified; it is, because the highest ranks, the oldest and most\npowerful institutions, having been overturned, and replaced by others,\nwhich were hitherto imperceptible, all the passions see a road open\nbefore them, amid the tempest and confusion; the barriers apparently\ninsurmountable, the sight of which prevented their existence, or\nstrangled them in the cradle, do not exist; as all is then unprotected\nand defenceless, it is only required to have boldness and intrepidity\nenough to stand amid the ruins of all that was old.\n\nRegarding things in the abstract, there is nothing more strikingly\nabsurd than hereditary monarchy, the succession secured to a family\nwhich may at any time place on the throne a child, a fool, or a wretch:\nand yet in practice there is nothing more wise, prudent, and provident.\nThis has been taught by the long experience of ages, it has been shown\nby reason, and proved by the sad warnings of those nations who have\ntried elective monarchy. Now, what is the cause of this? It is what\nwe are endeavoring to explain. Hereditary monarchy precludes all the\nhopes of irregular ambition; without that, society always contains a\ngerm of trouble, a principle of revolt, which is nourished by those\nwho conceive a hope of one day obtaining the command. In quiet times,\nand under an hereditary monarchy, a subject, however rich, however\ndistinguished he may be for his talent or his valour, cannot, without\nmadness, hope to be king; and such a thought never enters his head.\nBut change the circumstances,--admit, I will not say, the probability,\nbut the possibility of such an event, and you will see that there will\nimmediately be ardent candidates.\n\nIt would be easy to develop this doctrine more at length, and apply\nit to all the passions of man; but enough has been said to show that\nthe first thing to be done when you have to subdue a passion, is to\noppose to it an insurmountable barrier, which it can have no hope of\npassing. Then the passion rages for a little time, it rebels against\nthe obstacle that resists it; but when it finds that to be immovable,\nit recedes, it is cast down, and, like the waves of the sea, it falls\nback murmuring to the level which has been marked out for it.\n\nThere is a passion in the heart of man, a passion which exerts a\npowerful influence on the destinies of his life, and too often, by its\ndeceitful illusions, forms a long chain of sadness and misfortune. This\npassion, which has for its necessary object the preservation of the\nhuman race, is found, in some form, in all the beings of nature; but,\ninasmuch as it resides in the soul of an intelligent being, it assumes\na peculiar character in man. In brutes, it is only an instinct, limited\nto the preservation of the species; in man, the instinct becomes a\npassion; and that passion, enlivened by the fire of imagination,\nrendered subtile by the powers of the mind, inconstant and capricious,\nbecause it is guided by a free will, which can indulge in as many whims\nas there are different impressions for the senses and the heart, is\nchanged into a vague, fickle feeling, which is never contented, and\nwhich nothing can satisfy. Sometimes it is the restlessness of a man\nin a fever; sometimes the frenzy of a madman; sometimes a dream, which\nravishes the soul into regions of bliss; sometimes the anguish and\nthe convulsions of agony. Who can describe the variety of forms under\nwhich this deceitful passion presents itself? Who can tell the number\nof snares which it lays for the steps of unhappy mortals? Observe it\nat its birth, follow it in its career, up to the moment when it dies\nout like an expiring lamp. Hardly has the down appeared on the face of\nman, when there arises in his heart a mysterious feeling, which fills\nhim with trouble and uneasiness, without his being aware of the cause.\nA pleasing melancholy glides into his heart, thoughts before unknown\nenter his mind, seductive images pervade his imagination, a secret\nattraction acts on his soul, unusual gravity appears in his features,\nall his inclinations take a new direction. The games of childhood no\nlonger please him; every thing shows a new life, less innocent, less\ntranquil; the tempest does not yet rage, the sky is not darkened, but\nclouds, tinged with fire, are the sad presage of what is to come.\nWhen he becomes adolescent, that which was hitherto a feeling, vague,\nmysterious, incomprehensible, even to himself, becomes, from that\ntime, more decided; objects are seen more clearly, they appear in\ntheir real nature; the passion sees, and seizes on them. But do not\nimagine that it becomes more constant on that account. It is as vain,\nas changeable, as capricious as the multitude of objects which by\nturns present themselves to it. It is constantly deluded, it pursues\nfleeting shadows, seeks a satisfaction which it never finds, and\nawaits a happiness which it never attains. With an excited imagination,\na burning heart, with his whole soul transported, and all his faculties\nsubdued, the ardent young man is surrounded by a brilliant chain of\nillusions; he communicates these to all that environs him; he gives\ngreater splendor to the light of heaven, he clothes the earth with\nricher verdure and more brilliant coloring, he sheds on all the\nreflection of his own enchantment.\n\nIn manhood, when the thoughts are more grave and fixed, when the heart\nis more constant, the will more firm, and resolutions more lasting;\nwhen the conduct which governs the destinies of life is subjected\nto rule, and, as it were, confirmed in its faith, this mysterious\npassion continues to agitate the heart of man, and it torments him\nwith unceasing disquietude. We only observe that the passion is become\nstronger and more energetic, owing to the development of the physical\norganization; the pride which inspires man with independence of life,\nthe feeling of greater strength, and the abundance of new powers,\nrender him more decided, bold, and violent; while the warnings and\nlessons of experience have made him more provident and crafty. We\nno longer see the candor of his earlier years. He now knows how to\ncalculate; he is able to approach his object by covert ways, and to\nchoose the surest means. Woe to the man who does not provide in time\nagainst such an enemy! His existence will be consumed by a fever of\nagitation; amid disquietudes and torments, if he does not die in the\nflower of his age, he will grow old still ruled by this fatal passion;\nit will accompany him to the tomb, surrounding him, in his last days,\nwith those repulsive and hideous forms which are exhibited in a\ncountenance furrowed by years, and in eyes which are already veiled by\nthe shades of death.\n\nWhat plan should be adopted to restrain this passion, to confine it\nwithin just limits, and prevent its bringing misfortune to individuals,\ndisorder to families, and confusion to society? The invariable rule\nof Catholicity, in the morality which she teaches, as well as in the\ninstitutions which she establishes, is repression; Catholicism does not\nallow a desire she declares to be culpable in the eyes of God; even a\nlook, when accompanied by an impure thought. Why this severity? For two\nreasons; on account of the intrinsic morality which there is in this\nprohibition; and also, because there is profound wisdom in stifling the\nevil at its birth. It is certainly easier to prevent a man's consenting\nto evil desires, than it is to hinder his gratifying them when he has\nallowed them to enter his inflamed heart. There is profound reason in\nsecuring tranquillity to the soul, by not allowing it to remain, like\nTantalus, with the water at his burning lips. \"Quid vis videre, quod\nnon licet habere?\" Why do you wish to see that which you are forbidden\nto possess? is the wise observation of the author of the admirable\nImitation of Christ; thus summing up, in a few words, all the prudence\nwhich is contained in the holy severity of the Christian doctrine.\n\nThe ties of marriage, by assigning a legitimate object to the passions,\nstill do not dry up the source of agitation and the capricious\nrestlessness which the heart conceals. Possession cloys and disgusts,\nbeauty fades and decays, the illusions vanish, and the charms\ndisappear; man, in the presence of a reality which is far from reaching\nthe beauty of the dreams inspired by his ardent imagination, feels new\ndesires arise in his heart; tired with what he possesses, he entertains\nnew illusions; he seeks elsewhere the ideal happiness which he thought\nhe had found, and quits the unpleasing reality which thus deceives his\nbrightest hopes.\n\nGive, then, the reins to the passions of man; allow him in any way to\nentertain the illusion that he can make himself any new ties; permit\nhim to believe that he is not attached for ever, and without recall, to\nthe companion of his life; and you will see that disgust will soon take\npossession of him, that discord will be more violent and striking,\nthat the ties will begin to wear out before they are contracted, and\nwill break at the first shock. Proclaim, on the contrary, a law which\nmakes no exception of poor or rich, weak or powerful, vassals or kings,\nwhich makes no allowance for difference of situation, of character,\nhealth, or any of those numberless motives which, in the hands of\npassions, and especially those of powerful men, are easily changed into\npretexts; proclaim that this law is from heaven, show a divine seal\non the marriage tie, tell the murmuring passions that if they will\ngratify themselves they must do so by immorality; tell them that the\npower which is charged with the preservation of this divine law will\nnever make criminal compliances, that it will never dispense with the\ninfraction of the divine law, and that the crime will never be without\nremorse; you will then see the passions become calm and resigned; the\nlaw will be diffused and strengthened, will take root in customs; you\nwill have secured the good order and tranquillity of families for ever,\nand society will be indebted to you for an immense benefit. Now this is\nexactly what Catholicity has done, by efforts which lasted for ages;\nit is what Protestantism would have destroyed, if Europe had generally\nfollowed its doctrine and example, if the people had not been wiser\nthan their deceitful guides.\n\nProtestants and false philosophers, examining the doctrines and\ninstitutions of the Catholic Church through their prejudices and\nanimosity, have not understood the admirable power of the two\ncharacteristics impressed at all times and in all places on the\nideas and works of Catholicity, viz. _unity and fixity_; _unity_ in\ndoctrines, and _fixity_ in conduct. Catholicity points out an object,\nand wishes us to pursue it straight forward. It is a reproach to\nphilosophers and Protestants, that after having declaimed against unity\nof doctrine, they also declaimed against fixity of conduct. If they had\nreflected on man, they would have understood that this fixity is the\nsecret of guiding and ruling him, and, when desirable of restraining\nhis passions, of exalting his mind when necessary, and of rendering\nhim capable of great sacrifices and heroic actions. There is nothing\nworse for man than uncertainty and indecision; nothing that weakens\nand tends more to make him useless. Indecision is to the will what\nskepticism is to the mind. Give a man a definite object, and if he will\ndevote himself to it, he will attain it. Let him hesitate between two\ndifferent ways, without a fixed rule to guide his conduct; let him be\nignorant of his intention; let him not know whither he is going, and\nyou will see his energy relax, his strength diminish, and he will stop.\nDo you know by what secret great minds govern the world? Do you know\nwhat renders them capable of heroic actions? And how all those who\nsurround them are rendered so? It is that they have a fixed object,\nboth for themselves and for others; it is that they see that object\nclearly, desire it ardently, strive after it directly, with firm hope\nand lively faith, without allowing any hesitation in themselves or in\nothers. Alexander, C\u00e6sar, Napoleon, and the other heroes of ancient\nand modern times, no doubt exercised a fascinating influence by the\nascendency of their genius; but the secret of this ascendency, the\nsecret of their power, and of that force of impulse by which they\nsurmounted all, was the unity of thought, the fixity of plan, which\nproduced in them that invincible, irresistible character which gave\nthem an immense superiority over other men. Thus Alexander passed the\nGranicus, undertook and completed his wonderful conquest of Asia; thus\nC\u00e6sar passed the Rubicon, put Pompey to flight, triumphed at Pharsalia,\nand made himself master of the world; thus did Napoleon disperse\nthose who parleyed about the fate of France, conquered his enemies at\nMarengo, obtained the crown of Charlemagne, alarmed and astonished the\nworld by the victories of Austerlitz and Jena.\n\nWithout unity there is no order, without fixity there is no stability;\nand in the moral as in the physical world, without order and stability\nnothing prospers. Protestantism, which has pretended to advance the\nindividual and society by destroying religious unity, has introduced\ninto creeds and institutions the multiplicity and fickleness of private\njudgment; it has everywhere spread confusion and disorder, and has\naltered the nature of European civilization by inoculating it with\na disastrous principle which has caused and will continue to cause\nlamentable evils. And let it not be supposed, that Catholicity, on\naccount of the unity of her doctrines and the fixity of her conduct,\nis opposed to the progress of ages. There is nothing to prevent that\nwhich is _one_ from advancing, and there may be movement in a system\nwhich has some fixed points. The universe whose grandeur astonishes\nus, whose prodigies fill us with admiration, whose beauty and variety\nenchant us, is united, is ruled by laws constant and fixed. Behold some\nof the reasons which justify the strictness of Catholicity, behold why\nshe has not been able to comply with the demands of a passion which,\nonce let loose, has no boundary or barrier, introduces trouble into\nhearts, disorder into families, takes away the dignity of manners,\ndishonors the modesty of women, and lowers them from the noble rank\nof the companions of men. I do not deny that Catholicity is strict\non this point; but she could not give up this strictness without\nrenouncing at the same time the sublime functions of the depository of\nsound morality, the vigilant sentinel which guards the destinies of\nhumanity.[17]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\nVIRGINITY IN ITS SOCIAL ASPECT.\n\n\nWe have seen, in the fifteenth chapter, with what jealousy Catholicity\nendeavors to veil the secrets of modesty; with what perseverance she\nimposes the restraint of morality on the most impetuous passion of\nthe human heart. She shows us all the importance which belongs to\nthe contrary virtue, by crowning with peerless splendor the total\nabstinence from sensual pleasure, viz. virginity. Frivolous minds,\nand principally those who are inspired by a voluptuous heart, do not\nunderstand how much Catholicity has thus contributed to the elevation\nof woman; but such will not be the case with reflecting men who are\ncapable of seeing that all that tends to raise to the highest degree\nof delicacy the feeling of modesty, all that fortifies morality, all\nthat contributes to make a considerable number of women models of the\nmost heroic virtue, equally tends to place women above the atmosphere\nof gross passion. Woman then ceases to be presented to the eyes of man\nas the mere instrument of pleasure; none of the attractions with which\nnature has endowed her are lost or diminished, and she has no longer to\ndread becoming an object of contempt and disgust, after having been the\nunhappy victim of profligacy.\n\nThe Catholic Church is profoundly acquainted with these truths; and\nwhile she watched over the sanctity of the conjugal tie, while she\ncreated in the bosom of the family this admirable dignity of the\nmatron, she covered with a mysterious veil the countenance of the\nChristian virgin, and she carefully guarded the spouses of the Lord in\nthe seclusion of the sanctuary. It was reserved for Luther, the gross\nprofaner of Catharine de Bor\u00e9, to act in defiance of the profound\nand delicate wisdom of the Church on this point. After the apostate\nmonk had violated the sacred seal set by religion on the nuptial bed,\nhis was the unchaste hand to tear away the sacred veil of virgins\nconsecrated to God: it was worthy of his hard heart to excite the\ncupidity of princes, to induce them to seize upon the possessions\nof these defenceless virgins, and expel them from their abodes. See\nhim everywhere excite the flame of sensuality, and break through all\ncontrol. What will become of virgins devoted to the sanctuary? Like\ntimid doves, will they not fall into the snares of the libertine? Is\nthis the way to increase the respect paid to the female sex? Is this\nthe way to increase the feeling of modesty and to advance humanity?\nWas this the way in which Luther gave a generous impulse to future\ngenerations, perfected the human mind, and gave vigor and splendor to\nrefinement and civilization? What man with a tender and sensitive heart\ncan endure the shameless declamation of Luther, especially if he has\nread the Cyprians, the Ambroses, the Jeromes, and the other shining\nlights of the Catholic Church, on the sublime honor of the Christian\nvirgin? Who, then, will object to see, during ages when the most savage\nbarbarism prevailed, those secluded dwellings where the spouses of the\nLord secured themselves from the dangers of the world, incessantly\nemployed in raising their hands to heaven, to draw down upon the earth\nthe dews of divine mercy? In times and countries the most civilized,\nhow sad is the contrast between the asylums of the purest and loftiest\nvirtue, and the ocean of dissipation and profligacy! Were these abodes\na remnant of ignorance, a monument of fanaticism, which the coryph\u00e6i of\nProtestantism did well to sweep from the earth? If this be so, let us\nprotest against all that is noble and disinterested; let us stifle in\nour hearts all enthusiasm for virtue; let every thing be reduced to the\ngrossest sensuality; let the painter throw away his pencil, the poet\nhis lyre; let us forget our greatness and our dignity; let us degrade\nourselves, saying, \"Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die!\"\n\nNo; true civilization can never forgive Protestantism for this immoral\nand impious work; true civilization can never forgive it for having\nviolated the sanctuary of modesty and innocence, for having employed\nall its efforts to destroy respect for virginity; thus treading under\nfoot a doctrine professed by all the human race. It did not respect\nwhat was venerated by the Greeks in the priestesses of Ceres, by the\nRomans in their vestals, by the Gauls in their druidesses, by the\nGermans in their prophetesses. It has carried the want of respect for\nmodesty farther than was ever done by the dissolute nations of Asia,\nand the barbarians of the new world. It is certainly a disgrace for\nEurope to have attacked what was respected in all parts of the world,\nto have treated as a mistaken prejudice the universal belief of the\nhuman race, sanctioned, moreover, by Christianity. What invasion of\nbarbarians was equal to this attack of Protestantism on all that ought\nto be most inviolable among men? It has set the fatal example in modern\nrevolutions of the crimes which have been committed.\n\nWhen we see, in warlike rage, the barbarity of the conquerors remove\nall restraint from a licentious soldiery, and let them loose against\nthe abodes of virgins consecrated to God, there is nothing but what\nmay be conceived. But when these holy institutions are persecuted by\nsystem, when the passions of the populace are excited against them, by\ngrossly assailing their origin and object, this is more than brutal and\ninhuman. It is a thing which cannot be described, when those who act in\nthis way boast of being Reformers, followers of the pure Gospel, and\nproclaim themselves the disciples of Him who, in His sublime councils,\nhas pointed out virginity as one of the noblest virtues that can adorn\nthe Christian's crown. Now, who is ignorant that this was one of the\nworks to which Protestantism devoted itself with the greatest ardor?\n\nWoman without modesty will be an incentive to sensuality, but will\nnever attract the soul by the mysterious feeling which is called love.\nIt is very remarkable, that although the most urgent desire of the\nheart of woman is to please, yet as soon as she forgets modesty she\nbecomes displeasing and disgusting. Thus it is wisely ordained that\nwhat wounds her heart the most sharply, becomes the punishment of her\nfault. Hence, every thing that maintains in woman the delicate feeling\nof modesty, elevates her, adorns her, gives her greater ascendency\nover the heart of man, and creates for her a distinguished place in\nthe domestic as well as in the social order. These truths were not\nunderstood by Protestantism when it condemned virginity. It is true\nthis virtue is not a necessary condition of modesty, but it is its\n_beau id\u00e9al_ and type of perfection; and certainly we cannot destroy\nthis model, by denying its beauty, by condemning its imitation as\ninjurious, without doing great injury to modesty itself, which,\ncontinually struggling against the most powerful passion of the heart\nof man, cannot be preserved in all its purity, unless it be accompanied\nby the greatest precautions. Like a flower of infinite delicacy, of\nravishing colours, of the sweetest perfume, it can scarcely support\nthe slightest breath of wind; its beauty is destroyed with extreme\nfacility, and its perfume readily evaporates.\n\nBut you will perhaps urge against virginity the injury which it does to\npopulation; you will consider the offerings which are made on the altar\nby this virtue as so much taken from the multiplication of the human\nrace. Fortunately the observations of the most distinguished political\neconomists have destroyed this delusion, originated by Protestantism,\nand supported by the incredulous philosophy of the 18th century. Facts\nhave shown, in a convincing manner, two truths of equal importance in\nvindicating Catholic doctrines and institutions; 1, that the happiness\nof nations is not necessarily in proportion to the increase of their\npopulation; 2, that the augmentation and diminution of the population\ndepend on many concurrent causes; that religious celibacy, if it be\namong them, has an insignificant influence.\n\nA false religion and an illegitimate and egotistical philosophy have\nattempted to assimilate the secrets of this increase of the human race\nto that of other living beings. All idea of religion has been taken\naway; they have seen in humanity only a vast field where nothing was to\nbe left sterile. Thus they have prepared the way for the doctrine which\nconsiders individuals as machines from which all possible profit should\nbe drawn. No more was thought of charity, or the sublime instructions\nof religion with respect to the dignity and destinies of man; thus\nindustry has become cruel, and the organization of labor, established\non a basis purely material, increases the present, but fearfully\nmenaces the future well-being of the rich.\n\nHow profound are the designs of Providence! The nation which has\ncarried these fatal principles to the fullest extent now finds itself\novercharged with men and products. Frightful misery devours her most\nnumerous classes, and all the ability of her rulers will not be able to\navoid the rock she is running on, urged by the power of the elements to\nwhich she has abandoned herself. The eminent professors of Oxford who,\nit seems, begin to see the radical vices of Protestantism, would find\nhere a rich subject for meditation, if they would examine how far the\npretended reformers of the 16th century have contributed, in preparing\nthe critical situation in which England finds herself, in spite of her\nimmense progress.\n\nIn the physical world all is disposed by number, weight, and measure;\nthe laws of the universe show infinite calculation--infinite geometry;\nbut let us not imagine that we can express all by our imperfect signs,\nand include every thing in our limited combinations; let us, above all,\navoid the foolish error of assimilating too much the moral and the\nphysical world--of applying indiscriminately to the first what only\nbelongs to the second, and of upsetting by our pride the mysterious\nharmony of the creation. Man is not born simply for multiplication of\nhis species; this is not the only part which he is intended to perform\nin the great machine of the universe; he is a being according to the\nimage and likeness of God--a being who has his proper destiny--a\ndestiny superior to all that surrounds him on earth. Do not debase him,\ndo not level him with the earth, by inspiring him with earthly thoughts\nalone; do not oppress his heart, by depriving him of noble and elevated\nsentiments--by leaving him no taste for any but material enjoyments.\nIf religious thoughts lead him to an austere life--if the inclination\nto sacrifice the pleasures of this life on the altar of the God whom\nhe adores takes possession of his heart--why should you hinder him?\nWhat right have you to despise a feeling which certainly requires\ngreater strength of mind than is necessary for abandoning one's self to\npleasure?\n\nThese considerations, which affect both sexes, have still greater force\nwhen they are applied to the female. With her lively imagination,\nher feeling heart, and ardent mind, she has greater need than man of\nserious inspiration, of grave, solemn thoughts, to counterbalance the\nactivity with which she flies from object to object, receiving with\nextreme facility impressions of every thing she touches, and, like a\nmagnetic agent, communicating them in her turn to all that surrounds\nher. Allow, then, a portion of that sex to devote itself to a life of\ncontemplation and austerity; allow young girls and matrons to have\nalways before their eyes a model of all the virtues--a sublime type\nof their noblest ornament, which is modesty. This will certainly not\nbe without utility. Be assured, these virgins are not taken away from\ntheir families, nor from society--both will recover with usury what you\nimagine they have lost.\n\nIn fact, who can measure the salutary influence which the sacred\nceremonies with which the Catholic Church celebrates the consecration\nof a virgin to God, must have exercised on female morals! Who can\ncalculate the holy thoughts, the chaste inspirations which have gone\nforth from those silent abodes of modesty, erected sometimes in\nsolitary places, and sometimes in crowded cities! Do you not believe\nthat the virgin whose heart begins to be agitated by an ardent passion,\nthat the matron who has allowed dangerous feelings to enter her soul,\nhave not often found their passions restrained by the remembrance of\na sister, a relative, a friend, who, in one of these silent abodes,\nraises her pure heart to Heaven, offering as a holocaust to the Divine\nSon of the blessed Virgin all the enchantments of youth and beauty?\nAll this cannot be calculated, it is true; but this, at least, is\ncertain, that no thought of levity, no inclination to sensuality has\narisen therefrom. All this cannot be estimated; but can we estimate\nthe salutary influence exercised by the morning dew upon plants? can\nwe estimate the vivifying effect of light upon nature? and can we\nunderstand how the water which filters through the bowels of the earth\nfertilizes it by producing fruits and flowers?\n\nThere is, then, an infinity of causes of which we cannot deny the\nexistence and the power, but which it is nevertheless impossible to\nsubmit to rigorous examination. The cause of the impotence of every\nwork exclusively emanating from the mind of man is, that his mind is\nincapable of embracing the _ensemble_ of the relations which exist in\nfacts of this kind; it is impossible for him to appreciate properly the\nindirect influences--sometimes hidden, sometimes imperceptible--which\nact there with an infinite delicacy. This is the reason why time\ndispels so many illusions, belies so many prognostics, proves the\nweakness of what was reckoned strong, and the strength of what was\nconsidered weak. Indeed, time brings to light a thousand relations, the\nexistence of which was not suspected, and puts into action a thousand\ncauses which were either unknown or despised: the results advance in\ntheir development, appearing every day in a more evident manner, until\nat length we find ourselves in such a situation that we can no longer\nshut our eyes to the evidence of facts, or any longer evade their force.\n\nOne of the greatest mistakes made by the opponents of Catholicity is\nthis. They can only see things under one aspect; they do not understand\nhow a force can act otherwise than in a straight line; they do not see\nthat the moral world, as well as the physical, is composed of relations\ninfinitely varied, and of indirect influences, sometimes acting with\nmore force than if they were direct. All form a system correlative and\nharmonious, the parts of which it is necessary to avoid separating,\nmore than is absolutely needful for becoming acquainted with the hidden\nand delicate ties which connect the whole. It is necessary, moreover,\nto allow for the action of time, that indispensable element in all\ncomplete development, in every lasting work.\n\nI trust I shall be pardoned for this short digression, necessary for\nthe inculcation of the great truths which have not been sufficiently\nattended to in examining the great institutions founded by Catholicity.\nPhilosophy is now compelled to withdraw propositions advanced too\nboldly, and to modify principles applied too generally. It would\nhave avoided this trouble and mortification by being cautious and\ncircumspect in its investigations. In league with Protestantism,\nit declared deadly war against the great Catholic institutions; it\nloudly appealed against moral and religious centralization. And now\na unanimous shout is raised from all quarters of the world in favour\nof the principle of unity. The instinct of nations seeks for it;\nphilosophers examine the secrets of science to discover it. Vain\nefforts! No other foundation can be established than that which is\nalready laid; duration depends upon solidity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\nOF CHIVALRY AND BARBARIAN MANNERS, IN THEIR INFLUENCE ON THE CONDITION\nOF WOMEN.\n\n\nAn indefatigable zeal for the sanctity of marriage, and an anxious\nsolicitude to carry the principle of modesty to the highest degree\nof delicacy, are the two rules which have guided Catholicity in her\nefforts for the elevation of woman. These are the two great means she\nhas employed in attaining her object, and hence comes the influence\nand importance of women in Europe. M. Guizot is, therefore, wrong in\nsaying that \"it is to the development, to the necessary preponderance\nof domestic manners in the feudal system, that this change, this\nimprovement in their condition is chiefly owing.\" I will not discuss\nthe greater or less influence of the feudal system on the development\nof European manners. Undoubtedly when the feudal lord \"shall have his\nwife, his children, and scarcely any others in his house, they alone\nwill form his permanent society; they alone will share his interests,\nhis destiny. It is impossible for domestic influence not to acquire\ngreat power.\" (_Le\u00e7on 4._) But if the lord, returning to his castle,\nfound one wife there, and not many, to what was that owing? Who forbade\nhim to abuse his power by turning his house into a harem? Who bridled\nhis passions and prevented his making victims of his timid vassals?\nSurely these were the doctrines and morals introduced into Europe,\nand deeply rooted there by the Catholic Church; it was the strict\nlaws which she imposed as a barrier to the invasions of the passions;\ntherefore, even if we suppose that feudality did produce this good, it\nis still owing to the Catholic Church.\n\nThat which has no doubt tended to exaggerate the influence of feudality\nin all that raises and ennobles women, is a fact that appears very\nevidently at that period, and is dazzling at first sight. This is the\nbrilliant spirit of chivalry, which, rising out of the bosom of the\nfeudal system, and rapidly diffusing itself, produced the most heroic\nactions, gave birth to a literature rich in imagination and feeling,\nand contributed in great measure to soften and humanize the savage\nmanners of the feudal lords. This period is particularly distinguished\nfor the spirit of gallantry; not the gallantry which consists generally\nin the tender relations of the two sexes, but a greatly exaggerated\ngallantry on the part of man, combining, in a remarkable way, the most\nheroic courage with the most lively faith and the most ardent religion.\nGod and his lady; such is the constant thought of the knight; this\nabsorbs all his faculties, occupies all his time, and fills up all\nhis existence. As long as he can obtain a victory over the infidels,\nand is supported by the hope of offering at the feet of his lady the\ntrophies of his triumph, no sacrifice costs him any thing, no journey\nfatigues, no danger affrights, no enterprise discourages him. His\nexcited imagination transports him into a world of fancy; his heart\nis on fire; he undertakes all, he finishes all; and the man who has\njust fought like a lion on the plains of Spain, or of Palestine, melts\nlike wax at the name of the idol of his heart; then he turns his eyes\namorously towards his country, and is intoxicated with the idea that\none day, sighing under the castle of his beloved, he may obtain a\npledge of her affection, or a promise of love. Woe to any one who is\nbold enough to dispute his treasure, or indiscreet enough to fix his\neyes on those battlements. The lioness who has been robbed of her cubs\nis not more terrible, the forest torn to pieces by the hurricane is\nnot more agitated than his heart; nothing can stop his vengeance, _he\nmust destroy his rival or die_. In examining this mixture of mildness\nand ferocity, of religion and passion, which, no doubt, has been\nexaggerated by the fancies of chroniclers and troubadours, but which\nmust have had a real type, we shall observe that it was very natural\nat that time, and that it is not so contradictory as it appears at\nfirst sight. Indeed, nothing was more natural than violent passions\namong men whose ancestors, not long before, had come from the forests\nof the north to pitch their bloody tents on the site of ruined cities;\nnothing was more natural than that there should be no other judge than\nstrength of arm among men whose only profession was war, and who lived\nin an embryo society, where there was no public law strong enough to\nrestrain private passions. Nothing, too, was more natural to those\nmen than a lively sense of religion, for religion was the only power\nwhich they acknowledged; she had enchanted their imaginations by the\nsplendour and magnificence of her temples, by the majesty and pomp of\nher worship. She had filled them with astonishment, by placing before\ntheir eyes the most sublime virtue, by addressing them in language as\nlofty as it was sweet and insinuating; language, no doubt, imperfectly\nunderstood by them, but which, nevertheless, convinced them of the\nholiness and divinity of the Christian mysteries and precepts, inspired\nthem with respect and admiration, and also exercising a powerful\ninfluence on their minds, enkindled enthusiasm and produced heroism.\nThus we see that all that was good in this exalted sentiment emanated\nfrom religion; if we take away faith, we shall find nothing but the\nbarbarian, who knew no other law than his spear, and no other rule of\nconduct than the inspirations of his fiery soul.\n\nThe more we penetrate into the spirit of chivalry and examine in\nparticular the feelings which it professed towards women, the more\nwe shall see that, instead of raising them, it supposes them already\nraised and surrounded by respect. Chivalry does not give a new place\nto women; it finds them already honoured and respected; and indeed,\nif it were not so, how could it imagine a gallantry so exaggerated,\nso fantastical? But if we imagine to ourselves the beauty of a virgin\ncovered by the veil of Christian modesty; if we imagine this charm\nincreased by illusion, we shall then understand the madness of the\nknight. If we imagine, at the same time, the virtuous matron, the\ncompanion of man, the mother of a family, the only woman in whom were\nconcentrated all the affections of husband and children, the Christian\nwife, we shall understand why the knight was intoxicated at the mere\nidea of obtaining so much happiness, why his love was more than a\nsensual feeling, it was a respect, a veneration, a worship.\n\nIt has been attempted to find the origin of this kind of worship in\nthe manners of the Germans; on the strength of some expressions of\nTacitus, the social amelioration of woman's lot has been attributed\nto the respect with which the barbarians surrounded her. M. Guizot\nrejects this assertion, and justly combats it by observing that what\nTacitus tells us of the Germans was not exclusively applicable to\nthem, since \"phrases similar to those of Tacitus, and sentiments and\ncustoms analogous to those of the ancient Germans, are met with in the\nstatements of many observers of savage or barbarous nations.\" Yet in\nspite of this wise remark, the same opinion has been maintained: it is\nnecessary, then, to combat it again.\n\nThe passage of Tacitus is this: \"Inesse quin etiam sanctum aliquid\net providum putant, nec aut consilia eorum aspernantur, aut responsa\nnegligunt. Vidimus sub Divo Vespasiano Velledam diu apud plerosque\nnuminis loco habitare.\" (_De Mor. Germ._) \"They go so far as to think\nthat there is in women something holy and prophetical; they do not\ndespise their counsels, and they listen to their predictions. In the\ntime of the divine Vespasian, we have seen the greater part of them\nfor a long time regard Velleda as a goddess.\" It seems to me that it\nis mistaking the passage of Tacitus, to extend its meaning to domestic\nmanners, and to see in it a trait of married life. If we attend to\nthe historian's words, we shall see that such an explanation is far\nfrom his idea. His words only relate to the superstition which made\nthe people attribute to some women the prophetic character. Even the\nexample chosen by Tacitus serves to show the truth and justness of\nthis observation. \"Velleda,\" he says, \"was regarded as a goddess.\" In\nanother part of his works, Tacitus explains his idea by telling us, of\nthis same Velleda, \"that this girl of the nation of Bructeres enjoyed\ngreat power, owing to an ancient custom among the Germans, which made\nthem look upon many women as prophetesses, and, in fine, with the\nprogress of superstition, as real divinities.\" \"Ea virgo nationis\nBructer\u00e6 late imperitabat, vetere apud Germanos more quo plerasque\nf\u0153minarum fatidicas et augescente superstitione arbitrantur deas.\"\n(_Hist. 4._) The text which I have just quoted proves to demonstration\nthat Tacitus speaks of superstition and not of family regulations,\nvery different things; as it might easily happen that some women were\nregarded as divinities, while the rest of their sex only occupied a\nplace in society inferior to that which belonged to them. At Athens,\ngreat importance was given to the priestesses of Ceres; at Rome to the\nVestals, the Pythonesses; and the history of the Sibyls shows that it\nwas not peculiar to the Germans to attribute the prophetical character\nto women. It is not for me now to explain the cause of these facts;\nit is enough for my purpose to state them; perhaps, on this point,\nphysiology might throw light on the philosophy of history.\n\nWhen Tacitus, in the same work, describes the severity of the manners\nof the Germans with respect to marriage, it is easy to observe that\nthe order of superstition and the order of the family were among them\nvery different. We have no longer here any thing of the _sanctum et\nprovidum_; we find only a jealous austerity in maintaining the line\nof duty; and we see woman, instead of being regarded as a goddess,\ngiven up to the vengeance of the husband, if she has been unfaithful.\nThis curious passage proves that the power of man over woman was not\nmuch limited by the customs of the Germans. \"Accisis crinibus,\" says\nTacitus, \"nudatam coram propinquis expellit domo maritus, ac per omnem\nvicum verbere agit.\" \"After having cut off her hair, the husband drives\nher from his house in presence of her relations, and beats her with\nrods ignominiously through the village.\" Certainly this punishment\ngives us an idea of the infamy which was attached to adultery among\nthe Germans; but it was little calculated to increase the respect\nentertained for them publicly; this would have been greater had they\nbeen stoned to death.\n\nWhen we read in Tacitus the description of the social state of the\nGermans, we must not forget that some traits of their manners are\npurposely embellished by him, which is very natural for a writer of his\nsentiments. We must not forget that Tacitus was indignant and afflicted\nat the sight of the fearful corruption of manners at that time in Rome.\nHe paints, it is true, in glowing colours, the sanctity of marriage\namong the Germans; but who does not see that, when doing so, he had\nbefore his eyes matrons who, according to Seneca, reckoned their years\nnot by the succession of consuls, but by change of husbands, and women\nwithout a shadow of modesty, given up to the greatest profligacy?\nWe can easily see to whom he alludes when he makes these severe\nremarks: \"Nemo enim illic vitia ridet, nec corrumpere et corrumpi\ns\u00e6culum vocatur.\" \"There vice is not laughed at, and corruption is\nnot called the fashion.\" A strong expression, which describes the\nage, and explains to us the secret joy with which Tacitus cast in the\nface of Rome, so refined and so corrupted, the pure image of German\nmanners. That which sharpened the raillery of Juvenal andenvenomed\nhis bitter satires, excited the indignation of Tacitus, and drew from\nhis grave philosophy these severe reprimands. Other information which\nwe possess shows us that the pictures of Tacitus are embellished, and\nthat the manners of this people were far from being as pure as he\nwishes to persuade us. Perhaps they may have been strict with respect\nto marriage; but it is certain that polygamy was not unknown among\nthem. C\u00e6sar, an eye-witness, relates, that the German king Ariovistus\nhad two wives (_De Bello Gallico_, l. i.); and this was not a solitary\ninstance, for Tacitus himself tells us that a few of them had several\nwives at once, not on account of sensuality, but for distinction.\n\"Exceptis admodum paucis, qui non libidine, sed ob nobilitatem,\npluribus nuptiis ambiuntur.\" This distinction, _non libidine sed ob\nnobilitatem_, is amusing; but it is clear that the kings and nobles,\nunder one pretence or another, allowed themselves greater liberty than\nthe severe historian would have approved of.\n\nWho can tell what was the state of morality among those forests? If we\nmay be allowed to conjecture by analogy, from the resemblance which\nmay naturally be supposed to exist among the different nations of\nthe North, what an idea might we conceive of it from certain customs\nof the Britons, who, in bodies of ten or twelve, had their wives in\ncommon; chiefly brothers with brothers, and fathers with sons; so\nthat they were compelled to distinguish the families conventionally,\nby giving the children to him who had first married the woman! It is\nfrom C\u00e6sar, an eye-witness, that we also learn this: \"Uxores habent\n(Britanni) deni duodenique inter se communes, et maxime fratres cum\nfratribus et parentes cum liberis; sed si qui sunt ex his nati, eorum\nhabentur liberi a quibus primum virgines qu\u00e6que duct\u00e6 sunt.\" (_De Bello\nGallico_, l. v.)\n\nHowever this may have been, it is at least certain that the principle\nof monogamy was not so much respected among the Germans as people\nhave been willing to suppose; an exception was made in favour of the\nnobles, that is, of the powerful; and that was enough to deprive the\nprinciple of all its force, and to prepare its ruin. In such a matter,\nto establish an exception to the law in favour of the powerful, is\nalmost to abrogate it. It may be said, I admit, that the powerful\nwill never want means of violating it; but it is one thing for the\npowerful to violate the law, and another for the law itself to retire\nbefore them, leaving the way open: in the first case, the employment\nof force does not destroy the law--the very shock which breaks it,\nmakes its existence felt, and visibly shows the wrong and injustice;\nin the second case, the law prostitutes itself, if I may so speak; the\npassions have no need of force to open for themselves a passage, the\nlaw itself opens the door for them. From that time it remains degraded\nand disgraced; its own baseness has undermined the moral principle\non which it was founded; and, owing to its own fault, it becomes\nitself the subject of animadversion to those who are still compelled\nto observe it. Thus the right of polygamy, once recognised among the\nGermans in favour of the great, must, with time, have become general\namong the other classes of the people; and it is very probable that\nthis was the case when the conquest of more productive countries, the\nenjoyment of more genial climates, and some improvement in their social\ncondition furnished them more abundantly with the means of gratifying\ntheir inclinations. An evil so great could only be withstood by the\ninflexible severity of the Catholic Church. Nobles and kings still had\na strong inclination towards the privileges which we have seen their\npredecessors enjoying before they embraced the Christian religion.\nThence it came that, in the first centuries after the irruption of\nthe barbarians, the Church had so much trouble in restraining their\nviolent inclinations. Would not those who have endeavored to find among\nthe Germans so large a portion of the constitutive elements of modern\ncivilization have shown more wisdom, if they had recognised, in the\nmanners which we have been examining, one of the causes which made the\nstruggles between the secular princes and the Church so frequent?\n\nI do not see why we should seek in the forests of the barbarians for\nthe origin of one of the finest attributes of our civilization, or why\nwe should give to those nations virtues of which they showed so little\nevidence when they invaded the countries of the south.\n\nWithout monuments, without history--almost without any index as to\ntheir social condition--it is difficult, not to say impossible, to\nknow any thing certain with respect to their manners; but I ask, what\nmust have been their morality, in the midst of such ignorance, such\nsuperstition, and such barbarism?\n\nThe little that we know about these nations has been necessarily taken\nfrom the Roman historians; and unfortunately this is not one of the\npurest sources. It almost always happens that observers, especially\nwhen they are conquerors, only give some slight notions with regard\nto the political state of a people, and are almost silent as to their\nsocial and domestic condition. In order to form an idea of this part of\nthe condition of a nation, it is necessary to mingle with them, and be\nintimate with them; now this is generally prevented by their different\nstates of civilization, especially when the observers and the observed\nare exasperated against each other by long years of war and slaughter.\nAdd to this, that, in such cases, the attention is particularly\nattracted by what favors or opposes the designs of the conquerors,\nwho for the most part attach no great importance to moral subjects;\nthis will show us how it is that nations who are observed in this way\nare only superficially known, and why such statements with respect to\nreligion and manners are unworthy of much confidence.\n\nThe reader will judge whether these reflections are out of place in\nestimating the value of what the Romans have told us about the state\nof the barbarians. It is enough to fix our eyes on the scenes of blood\nand horror prevailing for centuries, which show us, on the one hand,\nthe ambition of Rome, which, not content with the empire of the then\nknown world, wished to extend its power over the most distant forests\nof the North; and, on the other, the indomitable spirit of barbarian\nindependence, breaking in pieces the chains which were attempted\nto be imposed upon them, and destroying, by their bold incursions,\nthe ramparts which the skill of the Roman generals labored to raise\nagainst them. See, then, what we ought to think of barbarian society,\nas described by Roman historians. What shall we think, if we consult\nthe few traits which the barbarians themselves have left us, of\ntheir manners and maxims with respect to their social condition? It\nis always risking much to seek in barbarism for the origin of one\nof the most beautiful results of civilization, and to attribute to\nvague and superstitious feelings what, during centuries, forms the\nnormal state of the most advanced nations. If these noble sentiments,\nwhich are represented to us as emanating from the barbarians, really\nexisted among them, how did they avoid perishing in the midst of their\nmigrations and revolutions? How did they alone remain, when every thing\nrelating to the social condition of the barbarians disappeared?\n\nThese sentiments would not have been preserved in a stationary state,\nbut we should have seen them stripped of their superstition and\ngrossness, purified, ennobled, and made reasonable, just, salutary,\nchivalrous, and worthy of civilized nations. Such assertions have,\nfrom the first sight, the character of bold paradoxes. Certainly, when\nwe have to explain great phenomena in the social order, it is rather\nmore philosophical to seek for their origin in ideas which for a long\ntime have exercised a powerful influence on society, in manners and\ninstitutions emanating from them, in laws, in fine, which have been\nrecognised and respected for many centuries as established by Divine\npower.\n\nWhy, then, attempt to explain the respect in which women are held in\nEurope, by the superstitious veneration which barbarous nations offered\nin their forests to Velleda, Aurinia, and Gauna? Reason and good sense\ntell us that the real origin of this wonderful phenomenon is not to\nbe found there, and that we must seek elsewhere for the causes which\nhave contributed to produce it. History reveals to us these causes,\nand renders them palpable to us, by showing us facts which leave no\ndoubt as to the source whence this powerful and salutary influence\nemanated. Before Christianity, woman, oppressed by the tyranny of man,\nwas scarcely raised above the rank of slavery; her weakness condemned\nher to be the victim of the strong. The Christian religion, by its\ndoctrines of fraternity in Jesus Christ, and equality before God,\ndestroys the evil in its root, by teaching man that woman ought not\nto be his slave, but his companion. From that moment the amelioration\nof woman's lot was felt wherever Christianity was spread; and woman,\nas far as the degradation of ancient manners allowed, began to gather\nthe fruit of a doctrine which was to make a complete change in her\ncondition, by giving her a new existence. This is one of the principal\ncauses of the amelioration of woman's lot: a sensible, palpable cause,\nwhich is easily shown without making any gratuitous supposition, a\ncause which is not founded on conjecture, but which appears evident on\nthe first glance at the most notorious facts of history.\n\nMoreover, Catholicity, by the severity of its morality, by the lofty\nprotection which it affords to the delicate feeling of modesty,\ncorrected and purified manners; thus it very much elevated woman, whose\ndignity is incompatible with corruption and licentiousness. In fine,\nCatholicity itself, or the Catholic Church, (and observe, I do not say\nChristianity,) by its firmness in establishing and preserving monogamy\nand the indissolubility of the marriage tie, restrained the caprices\nof man, and made him concentrate his affections on one wife, who could\nnot be divorced. Thus woman passed from a state of slavery to that of\nthe companion of man. The instrument of pleasure was changed into the\nmother of a family, respected by her children and servants. Thus was\ncreated in the family identity of interests; thus was guarantied the\neducation of children, which produced the close intimacy which among\nus unites husband and wife, parents and children. The atrocious right\nof life and death was destroyed; the father had not even the right\nto inflict punishments too severe; and all this admirable system was\nstrengthened by ties strong but mild, was based on the principles\nof sound morality, sustained by prevailing manners, guarantied and\nprotected by the laws, fortified by reciprocal interests, sanctioned by\ntime, and endeared by love. This is the truly satisfactory explanation\nof the enigma; this is the origin of the honor and dignity of woman\nin Europe; thence we have derived the organization of the family,--an\ninestimable benefit which Europeans possess without appreciating it,\nwithout being sufficiently acquainted with it, and watching over its\npreservation as they ought.\n\nIn treating of this important matter, I have purposely distinguished\nbetween Christianity and Catholicity, in order to avoid a confusion in\nwords, which would have entailed a confusion in things. In reality,\nthe true, the only Christianity is Catholicity; but, unfortunately,\nwe cannot now employ these words indiscriminately, not only on\naccount of Protestantism, but also on account of the monstrous\nphilosophico-Christian nomenclature which ranks Christianity among\nphilosophical sects, as if it were nothing more than a system imagined\nby man. As the principle of charity plays a great part wherever the\nreligion of Jesus Christ is found, and as this principle is evident\neven to the eyes of the incredulous, philosophers who have wished\nto persevere in their incredulity without incurring the scandalous\nepithet of disciples of Voltaire, have adopted the words fraternity\nand humanity, to make them the theme of their instructions; they have\nconsented to give to Christianity the chief glory of originating\nits sublime ideas and generous sentiments: thus they appear not to\ncontradict the history of the past as the philosophy of the age gone by\nin its madness did; but they pretend to accommodate all to the present\ntime, and prepare the way for a greater and happier future. For these\nphilosophers Christianity is not a divine religion; by no means. With\nthem it is an idea, fortunate, magnificent, and fruitful in grand\nresults, but purely human; it is the result of long and painful human\nlabors. Polytheism, Judaism, the philosophy of the East, of Egypt,\nof Greece, were all preparatory to that great work. Jesus Christ,\naccording to them, only moulded into form an idea which was in embryo\nin the bosom of humanity. He fixed and developed it, and, by reducing\nit to practice, made the human race to take a step of great importance\nin the path of progress into which it has entered. But, He is always,\nin the eyes of these philosophers, nothing more than a philosopher\nof Judea, as Socrates was of Greece, and Seneca of Rome. Still we\nshould rejoice that they grant to Him this human existence, and do not\ntransform Him into a mythological being, by considering the Gospel\nnarrative as a mere allegory.\n\nThus, at the present time, it is of the first importance to distinguish\nbetween Christianity and Catholicity, whenever we have to bring\nto light and present to the gratitude of mankind the unspeakable\nbenefits for which they are indebted to the Christian religion. It is\nnecessary to show that what has regenerated the world was not an idea\nthrown at hazard among all those who have struggled for preference\nand pre-eminence; but that it was a collection of truths sent from\nHeaven, transmitted to the human race by a God made Man, by means of\na society formed and authorized by Himself, in order to perpetuate to\nthe end of time the work which His word had established, which His\nmiracles had sanctioned, and which He had sealed with His blood. It is\nconsequently necessary to exhibit this society, that is, the Catholic\nChurch, realizing in her laws and institutions the inspirations and\ninstructions of her Divine Master, and accomplishing the lofty mission\nof leading men towards eternal happiness, while ameliorating their\ncondition here below, and consoling them in this land of misfortune. In\nthis way we form a correct idea of Christianity, if we may so speak,\nor rather we show it as it really is, not as men vainly represent it.\nAnd observe, that we ought never to fear for the truth, when the facts\nof history are fully and searchingly examined. If in the vast field\ninto which our investigations lead us, we sometimes find ourselves in\nobscurity, walking for a long time in dark vaults which the rays of\nthe sun do not visit, and where the soil under our feet threatens to\nswallow us up, let us fear nothing, let us advance with courage and\nconfidence; amid the darkest windings we shall discover at a distance\nthe light that shines upon the end of our journey; we shall see truth\nseated on the threshold, placidly smiling at our terrors and anxieties.\n\nTo philosophers, as well as to Protestants, we would say, if\nChristianity were not realized in a visible society, always in contact\nwith man, and provided with the authority necessary for teaching and\nguiding him, it would be only a theory, like all others that have\nbeen and still are seen on the earth; consequently it would be either\naltogether sterile, or at least unable to produce any of those great\nworks which endure unimpaired for ages. Now one of these is undoubtedly\nChristian marriage, and the family organization which has been its\nimmediate consequence. It would have been vain to advance notions\nfavorable to the dignity of woman and tending to improve her lot, if\nthe sanctity of marriage had not been guarantied by a power generally\nacknowledged and revered. That power is continually struggling against\nthe passions which labor to overcome it; what would have happened if\nthey had had to contend with no other obstacle than a philosophic\ntheory, or a religious idea without reality in society, and without\npower to obtain submission and obedience?\n\nWe have, then, no need of recurring to that extravagant philosophy\nwhich seeks for light in the midst of darkness, and which, on seeing\norder arise out of chaos, has conceived the singular notion of\naffirming that it was produced by it. If we find in the doctrines, in\nthe laws of the Catholic Church the origin of the sanctity of marriage\nand the dignity of woman, why should we seek for it in the manners of\nbrutal barbarians, who had no veil for modesty and the privacy of the\nnuptial couch? Let us hear C\u00e6sar speaking of the Germans: \"Nulla est\noccultatio, quod et promiscui in fluminibus perluuntur, et pellibus aut\nrhenorum tegumentis utuntur, magna corporis parte nuda.\" (_De Bello\nGall._, l. vi.)\n\nI have been obliged to oppose authority to authority; I was under the\nnecessity of destroying the fantastical systems into which men have\nbeen seduced by an over love of subtilty, by the mania of finding\nextraordinary causes for phenomena, the origin of which may easily\nbe discovered when we have recourse, in good faith and sincerity, to\nthe concurring instructions of philosophy and history. It was highly\nnecessary, in order to clear up one of the most delicate questions in\nthe history of the human race, and to find the source of one of the\nmost fruitful elements of European civilization. My task was nothing\nless than to explain the organization of families, that is, to fix one\nof the poles on which the axis of society turns.\n\nLet Protestantism boast of having introduced divorce, of having\ndeprived marriage of the beautiful and sublime character of a\nsacrament, of having withdrawn from the care and protection of the\nChurch the most important act of human life; let it rejoice in having\ndestroyed the sacred asylums of virgins consecrated to God; let it\ndeclaim against the most angelic and heroic virtue; let us, after\nhaving defended the doctrine and conduct of the Catholic Church at\nthe tribunal of philosophy and history, conclude by appealing to\nthe judgment, not indeed of high philosophy, but of good sense and\nfeeling.[18]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII.\n\nOF THE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE IN GENERAL.\n\n\nWhen enumerating, in the twentieth chapter, the characteristics\nwhich mark European civilization, I pointed out, as one of them, \"an\nadmirable public conscience, rich in sublime maxims of morality, in\nrules of justice and equity, in sentiments of honor and dignity, a\nconscience which survives the shipwreck of private morality, and does\nnot allow the open corruption to go so far as it did in ancient times.\"\nWe must now explain more at length in what this public conscience\nconsists, what is its origin, what are its results, showing at the\nsame time what share Catholicity and Protestantism have had in its\nformation. This delicate and important question is, I will venture to\nsay, untouched; at least I do not know that it has yet been attempted.\nMen constantly speak of the excellence of Christian morality, and on\nthis point all the sects, all the schools of Europe are agreed; but\nthey do not pay sufficient attention to the way in which that morality\nhas become predominant, by first destroying Pagan corruption, then by\nmaintaining itself for centuries in spite of the ravages of infidelity,\nso as to form an admirable public conscience; a benefit which we now\nenjoy without appreciating it as we ought, and without even thinking\nof it. In order fully to comprehend this matter, it is above all\nnecessary to form a clear idea of what is meant by conscience.\nConscience in the general, or rather ideological sense of the word,\nmeans the knowledge which each man has of his own acts. Thus we say\nthat the soul is conscious of its thoughts, of the acts of its will,\nand of its sensations; so that the word conscience, taken in this\nsense, expresses a perception of what we do and feel. Applied to the\nmoral order, this word signifies the judgment which we ourselves form\nof our actions as good or evil. Thus, when we are about to perform an\naction, conscience points it out to us as good or bad, and consequently\nlawful or unlawful; and it thus directs our conduct. The action being\nperformed, it tells us whether we have done well or ill, it excuses\nor condemns us, it rewards us with peace of mind, or punishes us with\nremorse.\n\nThis explanation being given, we shall easily understand what is\nmeant by public conscience; it is nothing but the judgment formed of\ntheir actions by the generality of men. It results from this that,\nlike private conscience, the public conscience may be right or wrong,\nstrict or relaxed; and that there must be differences on this point\namong societies of men, the same as there are among individuals; that\nis to say, that, as in the same society we find men whose consciences\nare more or less right or wrong, more or less strict or relaxed, we\nmust also find societies superior to others in the justice of the\njudgment which they form on actions, and in the delicacy of their moral\nappreciation.\n\nIf we observe closely, we shall see that individual conscience is the\nresult of widely different causes. It is an error to suppose that\nconscience resides solely in the intelligence; it is also rooted in the\nheart. It is a judgment, it is true; but we judge of things in a very\ndifferent way according to the manner in which we feel them. Add to\nthis, that the feelings have an immense influence on moral ideas and\nactions; the result is, that conscience is formed under the influence\nof all the causes which forcibly act on our hearts. Communicate to two\nchildren the same moral principles, by teaching them from the same book\nand under the same master; but suppose that one in his own family sees\nwhat he is taught constantly practised, while the other sees there\nnothing but indifference to it; suppose, moreover, that these two\nchildren grow up with the same moral and religious conviction, so that\nas far as the intellect is concerned there is no difference between\nthem; nevertheless, do you believe that their judgment of the morality\nof actions will be the same? By no means; and why? Because the one has\nonly convictions, while the other has also feelings. In the one, the\ndoctrine enlightens the mind; while, in the other, example engraves it\nconstantly on the heart. Thus what one regards with indifference, the\nother looks upon with horror; what the one does with negligence, the\nother performs with the greatest care; and the same subject that to one\nis of slight interest, is to the other of the highest importance.\n\nPublic conscience, which, in fact, is the sum of private consciences,\nis subject to the same influences as they are; so that mere instruction\nis not enough for it, and it requires the concurrence of other\ncauses to act on the heart, as well as the mind. When we compare\nChristian with pagan society, we instantly see that the former must be\ninfinitely superior to the latter on this point; not only on account\nof the purity of its morality, and the strength of the principles and\nmotives sanctioning it, but also because it follows the wise course of\ncontinually inculcating this morality, and impressing it strongly on\nthe mind by constant repetition. By this constant repetition of the\nsame truths, Christianity has done what other religions never could do;\nnone of them, indeed, have ever succeeded in organizing and putting\ninto practice so important a system. But I have said enough on this\npoint in the fourteenth chapter; it is useless to repeat it here; I\npass on to some observations on the public conscience in Europe.\n\nIt cannot be denied that, generally speaking, reason and justice\nprevail in that public conscience. If you examine laws and actions,\nyou will not find those shocking acts of injustice or those revolting\nimmoralities which are to be met with among other nations. There\nare certainly evils, and very grave ones, but they are at least\nacknowledged, and called by their right names. We do not hear good\ncalled evil, or evil good; that is to say, society, in certain things,\nis like those persons of good principles and bad morals who are\nthe first to acknowledge that their conduct is blamable, and that\ntheir words and deeds contradict each other. We often lament the\ncorruption of morals, the profligacy of our large towns; but what is\nall the corruption and profligacy of modern society compared with\nthe debauchery of the ancients? It certainly cannot be denied that\nthere is a fearful extent of dissoluteness in some of the capitals of\nEurope. The records of the police, as well as those of the benevolent\nestablishments where the fruits of crime are received, show shocking\ndemoralization. In the highest classes dreadful ravages are caused by\nconjugal infidelity, and all sorts of dissipation and disorder; yet\nthese excesses are very far from reaching the extent which they did\namong the best-governed nations of antiquity, the Greeks and Romans. So\nthat our society, which we so bitterly lament, would have appeared to\nthem a model of modesty and decorum. Need we call to mind the infamous\nvices then so common and so public, and which have scarcely a name\namong us now, whether it be because they are so rarely committed, or\nbecause the fear of public conscience forces them to hide themselves\nin the dark places, and, so to speak, in the bowels of the earth?\nNeed we recall to mind the infamies which stain the writings of the\nancients as often as they describe the manners of their times? Names\nillustrious in science and in arms have passed down to posterity\nwith stains so black that we cannot consent to describe them. Now,\nhow corrupt must have been the state of the other classes, when such\ndegradation was attributed to men who, by their elevated positions or\nother circumstances, were the lights of society!\n\nYou talk of the avarice which is so prevalent now-a-days; but look at\nthe usurers of antiquity who sucked the blood of the people everywhere;\nread the satirical poets, and you will see what was the state of\nmanners on this point; consult, in fine, the annals of the Church, and\nyou will see what pains she took to diminish the effects of this vice;\nread the history of ancient Rome, and you will find the _cursed thirst\nfor gold_, and lenders without mercy, who, after having impudently\nrobbed, carried in triumph the fruits of their rapine to live with\nscandalous ostentation, and buy votes again to raise them to command.\nNo, in European civilization, among nations taught and elevated by\nChristianity, such evils would not be long tolerated. If we suppose\nadministrative disorder, tyranny, and corruption of morals carried as\nfar as you please, still public opinion would raise its voice and frown\non the oppressors. Partial injustice may be committed, but rapine will\nnever be formed into a shameless system, or be regarded as the rule of\ngovernment. Rely upon it, the words _justice_, _morality_, _humanity_,\nwhich constantly resound in our midst, are not vain words; this\nlanguage produces great results; it destroys immense evils. These ideas\nimpregnate the atmosphere we breathe; they frequently restrain the\narm of criminals, and resist with incredible force materialistic and\nutilitarian doctrines; they continue to exert an incalculable influence\non society. We have among us a feeling of morality which mollifies and\ngoverns all; which is so powerful that vice is compelled to assume the\nappearance of virtue, and cover itself with many veils, in order to\nescape becoming the subject of public execration.\n\nModern society, it would seem, ought to have inherited the corruption\nof the old, since it was formed out of its ruins, at a time when its\nmorals were most dissolute. We must observe, that the irruption of the\nbarbarians, far from improving society, contributed, on the contrary,\nto make it worse; and this, not only on account of the corruption\nbelonging to their fierce and brutal manners, but also on account of\nthe disorder introduced among the nations they invaded, by violating\nlaws, throwing their manners and customs into confusion, and destroying\nall authority. Whence it follows, that the improvement of public\nopinion among modern nations is a very singular fact; and that this\nprogress can only be attributed to the influence of the active and\nenergetic principle which has existed in the bosom of Europe for so\nmany centuries.\n\nLet us observe the conduct of the Church on this point--it is perhaps\none of the most important facts in the history of the middle ages.\nImagine an age when corruption and injustice most unblushingly raised\ntheir heads, and you will see that, however impure and disgusting\nthe fact may be, the law is always pure; that is to say, that reason\nand justice always found some one to proclaim them, even when they\nappeared to be listened to by nobody. The state of ignorance was the\ndarkest, licentious passions were uncontrolled; but the instructions\nand admonitions of the Church were never wanting; it is thus that,\namidst the darkest night, the lighthouse shines from afar, to guide the\nmariners in safety.\n\nWhen in reading the history of the Church we see on all sides assembled\ncouncils proclaiming the principles of the gospel morality, while\nat every step we meet with the most scandalous proceedings; when we\nconstantly hear inculcated the laws which are so often trodden under\nfoot, it is natural to ask, of what use was all this, and of what\nbenefit were instructions thus unheeded? Let us not believe that these\nproclamations were useless, nor lose courage if we have to wait long\nfor their fruits.\n\nA principle which is proclaimed for a long time in society will in\nthe end acquire influence; if it is true, and consequently contains\nan element of life, it will prevail in the end over all that opposes\nit, and will rule over all around it. Allow, then, the truth to\nspeak--allow it to protest continually; this will prevent the\nprescription of vice. Thus vice will preserve its proper name; and you\nwill prevent misguided men from deifying their passions, and placing\nthem on their altars after having adored them in their hearts. Be\nconfident that this protest will not be useless. Truth in the end will\nbe victorious and triumphant; for the protests of truth are the voice\nof God condemning the usurpations of His creatures. This is what really\nhappened; Christian morality, first contending with the corrupt manners\nof the empire, and afterwards with the brutality of the barbarians,\nhad for centuries rude shocks to sustain; but at last it triumphed\nover all, and succeeded in governing legislation and public morals.\nWe do not mean to say that it succeeded in raising law and morals\nto the degree of perfection which the purity of the gospel morality\nrequired, but at least it did away the most shocking injustice; it\nbanished the most savage customs; it restrained the license of the most\nshameless manners; it everywhere gave vice its proper name; it painted\nit in its real colors, and prevented its being deified as impudently\nas it was among the ancients. In modern times, it has had to contend\nagainst the school which proclaims that private interest is the only\nprinciple of morals; it has not been able, it is true, to prevent this\nfatal doctrine from causing great evils, but at least it has sensibly\ndiminished them. Unhappy for the world will be the day when men shall\nsay without disguise, \"_My own advantage is my virtue_; _my honor is\nwhat is useful to myself_; _all is good or evil, according as it is\npleasing or displeasing to me_.\" Unhappy for the world will be the day\nwhen such language will no longer be repudiated by public conscience.\nThe opportunity now presenting itself, and wishing to explain so\nimportant a matter as fully as possible, I will make some observations\non an opinion of Montesquieu respecting the censors of Greece and Rome.\nThis digression will not be foreign to the purpose.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIX.\n\nOF THE PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC CONSCIENCE ACCORDING TO\nMONTESQUIEU--HONOR--VIRTUE.\n\n\nMontesquieu has said that republics are preserved by virtue, and\nmonarchies by honor. He observes, moreover, that honor renders the\ncensors, who were required among the ancients, unnecessary among us.\nTrue it is, that in modern times there are no censors charged with\nwatching over the public morals; but the cause of this is not as stated\nby this famous publicist. Among Christian nations, the ministers of\nreligion are the natural censors of public morals. The plenitude of\nthis office belongs to the Church, with this difference, that the\ncensorial power of the ancients was purely civil, while that of the\nChurch is a religious power, which has its origin and sanction in\ndivine authority. The religion of Greece and Rome neither did, nor\ncould, exercise this censorial power over morals. To be convinced of\nthis, it is enough to read the passage from St. Augustine, quoted\nin the fourteenth chapter--a passage so interesting on this matter,\nthat I will venture to ask the reader to peruse it again. This is the\nreason why we find among the Greeks and Romans censors who are not seen\namong Christian nations. These censors were an addition to the Pagan\nreligion, the impotence of which they clearly showed--a religion which\nwas mistress of society, and yet could not fulfil one of the first\nduties of all religions--that of watching over the public morals. What\nI assert is so perfectly true, that in proportion as the influence of\nreligion and the ascendency of its ministers have been lowered among\nmodern nations, the ancient censors have reappeared in some sort in the\ninstitution of police. When moral means are wanting, it is necessary to\nhave recourse to physical ones; violence is substituted for persuasion,\nand instead of a zealous and charitable missionary, delinquents fall\ninto the hands of the ministers of public justice.\n\nMuch has been already written of the system of Montesquieu, with\nrespect to the principles on which the different forms of government\nare based; but perhaps sufficient attention has not been paid to\nthe phenomenon which has served to mislead him. As this question is\nintimately connected with the point which I have just touched upon, in\nrelation to the existence of the censorial authority, I shall explain\nmyself at some length. In the time of Montesquieu, the Christian\nreligion was not so fully understood as it now is with respect to its\nsocial importance; and although on this point the author of the _Esprit\ndes Lois_ has done homage to her, it is well to remember what were his\nantichristian prejudices during his youth, and also that this work is\nstill far from rendering to the true religion what is due to her. The\nideas of an irreligious philosophy which, some years later, misled so\nmany fine intellects, had begun at that time to gain the ascendant,\nand Montesquieu had not sufficient strength of mind to make a decided\nopposition to the prejudices which threatened universal dominion. To\nthis cause we must add another, which, although distinct from the last,\nyet had the same origin, viz. a prejudice in favor of all that was old,\nand a blind admiration for every thing Roman or Grecian. It seemed to\nthe philosophers of that time, that social and political perfection\nhad reached their greatest height among the ancients, that there was\nnothing to be added to or taken from it, and that even in religion the\nfables and festivals of antiquity were a thousand times preferable to\nthe faith and worship of the Christian religion. In the eyes of the\nnew philosophers, the heaven of the Apocalypse could not sustain a\ncomparison with that of the Elysian fields; the majesty of Jehovah was\ninferior to that of Jupiter; all the loftiest Christian institutions\nwere a legacy of ignorance and fanaticism; the most holy and beneficent\ninstitutions were the work of tortuous and interested views--the\nvehicle and expression of sordid interests; public authority was\nonly an atrocious tyranny; and the only noble, just, and salutary\ninstitutions were those of Paganism. There every thing was wise, and\nevinced profound designs highly advantageous to society; the ancients\nalone had enjoyed social advantages, and had succeeded in organizing\npublic authority, with guarantees for the liberty of citizens. Modern\nnations should bitterly lament not being able to mingle in the\nagitation of the forum, being deprived of such orators as Demosthenes\nand Cicero,--having no Olympic games, or contests of athlet\u00e6; in fine,\nthey must always regret a religion which, although full of illusion\nand falsehood, gave to all nature a dramatic interest, gave life to\nfountains, rivers, cascades, and seas, peopled the fields, the meadows,\nand the woods with beautiful nymphs, gave to man gods as the companions\nof his hearth, and above all, knew how to render life pleasant and\ncharming, by giving full scope to all the passions, and deifying them\nunder the most enchanting forms.\n\nHow, in the midst of such prejudices, was it possible to discover the\ntruth in modern institutions? Every thing was in the most deplorable\nstate of confusion; all that was established was condemned without\nappeal, and every one who attempted to defend it was considered a fool\nor a knave. Religion and political constitutions, which seemed destined\nsoon to disappear, could reckon on no other support than the prejudices\nor the interests of governments. Lamentable aberration of the human\nmind! What would these writers now say if they could arise from their\ntombs? And yet a century has not yet elapsed since the epoch when their\nschool began to acquire its influence. They have, for a long time,\nruled the world at their pleasure; and they have only shed torrents of\nblood, heaping lesson upon lesson, and deception upon deception, in the\nhistory of humanity.\n\nBut let us return to Montesquieu. This publicist, who was so much\naffected by the atmosphere in which he lived, and who had no small\nshare in perverting the age, saw the facts which are here so apparent;\nhe recognised the results of that public opinion which has been\ncreated among European nations by the influence of Christianity. But\nwhile observing the effects, he did not ascertain the real causes,\nand labored in every way to accommodate them to his own system. In\ncomparing ancient with modern society, he discovered between them a\nremarkable difference in the conduct of men; he observed that we see\naccomplished among us the noblest and most heroic actions, while we\navoid a great part of the vices which defile the ancients; but, on the\nother hand, Montesquieu, like others, could not help seeing that men\namong us have not always that high moral aim which ought to be the\nmotive of their laudable conduct. Avarice, ambition, love of pleasure,\nand other passions, still reign in the world, and are easily discovered\neverywhere. Still these passions do not reach the excess they did among\nthe ancients; there is a mysterious power which restrains them; before\ngiving way to their impulses, they throw a cautious glance around\nthem, and do not indulge in certain excesses unless they are sure of\nbeing able to do so in secret. They have great dread of being seen by\nman; they can only live in solitude and darkness. The author of the\n_Esprit des Lois_ asked himself what is the cause of this phenomenon.\nMen, he said to himself, often act, not from moral virtue, but from\nrespect for the judgment which other men will pass upon their actions;\nthis is to act from honor. Now, this is the case in France and in the\nother monarchies of Europe; it must be, therefore, the distinctive\ncharacteristic of monarchical governments; it must be the base of that\nform of government, the distinction between a republic and despotism.\nLet us hear the author himself: \"Dans quel governement,\" says he,\n\"faut il des censeurs? Il en faut dans une r\u00e9publique, o\u00f9 le principe\ndu governement est la vertu. Ce ne sont pas seulement les crimes qui\ndetruisent la vertu, mais encore les negligences, les fautes, une\ncertaine ti\u00e9deur dans l'amour de la patrie, des exemples dangereux,\ndes semences de corruption; ce qui ne choque point les lois, mais les\n\u00e9lude; ce qui ne les d\u00e9truit pas, mais les affaiblit. Tout cela doit\n\u00eatre corrig\u00e9 par les censeurs. * * * Dans les monarchies il ne faut\npoint de censeurs, elles sont fond\u00e9es sur l'honneur; et la nature de\nl'honneur est d'avoir pour censeur tout l'univers. Tout homme qui y\nmanque est soumis aux reproches de ceux m\u00eames qui n'en ont point.\"\n(_De l'Esprit des Lois_, liv. v. chap. 19.) Such is the opinion of\nthis publicist. But if we reflect on the matter, we shall see that\nhe was wrong in transferring to politics, and explaining by simply\npolitical causes, a fact purely social. Montesquieu points out, as\nthe distinguishing characteristic of monarchies, what is the general\ncharacteristic of all modern European society; he seems not to have\nunderstood why the institution of censors was not necessary in Europe,\nany more than he did the real reason why they were required among the\nancients. Monarchical forms have not exclusively prevailed in Europe.\nPowerful republics have existed there; and there are still some not to\nbe despised. Monarchy itself has undergone numerous modifications; it\nhas been allied sometimes with democracy, sometimes with aristocracy;\nsometimes its power has been very limited, and sometimes it has been\nunbounded; and yet we always find this restraint which Montesquieu\nspeaks of, and which he calls honor; that is, a powerful influence\nstimulating to good deeds and deterring from bad, and all this from\nrespect for the judgments which other men will pass.\n\n\"Dans les monarchies,\" says Montesquieu, \"il ne faut point de censeurs,\nelles sont fond\u00e9es sur l'honneur; et la nature de l'honneur est d'avoir\npour censeur tout l'univers;\" remarkable words, which reveal to us the\nideas of the writer, and at the same time show us the origin of his\nmistake. They will assist us in solving the enigma. In order to explain\nthis point as fully as the importance of the subject requires, and\nwith as much clearness as the multitude and intricacy of its relations\ndemand, I shall endeavour to convey my ideas with as much precision as\npossible.\n\nRespect for the judgment of others is a feeling innate in man;\nconsequently it is in his nature to do or avoid many things on account\nof this judgment. All this is founded on the simple fact of self-love:\nthis is nothing but love of our own good fame, the desire of appearing\nto advantage, and the fear of appearing to disadvantage, in the eyes\nof our fellows. These things are so simple and clear, that they do\nnot require or even admit of proofs or comments. Honor is a stimulant\nmore or less active, or a restraint more or less powerful, according\nto the degree of severity which we expect in the judgments of others.\nThus it is that the miser, when among the generous, makes an effort to\nappear liberal; the prodigal restrains himself in the presence of the\nlovers of strict economy; in meetings where decorum generally reigns we\nsee that even libertines control themselves, while men whose manners\nare usually correct allow themselves certain freedoms in licentious\nsocieties. Now the society in which we live is, as it were, one vast\ncompany. If we know that strict principles prevail there, if we hear\neverywhere proclaimed the rules of sound morality, if we think that the\ngenerality of the men with whom we live give the right name to every\naction, without allowing the irregularity of their conduct to falsify\ntheir judgment, we see ourselves surrounded on all sides by witnesses\nand judges who cannot be corrupted; and this checks us at every step\nwhen we wish to do evil, and urges us on when we wish to do good. It\nwill be far otherwise if we have reason to expect indulgence from\nthe society in which we move. In this case, and supposing us all to\nentertain the same convictions, vice will not appear to us so horrible,\ncrime so detestable, or corruption so disgusting; our ideas with regard\nto the morality of our conduct will be very different, and in the end\nour actions will show the fatal influence of the atmosphere in which we\nlive. It follows from this, that, in order to infuse into our hearts a\nfeeling of honor strong enough to produce good, it is necessary that\nprinciples of sound morality should regulate society, and that they\nshould be generally and fully believed. This being granted, social\nhabits will be formed, which will regulate manners; and even if these\nhabits do not succeed in hindering the corruption of a great number of\nindividuals, they will, nevertheless, be sufficient to compel vice to\nadopt certain disguises, which, although hypocritical, will not fail\nto add to the decorum of manners. The salutary effects of these habits\nwill still continue after the faith on which their moral principles are\nbased has been considerably weakened, and society will still gather in\nabundance the beneficent fruits of the despised or forgotten tree. This\nis the history of the morality of modern nations: although lamentably\ncorrupt, they are still not so bad as the ancients. They preserve in\ntheir legislation, and in their morals, a fund of morality and dignity\nwhich the ravages of irreligion have not been able to destroy. Public\nopinion never dies; every day it censures vice, and extols the beauty\nand advantages of virtue; it reigns over governments and nations,\nand exercises the powerful ascendency of an element which is found\nuniversally diffused.\n\n\"Outre l'Ar\u00e9opage,\" says Montesquieu, \"il y avait \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes des\ngardiens des m\u0153urs et des gardiens des lois. A Lac\u00e9d\u00e9mone, tous les\nvieillards \u00e9taient censeurs. A Rome, deux magistrats particuliers\navaient la censure. Comme le Senat veille sur le peuple, il faut que\ndes censeurs aient les yeux sur le peuple et sur le Senat. Il faut\nqu'ils r\u00e9tablissent dans la r\u00e9publique tout ce qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 corrompu,\nqu'ils notent la ti\u00e9deur, jugent les n\u00e9gligences, et corrigent les\nfautes, comme les lois punissent les crimes.\" (_De l'Esprit des Lois_,\nliv. v. chap. 7.) In describing the duties of the censors of antiquity,\nthe author seems to state the functions of religious authority. To\npenetrate where the civil laws do not extend; to correct, and in some\nmeasure to chastise, what they leave unpunished; to exercise over\nsociety an influence more delicate and minute than that which belongs\nto legislation,--such are the objects of the censorial power; and who\ndoes not see that that power has been replaced by religious authority?\nand that if the former has been unnecessary among modern nations, it is\nowing to the existence of the latter, or to the influence which it has\nexercised for many centuries?\n\nIt cannot be denied that religious authority has for a long time\ngained a decided ascendency over men's minds and hearts; this fact is\nwritten in every page of the history of Europe. As to the results of\nthat influence, so calumniated and ill understood, we meet with them\nevery day,--we who see the principles of justice and sound morality\nstill reigning over public conscience, in spite of the ravages which\nirreligion and immorality have committed among individuals.\n\nThe powerful influence of public conscience will be best explained\nby some examples. Let us suppose that the richest of nobles, or the\nmost powerful of monarchs, indulged in the abominable excesses of a\nTiberius, a Nero, or the other monsters who disgraced the imperial\nthrone, what would happen? We will not predict; but we are confident\nthat the universal shout of indignation and horror would be so\nloud, and the monster would be so crushed under the load of public\nexecration, that it appears to us impossible for him to exist. It seems\nto us an anachronism, an impossibility at this time. Even if we admit\nthat there might be men immoral enough to commit such enormities,\nsufficiently perverted in mind and heart to exhibit such depravity,\nwe see that it would be an outrage against universal morals, and that\nsuch a spectacle could not stand for a moment in presence of public\nopinion. I could draw numberless contrasts, but I shall content myself\nwith one, which, while it reminds us of a fine trait in ancient\nhistory, exhibits, with the virtue of a hero, the manners of the\ntime and the melancholy condition of the public conscience. Let us\nsuppose that a general of modern Europe captures by assault a town in\nwhich a distinguished lady, the wife of one of the principal leaders\nof the enemy, falls into the hands of the soldiers. The beautiful\nprisoner is brought to the general; what should be his conduct? Every\none will immediately say, that she ought to be treated with the most\ndelicate attention, that she ought to be immediately set at liberty\nand allowed to rejoin her husband. Such conduct appears to us so\nstrictly obligatory, so much according to the order of things, and so\nconformable to our ideas and sentiments, that there certainly does\nnot appear to us to be any peculiar merit in adopting it. We should\nsay that the general had performed a strict and sacred duty, which he\ncould not evade without covering himself with shame and ignominy. We\ncertainly should not immortalize such an action in history; we should\nallow it to pass unnoticed in the ordinary course of events. Now,\nthis is what Scipio did with respect to the wife of Mardonius at the\ntaking of Carthagena; and ancient history records this generosity as\nan eternal monument of his virtues. This parallel explains better than\nany commentary the immense progress of morality and public conscience\nunder the influence of Christianity. Now, such conduct, which among\nus is considered as simple, natural, and strictly obligatory, does\nnot flow from the honor belonging to monarchies, as Montesquieu\nasserts, but from more lofty notions of human dignity, from a clearer\nknowledge of the true state of society, from a morality the purer\nand more powerful because it is established on eternal foundations.\nThis, indeed, is found and felt everywhere, it governs the good and\nis respected even by the bad; this is what would stop the licentious\nman, who, in a case of this sort, would be inclined to indulge his\ncruelty or his other passions. The author of the _Esprit des Lois_\nwould doubtless have perceived these truths if he had not been\nprejudiced by the favorite distinction established at the beginning of\nhis work, and which throughout bound him to an inflexible system. We\nknow what a preconceived system is--one that serves as the mould for\na work. Like the bed of Procrustus, ideas and facts, right or wrong,\nare accommodated to the system; what is too much is taken away, and\nwhat is wanting is added. Thus Montesquieu finds in political motives,\nfounded on the republican form of government, the reason for the power\nexercised over Roman women by their husbands. The cruel rights given to\nfathers over their children, the unlimited paternal power established\nby the Roman laws, also appeared to him to flow from political causes,\nas if it were not evident that these two regulations of the ancient\nRoman law were owing to causes purely domestic and social, altogether\nindependent of the form of government.[19]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXX.\n\nON THE DIFFERENT INFLUENCE OF PROTESTANTISM AND CATHOLICITY ON THE\nPUBLIC CONSCIENCE.\n\n\nWe have defined the nature of public conscience; we have pointed out\nits origin and effects. It now remains to examine whether Protestantism\nhas had any share in forming it, and whether it is fairly entitled\nto the glory of having been of any service to European civilization\non this point. We have already shown that the origin of this public\nconscience is to be found in Christianity. Now Christianity may be\nconsidered under two aspects--as a doctrine, and as an institution\nintended to realize that doctrine; that is to say, Christian morality\nmay be considered in itself, or as taught and inculcated by the Church.\nTo form the public conscience, and make Christian morality regulate\nit, it was not enough to announce this doctrine; there was still\nrequired a society, not only to preserve it in all its purity, that it\nmight be transmitted from generation to generation, but to preach it\nincessantly to man, and apply it continually to all the acts of life.\nWe must observe that ideas, however powerful they may be, have only\na precarious existence until they are realized, and become embodied,\nas it were, in an institution which, while it is animated, moved, and\nguided by them, serves them as a rampart against the attacks of other\nideas and other interests. Man is formed of body and soul; the whole\nworld is a collection of spiritual and corporeal beings--a system of\nmoral and physical relations; thus it is that all ideas, even the\ngreatest and the loftiest, begin to fall into oblivion when they have\nno outward expression--no organ by which they make themselves heard and\nrespected. They are then confounded and overwhelmed amid the confusion\nof the world, and in the end disappear altogether. Therefore, all\nideas that are to have a lasting influence on society, necessarily\ntend to create an institution to represent them, in which they may be\npersonified; not satisfied with addressing themselves to the mind,\nand with descending to practice by indirect means, they seek to give\nform to matter, they present themselves to the eyes of humanity in a\npalpable manner. These observations, which I submit with confidence to\nthe judgment of sensible men, contain a condemnation of the Protestant\nsystem. So far from the pretended Reformation being able to claim\nany part in the salutary events which we are explaining, we should\nrather say that, by its principles and conduct, it would have been an\nobstacle in their way, if, as was happily the case, Europe had not\nbeen of adult age in the sixteenth century, and consequently almost\nincapable of losing the doctrines, feelings, habits, and tendencies\nwhich the Catholic Church had communicated to it during an education\nof so many centuries. Indeed, the first thing that Protestantism did\nwas to attack authority, not by a mere act of resistance, but by\nproclaiming resistance to be a real right, by establishing private\njudgment as a dogma. From that moment Christian morality remained\nwithout support, for there was no longer a society which could claim\nthe right of explaining and teaching it; that is to say, it was reduced\nto the level of those ideas which, not being represented or supported\nby an institution, and not having any authorized organ to explain them,\npossessed no direct means of acting on society, and had no means of\nprotection when attacked.\n\nBut I shall be told that Protestantism _has_ preserved the institution\nwhich realizes this idea; for it has preserved its ministers, worship,\nand preaching--in a word, all that truth requires in dealing with man.\n\nI will not deny that there is some truth in this, and I will repeat\nwhat I have not hesitated to affirm in the fourteenth chapter of this\nwork, \"That we ought to regard it as a great good, that the first\nProtestants, in spite of their desire to upset all the practices of\nthe Church, have yet preserved that of preaching.\" I added in the\nsame place: \"It is not necessary to deny on this account the evils\nproduced at certain times by the declamation of some ministers, either\nfurious or fanatical; but as unity was broken, and as the people had\nbeen hurried into the perilous path of schism, we say that it must\nhave been very conducive to the preservation of the most important\nideas concerning God and man, and the fundamental maxims of morality,\nfor such truths to be frequently explained to the people by men who\nhad long studied them in the Holy Scriptures.\" I repeat here what I\nthere said: preaching practised among Protestants must have had very\ngood effects; but this only amounts to saying, that it did not do so\nmuch mischief as was to be feared from its own principles. On this\npoint, they were like men of immoral opinions, who are not so bad as\nthey would be, were their hearts in accordance with their minds: they\nhad the good fortune to be inconsistent. Protestantism had proclaimed\nthe abolition of authority, and the right of private judgment without\nlimit; but in practice it did not quite act up to these doctrines.\nThus, it devoted itself with ardor to what it called gospel preaching,\nand its ministers were called gospellers. So that, at the very time\nwhen they just established the principle that every individual had the\nfree right of private judgment, and ought to be guided by reason or\nprivate inspiration alone, without listening to any external authority,\nProtestant ministers were seen spreading themselves everywhere, and\nclaiming to be the legitimate organs of the divine word.\n\nThe better to understand the strange nature of such a doctrine, we must\nremember the maxims of Luther with respect to the priesthood. We know\nthat this heresiarch, embarrassed by the hierarchy which constitutes\nthe ministry of the Church, pretended to overturn it at one blow, by\nmaintaining that all Christians are priests, and that, to exercise the\nsacred ministry, a simple appointment is necessary, which adds nothing\nessential or characteristic to the quality of priests, which is the\nuniversal patrimony of all Christians. It follows from this doctrine,\nthat the Protestant preacher wanting a mission is not distinguished\nfrom other Christians by any characteristic; he cannot, consequently,\nspeak to them with any authority; he is not allowed, like Jesus Christ,\nto speak _quasi potestatem habens_ (as having authority); he is nothing\nmore than an orator who addresses the people with no other right than\nwhat he derives from his education, knowledge, or eloquence.\n\nThis preaching without authority, which, in reality and according to\nthe preacher's own principles, was only human, although it committed\nthe glaring inconsistency of pretending to be divine, may, no doubt,\nhave contributed something to the preservation of good moral principles\nwhen they were already everywhere established; but it would certainly\nhave been unable to establish them in a society where they were\nunknown, especially if it had had to struggle with other principles\ndirectly opposed to it, and supported by ancient prejudices, by deeply\nrooted passions, and by strong interests.\n\nYes, we repeat it, this preaching would have been unable to introduce\nits principles into such a society; unable to preserve them in\nsafety amid the most alarming revolutions and the most unexampled\ncatastrophes; unable to impart them to barbarous nations, who, proud of\ntheir triumph, listened to no other voice than that of their ferocious\ninstinct; unable to make the conquerors and the conquered bow before\nthese principles, to mould the most different nations into one people,\nby stamping on their laws, institutions, and manners the same seal,\nin order to form from them that admirable society, that assemblage of\nnations, or rather that one great nation, which is called Europe. In\na word, Protestantism, from its very constitution, would have been\nincapable of realizing what the Catholic Church has done.\n\nMoreover, this attempted preaching preserved by Protestantism is, at\nbottom, an effort to imitate the Church that it may not remain unarmed\nin the presence of so redoubtable an adversary. It required a means of\ninfluencing the people,--a channel open to communicate, at the will\nof each usurper of religious authority, different interpretations of\nthe Bible; this is the reason why, in spite of violent declamation\nagainst all that emanated from the chair of St. Peter, it preserved the\nvaluable practice of preaching.\n\nBut the best way to feel the inferiority of Protestantism in regard\nto the knowledge and comprehension of the means proper to extend and\nstrengthen morality, and make it prevail in all the acts of life, is\nto observe, that it has interrupted all communication between the\nconscience of the faithful and the direction of the priest; it only\nleaves to the latter a general direction, which, owing to its being\nextended over all at the same time, is exerted with effect over none.\nIf we confine ourselves to the consideration of the abolition of the\nsacrament of Penance among Protestants, we may rest assured that they\nhave thereby given up one of the most legitimate, powerful, and gentle\nmeans of rendering human conduct conformable to the principles of sound\nmorality. Its action is legitimate; for nothing can be more legitimate\nthan direct and intimate communication between the conscience of\nman who is to be judged by God, and the conscience of the man who\nrepresents God on earth;--an action which is powerful, because this\nintimate communication, established between man and man, between soul\nand soul, identifies, as it were, the thoughts and affections; because,\nin the presence of God alone, to the exclusion of every other witness,\nadmonitions have more force, precepts more authority, and advice more\nunction and sweetness to penetrate into the inmost soul;--an action\nfull of gentleness, for it supposes the voluntary manifestation of the\nconscience which seeks guidance--a manifestation which is commanded,\nit is true, by authority, but which cannot be enforced by violence, as\nGod alone is the judge of its sincerity;--an action, I repeat, which\nis gentle, for the minister is compelled to the strictest secrecy;\nall imaginable precautions have been taken by the Church to prevent a\nbetrayal, and man may rest with tranquillity in the assurance that the\nsecrets of his conscience will never be revealed.\n\nBut you will ask me, do you believe all this is necessary to establish\nand preserve a good state of morality? If morality is to be any thing\nmore than a mere worldly probity, which is exposed to destruction at\nthe first shock of interest, or easily seduced by the passions; if it\nis to be a morality delicate, strict, and profound, extending over all\nthe acts of life, guiding and ruling the heart of man, and transforming\nit into that _beau id\u00e9al_ which we admire in Catholics who are really\ndevoted to the observances and practices of their religion; if this is\nthe morality which you mean, it is necessary, undoubtedly, that, placed\nunder the inspection of religious authority, it should be directed and\nguided by a minister of the sanctuary, by a faithful communication\nof the secrets of our hearts and the numberless temptations which\ncontinually assail our weak nature. This is the doctrine of the\nCatholic Church; and I will add, that it is pointed out by experience\nand taught by philosophy. I do not mean to say, that Catholics alone\nare capable of performing virtuous actions; this would be to contradict\nthe experience of every day. I only wish to prove the efficacy of a\nCatholic institution which is despised by Protestants. I speak of the\ngreat influence which this institution has in infusing into our hearts,\nand preserving in them, a morality which is cordial, constant, and\napplicable to all the acts of our souls.\n\nNo doubt, there is in man a monstrous mixture of good and evil; I know\nthat it is not given him to attain in this life to that ineffable\ndegree of perfection which consists in a perfect conformity with\nDivine truth and holiness--a perfection which he will not be able even\nto conceive until the moment when, stripped of his mortal body, he\nwill be plunged into the pure ocean of light and love. But we cannot\nbe permitted to doubt that man, in this earthly abode, in the land\nof misery and darkness, can, nevertheless, attain to the universal,\ndelicate, and profound state of morality which I have just described;\nand, however much the present corruption of the world may be a too\nlegitimate subject of affliction, it must be allowed that we still\nfind, in our own days, a considerable number of honorable exceptions\nin the multitude of persons who conform to the strict rule of gospel\nmorality in their conduct, their wishes, and even in their thoughts and\ninmost affections. To attain to this degree of morality (and observe,\nI do not say of evangelical perfection, but of mere morality), it is\nnecessary that the religious principle should be visibly present to the\neyes of the soul, that it should act continually upon her, urging on\nor restraining her in an infinite variety of circumstances which, in\nthe course of life, occur to mislead from the path of duty. The life of\nman is, as it were, a chain composed of an infinite variety of acts,\nwhich cannot be constantly in accordance with reason and the eternal\nlaw, unless it remains constantly in the hands of a fixed and universal\nregulator. And let it not be said that such a state of morality is a\n_beau id\u00e9al_, the existence of which would bring such confusion into\nthe acts of the soul, and complication of the whole life, as in the\nend to make it insupportable. No, this is not a mere fancy; it is a\nreality which is frequently seen by our eyes, not only in the cloister\nand the sanctuary, but amid the confusion and distractions of the\nworld. That which establishes a fixed rule cannot bring confusion\ninto the acts of the soul, or complicate the affairs of life. Quite\nthe contrary; instead of confusion, it serves to distinguish and\nilluminate; instead of complicating, it puts in order and simplifies.\nEstablish this rule, and you will have unity; and with unity general\norder.\n\nCatholicity is always distinguished by its extreme vigilance with\nrespect to morality, by its care in regulating all the acts of life,\nand even the most secret movements of the heart. Superficial observers\nhave declaimed against the prolixity of moralists--against the minute\nand detailed study which they make of human actions considered under\na moral aspect; they should have observed, that if Catholicity is\nthe religion in the bosom of which has appeared so great a number\nof moralists, by whom all human actions have been examined in the\ngreatest detail, it is because this religion has for its object to\nmoralize for the whole man, as it were, in all his relations with\nGod, with his neighbor, and with himself. It is clear that such\nan enterprise requires a more profound and attentive examination\nthan would be necessary, if it had only to give to man an imperfect\nmorality, stopping at the surface of actions, and not penetrating\nto the bottom of the heart. With respect to Catholic moralists, and\nwithout attempting to excuse the excess into which some among them have\nfallen, either by too great subtility, or by a spirit of party and\ndispute (excesses which cannot be imputed to the Catholic Church, since\nshe has testified her displeasure when she has not expressly condemned\nthem), it must be observed, that this abundance, this superfluity, if\nyou will, of moral studies, has contributed more than people think to\ndirect minds to the intimate study of man, by furnishing a multitude of\nfacts and observations to those who have subsequently wished to devote\nthemselves to this important science. Now, can there be a more worthy\nor more useful object for our labors? In another part of this work,\nI propose to develop the relations of Catholicity with the progress\nof science and literature; I shall not, therefore, enter more fully\non the matter now. Still I may be allowed briefly to observe, that\nthe development and education of the human mind have been principally\ntheological; and that on this point, as well as on many others,\nphilosophers are more indebted to theologians than they seem to imagine.\n\nLet us return to the comparison of the Protestant and Catholic\ninfluence on the formation and preservation of a sound public\nconscience. We have showed that Catholicity, having constantly\nmaintained the principle of authority which Protestantism rejects, has\ngiven to moral ideas a force and influence which Protestantism could\nnot. Protestantism, indeed, by its nature and fundamental principles,\nhas never given to these ideas any other support than they might have\nderived from a school of philosophy. But you will perhaps ask me, do\nyou not acknowledge the force of these ideas; a force peculiar to them,\nand inherent in their nature, and which frequently changes the face of\nthe world, by deciding its doctrines? Do you not know that they always,\nin the end, force a passage, in spite of every obstacle, and of all\nresistance? Have you forgotten the teaching of all history; and do you\npretend to deprive human thought of that vital, creative force, which\nrenders man superior to all that surrounds him? Such is the common\npanegyric on the strength of ideas; thus we see them transformed every\nmoment into all-powerful beings, whose magical wand is capable of\nchanging every thing at their pleasure.\n\nHowever this may be, I am full of respect for human thought, and allow\nthat there is much truth in what is called the force of an idea; yet\nI must beg leave to offer a few observations to these enthusiasts,\nnot directly to combat their opinion, but to make some necessary\nmodifications. In the first place, ideas, in the point of view in\nwhich we are now considering them, must be divided into two orders;\nsome flattering our passions, the others checking them. It cannot be\ndenied that the former have an immense expansive force. They have\na motion of their own; they act in all places; they exert a rapid,\nviolent power; one would say that they overflow with life and activity.\nThe latter have great difficulty in making their way; they advance\nslowly, they cannot pursue their career without an institution to\nsecure their stability. And why? Because it is not the ideas themselves\nwhich act in the former case, but the passions which accompany them,\nand assume their names; thus masking what is repulsive in them at\nfirst sight. In the latter case, on the contrary, it is the truth\nthat speaks. Now, in this land of misfortune, the truth is but little\nattended to; for it leads to good; and the heart of man, as the\nScripture says, is inclined to evil from his youth. Those who vaunt so\nmuch the native force of ideas, should point out to us, in ancient or\nmodern history, one idea which, without going out of its own circle,\nthat of the purely philosophical order, is entitled to the glory of\nhaving materially contributed to the amelioration of individuals and\nsociety.\n\nIt is commonly said that the force of ideas is immense; that once shown\namong men, they will fructify sooner or later; that once deposited in\nthe bosom of humanity, they will remain there as a precious legacy,\nand contribute wonderfully to the improvement of the world, to the\nperfection towards which the human race advances. No doubt these\nassertions contain some truth; as man is an intelligent being, all that\nimmediately affects his mind must certainly influence his destiny.\nThus no great change is worked in society without being first realized\nin the order of ideas; all that is established contrary to our ideas,\nor without them, must be weak and passing. But it is by no means to\nbe supposed that every useful idea contains in itself a conservative\nforce capable of dispensing with all institutions; that is to say, with\nsupport and defence, even during times of social disorder: between\nthese two propositions there is a gulf which cannot be closed without\ncontradicting all history. Now humanity, considered by itself, and\ngiven up to its own strength, as it appears to philosophers, is not\nso safe a depositary as people wish to suppose. Unhappily we have\nmelancholy proofs of this truth: we see too clearly that the human\nrace, far from being a faithful trustee, has but too much imitated the\nconduct of a foolish spendthrift. In the cradle of the human race, we\nfind great ideas on the unity of God, on man, on relations of man with\nGod and their fellowmen. These ideas were certainly true, salutary,\nand fruitful: and yet, what did man do with them? Did he not lose them\nby modifying, mutilating, and distorting them in the most deplorable\nway? Where were they when Jesus Christ came into the world? What had\nhumanity done with them? One nation alone preserved them; but in what\nway? Fix your attention on the chosen people, the Jews, and you will\nsee that there was a continual struggle between truth and error;\nyou will see that, by an inconceivable blindness, they incessantly\ninclined to idolatry; they had a constant tendency to substitute the\nabominations of the Gentiles for the sublime law of Mount Sinai. And\ndo you know how the truth was preserved among this people? Observe\nit well; it was supported by the strongest institutions that can be\nimagined; it was armed with all the means of defence with which an\ninspired legislator could surround it. It will be said that they were\na hard-hearted nation, in the language of the Scriptures; unhappily,\nsince the fall of our first parent, this hardness of heart is become\nthe patrimony of humanity; _the heart of man is inclined to evil from\nhis youth_; ages before the existence of the Jews, God had covered the\nearth with the waters of heaven, and had blotted out man from the face\nof the world; _for all flesh had corrupted its way_. We must conclude\nfrom this, that the preservation of great moral ideas requires powerful\ninstitutions; it is evident, therefore, that they cannot be abandoned\nto the fickleness of the human mind without being disfigured, or even\nlost. I will say, moreover, that institutions are not only necessary\nto teach, but also to apply them. Moral ideas, especially those which\nopenly contradict the passions, are never reduced to practice without\ngreat efforts; now the ideas themselves do not suffice to make these\ngreat efforts, and means of action are required capable of connecting\nideas with facts; this is one of the reasons of the impotence of\nphilosophical schools when they attempt to construct any thing. They\nare often powerful in destroying; momentary action is enough for this,\nand this action may be easily acquired in a moment of enthusiasm. But\nwhen they wish to establish and reduce their conceptions to practice,\nthey are impotent; their only resource is what is called the force of\nideas. Now, as ideas constantly vary and change--an inconstancy of\nwhich these schools themselves afford the first example--it happens\nthat what we hear them announce one moment as an infallible means of\nhuman progress, is the next reduced to a mere object of curiosity.\n\nThese last observations anticipate the objection that may be urged\nagainst us with respect to the immense force which printing has\ngiven to ideas. But this is so far from being a preserver, that it\nmay be said to be the best destroyer of all opinions. If we measure\nthe immense orbit which the human mind has passed through since that\nimportant discovery, we shall see that the _consummation_ of opinions\n(if I may be allowed the expression) is increased in a prodigious\ndegree. The history of the human race, especially since the press\nhas become periodical, appears to be the representation of a rapid\ndrama, where the decorations change every moment, where the scenes\nsucceed each other, scarcely allowing the spectator to catch any of\nthe author's words. Half of this century has not yet passed away,\nand already it seems as if many centuries had elapsed, so great has\nbeen the number of schools which have been born and are dead, of\nreputations which, after being raised to the highest pitch of renown,\nhave been soon forgotten. This rapid succession of ideas, so far from\ncontributing to increase their force, necessarily renders them weak and\nunproductive. The natural order in the progress of ideas is this: at\nfirst to make their appearance, then to be realized in an institution\nrepresenting them, and in fine to exert their influence on facts by\nmeans of an institution in which they are personified. Now, it is\nnecessary that during these transformations, which essentially require\ntime, ideas should preserve their credit, if they are to produce any\nfavorable result. But when they succeed each other too rapidly, time\nis wanting for their successive transformations; new ideas strive to\ndiscredit the old ones, and consequently to render them useless. This\nis the reason why the strength of ideas, that is, of philosophy, was\nnever so little to be relied on as now, to produce any thing durable\nand consistent in the moral order: in this respect, the gain to modern\nsociety may well be questioned. More is conceived, but less matured;\nwhat the mind gains in extent, it loses in depth, and the pretension\nin theory makes a sad contrast with the impotence of practice. Of what\nimportance is it that our predecessors were not so ready as we are in\n_improvising_ a discussion on great social and political questions, if\nthey nevertheless organized and founded such admirable institutions?\nThe architects who raised the astonishing monuments of ages which we\ncall barbarous, were certainly not so learned or so cultivated as\nthose of our time; and yet who has the boldness even to commence what\nthey have finished? Thus it is in the social and political order. Let\nus remember that great thoughts are produced rather by intuition than\nby reasoning; in practice, success depends more upon the invaluable\nquality called tact, than upon enlightened reflection; and experience\noften teaches that he who knows much, sees little. The genius of Plato\nwould not have been the best guide for Solon or Lycurgus; and all the\nknowledge of Cicero would not have succeeded in doing what was done\nby the tact and good sense of two unlettered men like Romulus and\nNuma.[20]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXI.\n\nON GENTLENESS OF MANNERS IN GENERAL.\n\n\nA certain general gentleness of manners, which in war prevents great\natrocities, and in peace renders life more quiet and agreeable:--such\nis one of the valuable qualities which I have pointed out as forming\nthe distinguishing characteristics of European civilization. This is a\nfact which does not require proof; we see and feel it everywhere when\nwe look around; it is evident to all who open the pages of history,\nand compare our times with any others. Wherein does this gentleness\nof manners in modern times consist? what is the cause of it? what has\nfavoured it? what has opposed it? These interesting questions directly\napply to our present subject; for they lead straight to the examination\nof other questions, such as the following: has Catholicity contributed\nin any way to this gentleness of manners; or, on the other hand, has\nit opposed or retarded it? in fine, what part has Protestantism played\nin the work, for good or evil? First of all, we must determine wherein\ngentleness of manners consists. Although we have here to deal with an\nidea which every one sees, or rather feels, we must still endeavor\nto explain and analyze it by a definition as complete and exact as\npossible. Gentleness of manners consists _in the absence of force_; so\nthat manners will be more or less gentle according as force is less\nor more employed. Thus, we must not confound gentle with charitable\nmanners; the latter work good, the former only exclude the idea of\nforce. We must also distinguish gentle manners from those that are\npure, and conformable to reason and justice. Immorality is often\ngentle, when, instead of resorting to force, it makes use of seduction\nand stratagem. This gentleness of manners consists in directing the\nhuman mind, not by violence which constrains the body, but by reasons\nwhich address themselves to the intellect, or by appeals to the\npassions. Thus it is that gentle manners are not always under the\ninfluence of reason; but their rule is always intellectual, although\nthey are often made the slaves of the passions by golden chains of\ntheir own formation.\n\nIf gentleness of manners consists in not making use, in human\ntransactions, of other means than those of conviction, persuasion,\nor seduction, it is clear that the most advanced society--that is,\nthat in which intelligence has been most developed--should always\nparticipate more or less in this social advantage. There the mind\nrules, because it is strong; while material force disappears, because\nthe body has less strength. Moreover, in societies very much advanced,\nwhere relations and interests are necessarily much multiplied, there\nis an indispensable want of means capable of acting in a universal and\nlasting manner, and applicable to all the details of life. These means\nare, unquestionably, moral and intellectual: the mind operates without\ndestruction, while force dashes violently against obstacles, and breaks\nitself to pieces, if it cannot overturn them. Thus it is the cause\nof continual commotions, which cannot subsist in a society which has\nnumerous and complicated relations, without throwing into confusion and\ndestroying society itself.\n\nWe always observe in young nations a lamentable abuse of force. Nothing\nis more natural: the passions ally themselves with force, because they\nresemble it; they are energetical as violence, and rude as its shocks.\nWhen society has reached a great degree of development, the passions\nare divorced from force, and become allied with the intelligence; they\ncease to be violent, in order to become artful. In the first case, if\nit is the people who struggle, they make war on, they contend with, and\ndestroy each other; in the second case, they contend with the arms of\nindustry, commerce, and contraband. Governments attack, in the first\ncase, by arms and invasions; and in the second by diplomacy. In the\nfirst epoch, warriors are every thing; in the second, they are nothing;\nthey have not a very important part to play when negotiation, and not\nfighting, is required. When we look at ancient civilization, we observe\na remarkable difference between the character of its manners and the\ngentleness of ours. Neither the Greeks nor Romans ever regarded this\nprecious quality in the light in which we regard it, for the honor of\nEuropean civilization. Those nations became enervated, but they did\nnot become gentle; we may say that their manners were made effeminate,\nbut they were not softened; for we see them make use of force on all\noccasions, when neither vigor of body nor energy of mind was required.\nThere is nothing more worthy of observation than this peculiarity of\nancient civilization, especially of that of Rome. Now this phenomenon,\nwhich at first sight appears to us to be very strange, has very deep\ncauses. Besides the principal of these causes, which is, the want of\nan element of civilization such as that which modern nations have had\nin Christian charity, we shall find among the ancients, if we descend\nto the details of their social organization, certain causes which\nnecessarily hindered this gentleness of manners being established among\nthem.\n\nIn the first case, slavery, one of the constituent elements of their\nsocial and domestic organization, was an eternal obstacle to the\nintroduction of this precious quality. The man who has the power of\nthrowing another to the fishes, and of punishing with death the crime\nof breaking a glass; he who during a feast, to gratify his caprice,\ncan take away the life of one of his brethren; he who can rest upon\na voluptuous couch, surrounded by the most sumptuous magnificence,\nwhile he knows that hundreds of men, crowded together in dark vaults,\nwork incessantly for his cupidity and his pleasures; he who can hear\nwithout emotion the lamentations of a crowd of unhappy beings imploring\na morsel of bread to pass through the night's misery which is to unite\ntheir labors and fatigues of the evening with those of the morning,\nsuch a man may have effeminate, but he cannot have gentle manners; his\nheart may become enervated, but it will not cease to be cruel. This\nwas precisely the situation of the free man in ancient society: the\norganization of which we have just stated the results was regarded as\nindispensable; they could not even conceive the possibility of any\nother order of things. What removed this obstacle? was it not the\nCatholic Church, by abolishing slavery, after having ameliorated the\ncruel lot of slaves? Those who revert to the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th,\nand 19th chapters of this work, with the notes appended to them, will\nfind the truth of this demonstrated by incontestable reasons and\ndocuments.\n\nIn the second place, the right of life and death, given by the laws to\nthe paternal power, introduced into families an element of severity\nwhich could not but produce injurious effects. Happily, the hearts of\nfathers were continually contending against the power thus granted\nby law: but if this feeling did not prevent some deeds the perusal\nof which makes us shudder, must we not suppose that, in the ordinary\ncourse of life, cruel scenes constantly reminded the members of\nfamilies of this atrocious right with which the chief was invested?\nWill not he who is possessed of the power of killing with impunity, be\nfrequently hurried into acts of cruel despotism? Now this tyrannical\nextension of the rights of paternal authority, carried far beyond the\nlimits pointed out by nature, was taken away by the force of laws and\nmanners which were much aided by the influence of Catholicity (see the\n24th chap. of this work). To the two causes which I have just pointed\nout, may be added another perfectly analogous, viz. the despotism which\nthe husband exercised over his wife, and the little respect which was\npaid to her. Public spectacles were, among the Romans, another element\nof severity and cruelty. What could be expected of a people whose\nprincipal amusement is to look coolly upon homicide--who took pleasure\nin witnessing the slaughter in the arena of hundreds of men fighting\nagainst each other, or against wild beasts?\n\nAs a Spaniard, I feel called upon here to insert a paragraph, in\nreply to the observations which will be made against me on this\npoint: I allude to the Spanish bull-fights. I shall naturally be\nasked, Is it not in a Christian and Catholic country that the custom\nof making men fight against animals is preserved? The objection,\nhowever plausible it may seem, can be answered. In the first place,\nto avoid any misunderstanding, I declare that this popular amusement\nis, in my opinion, barbarous, and ought, if possible, to be completely\nextirpated. But after this full and explicit avowal, let me be\npermitted to make a few observations, to screen the honor of my\ncountry. In the first place, it must be remarked, that there is in the\nhuman heart a secret taste for risks and dangers; in order to make\nan adventure interesting, it is necessary that the hero should be\nencompassed with great and multiplied perils; if a history is to excite\ncuriosity to a high degree, it must not be an uninterrupted chain of\npeaceful and happy events. We wish to find ourselves frequently in the\npresence of extraordinary and surprising facts; and, however unpleasant\nmay be the avowal, our hearts, while they feel the tenderest compassion\nfor the unfortunate, seem to require the contemplation of scenes of a\nmore violent and exciting character. Hence the taste for tragedies:\nhence the love of scenes in which the actors incur great risks, in\nappearance or in reality. It is not my duty here to explain the\norigin of this phenomenon; it is enough for me here to point out its\nexistence to show foreigners who accuse us of being barbarians, that\nthe taste of the Spanish people for bull-fights is only the application\nto a particular case, of an inclination inherent everywhere in the\nheart of man. Those who, with respect to this custom of the Spanish\npeople, affect so much humanity, would do well to answer the following\nquestions: To what is owing the pleasure taken by the multitude in\nevery exhibition, when the actors run any risk in one way or another?\nWhence comes it that all would willingly be present at the bloodiest\nbattle, if they could do so without danger? Whence comes it that\neverywhere an immense multitude assembles to witness the agonies and\nthe last convulsions of a criminal on the gibbet? Whence comes it, in\nfine, that foreigners, when at Madrid, render themselves accomplices\nin the barbarity of Spaniards by assisting at these bull-fights? I\nsay this, not in any degree to excuse a custom which appears to me to\nbe unworthy of a civilized people, but to show that in this point, as\nwell as in almost all that relates to the Spanish people, there are\nexaggerations which ought to be reduced within reasonable limits. Let\nus add an important observation, which is the best excuse that can be\nmade for this reprehensible exhibition: instead of fixing our attention\non the spectacle itself, let us consider the evils that flow from\nit. Now, I ask, how many men die in Spain in bull-fights? The number\nis extremely small, and altogether insignificant in proportion to\nthe frequency of these spectacles; so that if a comparison were made\nbetween the accidents which occur in consequence of this amusement\nand those that happen in other sports, such as horse-races and others\nof the same kind, we should perhaps find that bull-fights, however\nbarbarous they may be in themselves, still do not deserve all the\nanathemas with which foreigners have loaded them. To return to our\nprincipal object, how, we ask, is it possible to compare an amusement\nwhich, perhaps, may not cost the life of one man during many years,\nto those terrible shows in which death was a necessary condition for\nthe pleasure of the spectators? After the triumph of Trajan over the\nDacians, the public games lasted twenty-three days, and the fearful\nnumber of six thousand gladiators was slain. Such were the amusements\nat Rome, not only of the populace, but of the highest classes;\nsuch were the horrible spectacles required by a people who added\nvoluptuousness to the most atrocious cruelty. This is a most convincing\nproof of what I have said, viz. that manners may be effeminate without\nbeing gentle, and that the brutality of unbounded luxury is not\ninconsistent with the instinct of blood-thirsty ferocity.\n\nIt is impossible that such spectacles should be tolerated among modern\nnations, however corrupt their manners may be. The principle of charity\nhas extended its empire too universally for such excesses to be\nrenewed. This charity, it is true, does not induce men to do all the\ngood to each other that they ought; but, at least, it prevents their\ncoldly perpetrating evil, and assisting quietly at the slaughter of\ntheir brethren to gratify the pleasure of the moment. Christianity, at\nits birth, cast into society the seed of this aversion to homicide.\nWho is not aware of the repugnance of Christians for the shows of the\nGentiles--a repugnance prescribed and kept alive by the admonitions\nof the early pastors of the Church? It was an acknowledged fact, that\nChristian charity prohibited the being present at games where homicide\nformed part of the spectacle. \"As for us,\" said one of the apologists\nof the early ages, \"we make little difference between committing murder\nand seeing it committed.\"[21]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXII.\n\nTHE IMPROVEMENT OF MANNERS BY THE ACTION OF THE CHURCH.\n\n\nModern society ought, it would seem, to be distinguished for severity\nand cruelty, since it was formed from that of the Romans and\nbarbarians, from both of whom it should have inherited these qualities.\nWho is not aware of the fierce manners of the northern barbarians? The\nhistorians of that time have left us statements that make us shudder\nwhen we read them. It was believed that the end of the world was at\nhand; and, indeed, it was excusable to consider the last catastrophe\nas near, when so many other melancholy ones had already been heaped\nupon humanity. The imagination cannot figure to itself what would have\nhappened to the world at this crisis, if Christianity had not existed.\nEven supposing that society would have been organized anew under one\nform or another, it is certain that private and public relations would\nhave remained in a state of lamentable disorder, and that legislation\nwould have been unjust and inhuman. Thus the influence of the Church on\ncivil legislation was an inestimable benefit; thus even the power of\nthe clergy in temporal things was one of the greatest safeguards of the\nhighest interests of society.\n\nAttacks are often made upon this temporal power of the clergy and this\ninfluence of the Church in worldly affairs. But, in the first place, it\nshould be remembered, that this power and influence were brought about\nby the very nature of things; that is to say, they were natural, and,\nconsequently, to assail them is to declaim in vain against the force of\nevents, of which no man could hinder the realization. This power and\ninfluence, besides, were legitimate; for when society is in danger,\nnothing can be more legitimate than that that which can save it should\nsave it. Now, at the time we speak of, the Church alone could save\nsociety. The Church, which is not an abstract being, but a real and\nsubstantial society, acted upon civil society by real and substantial\nmeans. If the purely material interests of society were in question,\nthe minister of the Church ought, in some way or other, to take part\nin the direction of those interests. These reflections are so natural\nand simple, that their truth must be seen by good sense. All those who\nknow any thing of history are now generally agreed on this point; and\nif we are not aware how much it generally costs the human mind to enter\nupon the path of truth, and, above all, how much bad faith there has\nbeen in the examination of these questions, we shall have a difficulty\nin understanding that so much time should have been required to bring\nthe world to agree on a thing which is apparent to those who read\nhistory. But let us return to our subject. This extraordinary mixture\nof the cruelty of a cultivated but corrupted people with the atrocious\nferocity of a barbarous one, proud of its triumphs, and intoxicated\nwith blood during long wars, placed in European society a germ of\nseverity and cruelty which fermented there for ages, and the remains of\nwhich we find at a late period. The precept of Christian charity was in\nmen's heads, but Roman cruelty and barbarian ferocity still prevailed\nin their hearts; ideas were pure and beneficent, since they proceeded\nfrom a religion of love, but they encountered a terrible resistance\nin the habits, manners, institutions, and laws, for all these were\nmore or less disfigured by the two mixed principles which I have just\npointed out. If we reflect upon the constant and obstinate struggle\nbetween the Catholic Church and the elements which contended with her,\nwe shall clearly see that Christian ideas could never have prevailed\nin legislation and manners, if Christianity had been a religious idea\nabandoned to human caprice, as Protestants imagine; it was necessary\nfor it to be realized in a powerful institution, in a strongly\nconstituted society, such as we find in the Catholic Church. In order\nto give an idea of the efforts made by the Church, I will point out\nsome of the regulations which she made for the purpose of improving\nmanners. Private animosities were very violent at the time of which we\nspeak; and right was decided by force, and the world was threatened\nwith becoming the patrimony of the strongest. Public law did not\nexist, or was hurried away and confounded by outrages which its feeble\nhand could never prevent or repress; it was altogether powerless in\nrendering manners pacific, and in subjecting men to reason and justice.\nThen we see that the Church, besides the instruction and the general\nadmonitions inseparable from her sacred mission, adopted at that time\ncertain measures calculated to restrain the torrent of violence which\nravaged and destroyed every thing. The Council of Arles, celebrated in\nthe middle of the fifth century, between 443 and 452, ordains, in its\n50th canon, that the Church should be interdicted to those who have\npublic animosities, until they were reconciled. The Council of Angers,\ncelebrated in 453, proscribes, by its 3d canon, acts of violence and\nmutilation. The Council of Agde, in Languedoc, celebrated in 506,\nordains, in its 31st canon, that enemies who would not be reconciled\nshould be admonished by the priests, and excommunicated if they did not\nfollow their apostolical counsels.\n\nThe Franks at that time had the custom of going armed, and they always\nentered the churches with their arms. It will be understood that such\na custom must have produced great evils; the house of prayer was often\nconverted into an arena of blood and vengeance. In the middle of the\nseventh century, the Council of Chalons-sur-Saone, in its 17th canon,\npronounces excommunication against all laymen who excite tumults,\nor draw their swords to strike any one in the churches or in their\nprecincts. Thus, we see the prudence and foresight which dictated the\n29th canon of the third Council of Orleans, celebrated in 538, which\nforbids any one to be present at mass or vespers, armed. It is curious\nto observe the uniformity of design and plan pursued by the Church.\nIn countries the most distant from each other, and at times when\ncommunication could not be frequent, we find regulations analogous to\nthose which we have pointed out. The Council of Lerida, held in 546,\nordains, by its 7th canon, that he who shall have sworn not to be\nreconciled with his enemy, shall be deprived of the participation of\nthe body and blood of Jesus Christ until he has done penance for his\noath and been reconciled.\n\nCenturies passed away, acts of violence continued, the precept of\nfraternal charity, which obliges us to love even our enemies, always\nmet with open resistance in the harsh character and fierce passions\nof the descendants of the barbarians; but the Church did not cease to\npreach the divine command; she continually inculcated and labored\nto render it efficacious by means of spiritual penalties. More than\nfour hundred years had elapsed since the celebration of the Council\nof Arles, where we have seen the church forbidden to those who were\nopenly at variance; we then see the Council of Worms, held in 868,\npronouncing, in its 41st canon, excommunication against enemies who\nrefused to be reconciled. It will suffice to have some idea of the\ndisorders of that time, to know whether it was possible to appease the\nviolence of animosities during this long period. One would fancy that\nthe Church would have been wearied of inculcating a precept which the\nunhappy state of circumstances so often rendered fruitless; but such\nwas not the case: she continued to speak as she had spoken for ages;\nshe never lost her confidence that her words would produce fruit in the\npresent, and would be productive in the future. Such is her system;\none would think that she heard these words constantly repeated, \"Cry\nout, cry out without ceasing; raise thy voice like a trumpet.\" It is\nthen that she triumphs over all resistance; when she cannot exert\nher power over the will of a nation, she makes her voice heard with\nindefatigable diligence in the sanctuary. There she assembles seven\nthousand who have not bent the knee to Baal; and while she endeavors to\nconfirm them in faith and good works, she protests, in the name of God,\nagainst those who resist the Holy Spirit. Let us imagine that, amid\nthe dissipation and distraction of a populous city, we enter a sacred\nplace, where seriousness and moderation reign, in the bosom of silence\nand religious retirement; there a minister of the sanctuary, surrounded\nby a chosen number of the faithful, utters from time to time some\nserious and solemn words. This is the personification of the Church in\ntimes disastrous from weakened faith and corrupted morals. One of the\nrules of conduct of the Catholic Church has been, not to bend before\nthe powerful. When she has proclaimed a law, she has proclaimed it for\nall, without distinction of rank. In the time of the power of those\npetty tyrants, who, under different names, persecuted the people, this\nconduct of the Church contributed in an extraordinary degree to render\nthe ecclesiastical laws popular; for nothing was more likely to make\na law tolerable to the people than to show that it applied to nobles,\nand even to kings. In the times of which we speak, hatred and violence\namong plebeians were severely proscribed; but the same law extended\nto great men and to royalty. A short time after the establishment\nof Christianity in England, we find a very curious example in that\ncountry, applicable to this question. It is nothing less than\nexcommunication pronounced against three kings in the same year, and\nin the same town; all these were compelled by the Councils to do\npenance for the crimes which they had committed. The town of Llandaff,\nin Wales, within the metropolitan see of Canterbury, witnessed the\ncelebration of three Councils, in the year 560. In the first, Monric,\nking of Glamorgan, was excommunicated for having put to death King\nCin\u00e9tha, although he had sworn the peace on the sacred relics; in the\nsecond, King Morcant was excommunicated for having put to death Friac,\nhis uncle, in whose favor he had equally sworn the peace; in the third,\nKing Guidnert was excommunicated for having put to death his brother,\nthe competitor for the throne.\n\nThus, these barbarian chiefs, just changed into kings, and prone to\nslaughter, are compelled to acknowledge the authority of a superior\npower, and to expiate by penance the murder of their relatives and\nthe violation of sacred engagements; it is useless to point out how\nmuch this must have contributed to the improvement of manners. \"It was\neasy,\" the enemies of the Church will say--those who endeavor to lower\nthe merit of her acts--\"it was easy to preach gentleness of manners,\nto impose the observance of divine precepts on chiefs whose power was\nlimited, and who had only the name of kings; it was easy to manage\nthose petty barbarian chiefs, who, rendered fanatical by a religion of\nwhich they understood nothing, humbly bowed before the first priest who\nventured to menace them on the part of God. But of what importance\nwas that? What influence could it have on the course of great events?\nThe history of European civilization presents a vast theatre, where\nevents must be studied on a large scale, and where none but the most\nimportant scenes exercised any influence on the spirit of nations.\" Let\nus observe, that these petty barbarian kings were the origin of the\nprincipal families which now occupy the most important thrones of the\nworld. To place the germ of real civilization in their hearts, was to\ngraft the tree which was one day to overshadow the earth. But without\nstaying to show the futility of such reasoning, and as our opponents\ndesire great scenes capable of influencing European manners on a\nlarge scale, let us open the history of the Church in the first ages,\nand we shall soon find a page which redounds to the eternal honor of\nCatholicity. The whole of the known world was subject to an emperor,\nwhose name, then universally venerated, will continue to be respected\nby the remotest posterity. In an important city, the rebellious\ninhabitants put to death the commander of the garrison; the emperor,\ntransported with anger, orders them to be exterminated. Returning to\nhimself, he revokes the order; but it was too late, the order was\nexecuted, and thousands of victims had been involved in the horrible\ncarnage; at the news of this dreadful catastrophe, a bishop quits the\ncourt of the emperor, leaves the city, and writes to him in this grave\nlanguage: \"I dare not offer the sacrifice if you attempt to be present\nat it; the blood of one innocent person would suffice to forbid me; how\nmuch more the massacre of a large number.\" The emperor, confident in\nhis power, takes no notice of this letter, and goes towards the church.\nWhen he arrives at the door, he finds himself in the presence of a\nvenerable man, who, with a grave and stern countenance, stops him and\nforbids him to enter the church. \"Thou hast imitated David in crime,\"\nhe says, \"imitate him also in penance.\" The emperor yields, humbles\nhimself, and submits to the regulations of the bishop, and religion and\nhumanity gain an immortal triumph. This unhappy city was Thessalonica;\nthe emperor was Theodosius; the prelate was St. Ambrose, Archbishop of\nMilan.\n\nWe find face to face, in this sublime fact, force and justice\npersonified. Justice triumphs over force; but why? Because he who\nrepresents justice, represents it in the name of Heaven; because\nthe sacred vestments and the imposing attitude of the man who stops\nthe emperor reminds Theodosius of the divine mission of the holy\nbishop, and of the office which he holds in the sacred ministry. Put\na philosopher in the place of the bishop, and tell him to arrest the\nproud culprit by an injunction of doing penance, and you will see\nwhether human wisdom can do as much as the Catholic priest speaking\nin the name of God. Put, if you please, a bishop of the Church, who\nhas acknowledged spiritual supremacy in the civil power, and you will\nsee whether in his mouth words have the same effect in obtaining so\nglorious a triumph. The spirit of the Church was always the same; her\narms were always directed towards the same end; her language was always\nequally strict, equally strong, whether she spoke to the Roman plebeian\nor a barbarian, whether she addressed her admonitions to a patrician of\nthe empire or to a noble German. She was no more afraid of the purple\nof the C\u00e6sars than of the frowns of the long-haired kings. The power\nwhich she possessed during the middle ages was not exclusively owing\nto her having preserved alone the light of science and the principles\nof government; but it was also owing to the invincible firmness, which\nno resistance and no attack could destroy. What would Protestantism\nhave effected in such difficult and dangerous circumstances? Without\nauthority, without a centre of action, without security for her own\nfaith, without confidence in her resources, what means would she\nhave had to assist her in restraining the torrent of violence--that\nimpetuous torrent, which, after having inundated the world, was about\nto destroy the remains of ancient civilization, and opposed to all\nattempts at social reorganization an obstacle almost insurmountable?\nCatholicity, with its ardent faith, its powerful authority, its\nundivided unity, its well-compacted hierarchy, was able to undertake\nthe lofty enterprise of improving manners; and it brought to the\nundertaking that constancy which is inspired by conscious strength, and\nthat boldness which animates a mind secure of triumph.\n\nWe must not, however, imagine that the conduct of the Church, in her\nmission of improving manners, always brought her into collision with\nforce. We also see her employ indirect means, limit her demands to what\nshe could obtain, and ask for as little, in order to obtain as much as\npossible. In a capitulary of Charlemagne, given at Aix-la-Chapelle in\n813, and consisting of twenty-six articles, which are nothing more than\na sort of confirmation and _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of the five Councils held a little\nbefore in France, we find in an appendix of two articles the method of\nproceeding judicially against those who, under pretext of the right\ncalled _faida_, excited tumults on Sundays, holidays, and also working\ndays. We have already seen above that they had recourse to the holy\nrelics, to give greater authority to the oaths of peace and friendship\ntaken by kings towards each other--an august act, in which Heaven was\ninvoked to prevent the effusion of blood, and to establish peace on\nearth. We see in the capitulary which we have just quoted, that the\nrespect for Sundays and holidays was made use of to bring about the\nabolition of the barbarous custom, which authorized the relations of\na murdered man to avenge his death in the blood of the murderer. The\ndeplorable state of European society at that time is vividly painted\nby the means which the ecclesiastical power was compelled to use, to\ndiminish in some degree the disasters occasioned by the prevailing\nviolence. Not to attack, not to maltreat any one, not to have recourse\nto force to obtain reparation or to gratify a desire of vengeance,\nappears to us to be so just, so reasonable, and so natural, that\nwe can hardly imagine another way of acting. If, now, a law were\npromulgated, to forbid one to attack one's enemy on such or such a day,\nat such or such an hour, it would appear to us the height of folly and\nextravagance. But it was not so at that time; such prohibitions were\nmade continually, not in obscure hamlets, but in great towns, in very\nnumerous assemblies, when bishops were present in hundreds, and where\ncounts, dukes, princes, and kings were gathered together. This law, by\nwhich authority was glad to make the principles of justice respected,\nat least on certain days,--principally on the great solemnities,--this\nlaw, which now would appear to us so strange, was, in a certain way,\nand for a long period, one of the chief points of public and private\nlaw in Europe. It will be understood that I allude to the truce of God,\na privilege of peace very necessary at that time, as we see it very\noften renewed in various countries. Of all that I might say on this\npoint, I shall content myself with selecting a few of the decisions\nof Councils at the time. The Council of Tubuza, in the diocese of\nElne, in Roussillon, held by Guifred, Archbishop of Narbonne, in 1041,\nestablished the truce of God, from the evening of Friday until Monday\nmorning. Nobody during that time could take any thing by force, or\nrevenge any injury, or require any pledge in surety. Those who violated\nthis decree were liable to the same legal composition as if they had\nmerited death; in default of which, they were excommunicated and\nbanished from the country.\n\nThe practice of this ecclesiastical regulation was considered so\nadvantageous, that many other Councils were held in France during the\nsame year, on the same subject. Moreover, care was taken frequently\nto repeat the obligation, as we see by the Council of Saint Gilles,\nin Languedoc, held in 1042, and by that of Narbonne, held in 1045. In\nspite of these, repeated efforts did not obtain all the desired fruit;\nthis is indicated by the changes which we observe in the regulations\nof the law. Thus we see that, in the year 1047, the truce of God was\nfixed for a less time than in 1041; the Council of Telugis, in the same\ndiocese of Elne, held in 1047, only ordains that it is forbidden to\nany one in all the _comt\u00e9_ of Roussillon to attack his enemy between\nthe hours of none on Sunday and prime on Monday; the law was then\nmuch less extensive than in 1041, when, as we have seen, the truce of\nGod was extended from Friday evening till Monday morning. We find in\nthe same Council a remarkable regulation, the object of which was to\npreserve from all attack men who were going to church or returning\nfrom it, or who were accompanying women. In 1054, the truce of God\nhad gained ground; we see it extended, not only from Friday evening\ntill Monday morning after sunrise, but over considerable periods of\nthe year. Thus we see that the Council of Narbonne, held by Archbishop\nGuifred, in 1045, after having included in the truce of God the time\nfrom Friday evening till Monday morning, declares it obligatory during\nthe following periods: from the first Sunday of Advent till the octave\nof the Epiphany; from Quinquagesima Sunday till the octave of Easter;\nfrom the Sunday preceding the Ascension till the octave of Pentecost;\nthe festival days of Our Lady, of St. Peter, of St. Laurence, of\nSt. Michael, of All Saints, of St. Martin, of St. Just and Pasteur,\ntitularies of the Church of Narbonne, and all fasting days, under pain\nof anathema and perpetual banishment. The same Council gives some other\nregulations, so beautiful that we cannot pass them over in silence,\nwhen we are engaged in showing the influence of the Catholic Church in\nimproving manners. The 9th canon forbids the cutting of olive-trees;\na reason for it is given, which, in the eyes of jurists, will not\nappear sufficiently general or adequate, but which, in the eyes of\nthe philosophy of history, is a beautiful symbol of the beneficial\ninfluence exercised over society by religion. This is the reason\ngiven by the Council: \"It is,\" it says, \"_that the olive-trees may\nfurnish matter for the holy chrism, and feed the lamps that burn in\nthe churches_.\" Such a reason was sure to produce more effect than any\nthat could be drawn from Ulpian and Justinian. It is ordained in the\n10th canon that shepherds and their flocks shall enjoy at all times the\nsecurity of the truce; the same favor is extended by the 11th canon to\nall houses within thirty paces of the churches. The 18th canon forbids\nthose who have a suit, to take any active steps, to commit the least\nviolence, until the cause has been judged in presence of the bishop and\nlord of the place. The other canons forbid the robbing of merchants and\npilgrims, and the commission of wrong against any one, under pain of\nbeing separated from the Church, if the crime be committed during the\ntime of the truce.\n\nIn proportion as we advance in the 11th century, we see the salutary\npractice of the truce of God more and more inculcated; the Popes\ninterpose their authority in its favor. At the Council of Gironne, held\nby Cardinal Hugues-le-Blanc, in 1068, the truce of God is confirmed\nby the authority of Alexander II., under pain of excommunication; the\nCouncil held in 1080, at Lillebonne, in Normandy, gives us reason\nto suppose that the truce was then generally established, since it\nordains, by its first canon to bishops and lords, to take care that it\nwas observed, and to inflict on offenders against it censures and other\npenalties. In the year 1093, the Council of Troja, in Apulia, held\nby Urban II., continues the truce of God. To judge of the extent of\nthis canonical regulation, we should know that this Council consisted\nof sixty-five bishops. The number was much greater at the Council of\nClermont, in Auvergne, held by the same Urban II., in 1095; it reckoned\nno less than thirteen archbishops, two hundred and twenty bishops, and\na great number of abbots. The first canon of this Council confirms the\ntruce for Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday; it wishes, moreover,\nthat it should be observed on all the days of the week, with respect to\nmonks, clergy, and women. The canons 29 and 30 ordain, that if a man\npursued by an enemy take refuge near a cross, he should be in safety,\nas if he had found asylum in a church. The sublime sign of redemption,\nafter having given salvation to the world, by drinking on Calvary the\nblood of the Son of God, had already proved a refuge, during the sack\nof Rome, to those who fled from the fury of the barbarians; centuries\nlater, we find it erected on the roads, to save the unfortunate, who,\nby embracing it, escaped their enemies, who were thus deterred from\nvengeance.\n\nThe Council of Rouen, held in 1096, extending still further the benefit\nof the truce, ordains the observance of it from the Sunday before\nAsh Wednesday till the second feast after the octave of Pentecost,\nfrom sunset on Wednesday preceding Advent to the octave of Epiphany,\nand every week from Friday after sunset till the Monday following at\nsunrise; in fine, on all the feasts and vigils of the Virgin and the\nApostles. The 2d canon of the same Council secures perpetual peace to\nall clergy, monks, and nuns, to women, to pilgrims, to merchants and\ntheir servants, to oxen and horses of labor, to carmen and laborers;\nit gives the same privileges to all lands that belong to sacred\ninstitutions; all such persons, animals, and lands are protected from\nthe attacks of pillage and all kinds of violence. At this time the\nlaw felt itself stronger; it could now call for obedience in a firmer\ntone; we see, indeed, that the third canon of the same Council enjoins\nupon all who have reached the age of twelve, to engage by oath to\nobserve the truce; in the fourth canon, all who refuse to take this\noath are excommunicated. Some years after, in 1115, the truce, instead\nof comprising certain stated parts of the year, embraces whole years;\nthe Council of Troja in Apulia, held in that year by Pope Pascal,\nestablishes the truce for three years.\n\nThe Popes pursued with ardor the work thus commenced; they sanctioned\nit with their authority, and extended the observance of the truce by\nmeans of their influence, then universal and powerful over all Europe.\nAlthough the truce was apparently only a testimony of respect paid to\nreligion by the violent passions, which, in her favor, consented to\nsuspend their hostilities, it was, in reality, a triumph of right over\nmight, and one of the most admirable devices ever used to improve the\nmanners of a barbarous people. The man who, during four days of the\nweek, and during long periods of the year, was compelled to suspend the\nexercise of force, was necessarily led to more gentle manners; he must,\nin the end, entirely renounce it. The difficulty is not, to convince\na man that he does ill, but to make him lose the habit of doing so;\nand it is well known that habits are engendered by the repetition of\nacts, and are lost when they cease for a time. Nothing is more pleasing\nto the Christian soul than to see the Popes laboring to maintain and\nextend this truce. They renew the command of it with a power the more\nefficacious and universal according to the number of bishops who assist\nat the Councils where their supreme authority presides. At the Council\nof Rheims, opened by Pope Calixtus II. in person, in 1119, a decree\nconfirming the truce is promulgated. Thirteen archbishops, more than\ntwo hundred bishops, and a great number of abbots and ecclesiastics,\ndistinguished for their rank, assisted at this Council. The same\ncommand is renewed at the General Council of Lateran, held under the\ncare of the same Pontiff, Calixtus II., in 1123. There were assembled\nmore than three hundred archbishops and bishops, and more than six\nhundred abbots. In 1130, the Council of Clermont, in Auvergne, held by\nInnocent II., insists on the same point, and repeats the regulations\nconcerning the observance of the truce. The Council of Avignon,\nheld in 1209, by Hugh, Bishop of Riez, and Milon, notary of Pope\nInnocent III., both legates of the Holy See, confirms the laws before\nenacted on the subject of the peace and the truce, and condemns the\nrebellious who dare to infringe them. In the year 1215, at the Council\nof Montpellier, assembled by Robert de Cour\u00e7on, and presided over by\nCardinal Benavent, in his office as legate of the province, all the\nregulations established at different times for the public safety, and\nmore recently to secure peace between lord and lord, and town and town,\nare renewed and confirmed.\n\nThose who have regarded the intervention of the ecclesiastical power\nin civil affairs as a usurpation of the rights of public authority,\nshould tell us how it is possible to usurp that which does not exist,\nand how a power which is unable to exercise the authority which ought\nto belong to it, can reasonably complain when that authority passes\ninto the hands of those who have force and skill to make use of it.\nAt that time, the public authority did not at all complain of these\npretended usurpations. Governments and nations looked upon them as\njust and legitimate; for, as we have said above, they were natural and\nnecessary, they were brought about by the force of events, they were\nthe result of the situation of affairs. Certainly, it would now seem\nextraordinary to see bishops provide for the security of roads, publish\nedicts against incendiaries, against robbers, against those who cut\ndown olive-trees and commit other injuries of the kind; but, at the\ntime we are speaking of, this proceeding was very natural, and more,\nit was necessary. Thanks to the care of the Church, to that incessant\nsolicitude which has been since so inconsiderately blamed, the\nfoundations of the social edifice, in which we now dwell in peace, were\nlaid; an organization was realized which would have been impossible\nwithout the influence of religion and the action of ecclesiastical\nauthority. If you wish to know whether any fact of which you have to\njudge is the result of the nature of things, or the fruit of well\ncontrived combinations, observe the manner in which it appears, the\nplaces where it takes its rise, the times which witness its appearance;\nand if you shall find it reproduced at once in places far distant from\neach other, by men who can have had no concert, be assured that it is\nnot the result of human contrivance, but of the force of events. These\nconditions are found united in a palpable manner in the action of the\necclesiastical power on public affairs. Open the Councils of those\ntimes, and everywhere the same facts meet your eyes; thus, to quote a\nfew examples, the Council of Palentia, in the kingdom of Leon, held in\n1129, decrees, in its 12th canon, exile or seclusion in a monastery,\nagainst those who attack the clergy, monks, merchants, pilgrims, and\nwomen. Let us pass into France; the Council of Clermont, in Auvergne,\nheld in 1130, pronounces, in its 13th canon, excommunication against\nincendiaries. In 1157, the Council of Rheims, in the 3d canon, orders\nto be respected, during war, the persons of the clergy, of monks,\nwomen, travellers, laborers, and vine-dressers. Let us pass into\nItaly; the 11th Council of Lateran, a General Council, convoked in\n1179, forbids, in its 22d canon, to maltreat or disturb monks, clergy,\npilgrims, merchants, peasants, either travelling or engaged in the\nlabors of agriculture, and animals laboring in the fields. In its 24th\ncanon, the same Council excommunicates those who make slaves of, or\nrob, Christians on voyages of commerce, or for other lawful purposes;\nthose who plunder the shipwrecked are subjected to the same penalty,\nunless they make restitution. Let us go to England; there the Council\nof Oxford, held in 1222, by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury,\nforbids, by its 20th canon, any one to have robbers in their service.\nIn Sweden, the Council of Arbogen, held in 1396, by Henry, Archbishop\nof Upsala, directs, by its 5th canon, that church-burial shall\nbe refused to pirates, ravishers, incendiaries, highway robbers,\noppressors of the poor, and other malefactors; so that in all parts,\nand at the same periods, we see the same fact appear, viz. the\nChurch struggling against injustice and violence, and endeavoring to\nsubstitute in their stead the empire of law and justice.\n\nIn what spirit must they read the history of the Church, who do not\nfeel the beauty of the picture presented to us by the multitude of\nregulations, scarcely indicated here, all tending to protect the weak\nagainst the strong? The clergy and monks, on account of the weakness\nconsequent on their peaceful profession, find in the canons which\nwe have just quoted peculiar protection; but the same is granted to\nfemales, to pilgrims, to merchants, to villagers, travelling, or\nengaged in rural labors, and to beasts of labor--in a word, to all that\nis weak; and observe, that this protection is not a mere passing effort\nof generosity, but a system practised in widely different places,\ncontinued for centuries, developed and applied by all the means that\ncharity suggests--a system inexhaustible in resources and contrivances,\nboth in producing good and in preventing evil. And surely it cannot be\nsaid that the Church was influenced in this by views of self-interest:\nwhat interested motive could she have in preventing the spoliation of\nan obscure traveller, the violence inflicted on a poor laborer, or the\ninsult offered to a defenceless woman? The spirit which then animated\nher, whatever might be the abuses which were introduced during unhappy\ntimes, was, as it now is, the spirit of God himself--that spirit which\ncontinually communicates to her so marked an inclination towards\ngoodness and justice, and always urges her to realize, by any possible\nmeans, her sublime desires. I leave the reader to judge whether or not\nthe constant efforts of the Church to banish the dominion of force\nfrom the bosom of society were likely to improve manners. I now speak\nonly of times of peace; for I need not stay to prove that during the\ntime of war that influence must have had the happiest results. The _v\u00e6\nvictis_ of the ancients has disappeared from modern history, thanks\nto the divine religion which knew how to inspire man with new ideas\nand new feelings--thanks to the Catholic Church, whose zeal for the\nredemption of captives has softened the fierce maxims of the Romans,\nwho, as we have seen, had considered it necessary to take from brave\nmen the hope of being redeemed from servitude, when by the chances of\nwar they had fallen into the hands of their enemies. The reader may\nrevert to the seventh chapter of this work, and the third paragraph of\nthe fifteenth note, where there are, in the original text, numerous\ndocuments that may be quoted in support of our assertion; he will thus\nbe better able to judge of the gratitude which is due to the charity,\ndisinterestedness, and indefatigable zeal of the Catholic Church in\nfavor of the unfortunate, who groaned in bondage in the power of their\nenemies. We must also consider that, slavery once abolished, the system\nwas necessarily improved; for if those who surrendered could no longer\nbe put to death, or be kept in slavery, the only thing to be done was,\nto retain them for the time necessary to prevent their doing mischief,\nor until they were ransomed. Now, this is the modern system, which\nconsists in retaining prisoners till the end of the war, or until they\nare exchanged.\n\nAlthough the amelioration of manners, as I have said above, consists,\nproperly speaking, in the exclusion of force, we must yet avoid\nconsidering this exclusion of force in the abstract, and believing that\nsuch an order of things was possible, by virtue of the mere development\nof mind. All is connected in this world; it is not enough, to\nconstitute the real improvement of manners, that they avoid violence as\nmuch as possible; they must also be benevolent. As long as they are not\nso, they will be less gentle than enervated; the use of force will not\nbe banished from society, but it will remain artificially disguised.\nIt will be understood, then, that we are obliged here to take a survey\nof the principle whence European civilization has drawn the spirit of\nbenevolence which distinguishes it; we shall thus succeed in showing\nthat the gentleness of our present manners is principally owing to\nCatholicity. There is, besides, in the examination of the principle\nof benevolence, so much importance of its own, independently of its\nconnection with the question which now occupies us, that we cannot\navoid devoting some pages to it, in the course of an analytical review\nof the elements of our civilization.[22]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIII.\n\nON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC BENEFICENCE IN EUROPE.\n\n\nNever will manners be perfectly gentle without the existence of public\nbeneficence; so that gentleness of manners and beneficence, although\ndistinct, are sisters. Public beneficence, properly so called, was\nunknown among the ancients. Individuals might be beneficent there,\nbut society was without compassion. Thus, the foundation of public\nestablishments of beneficence formed no part of the system of\nadministration among ancient nations. What, then, did they do with\nthe unfortunate? We will answer with the author of the _G\u00e9nie de\nChristianisme_, that they had no resources but infanticide and slavery.\nChristianity having become predominant everywhere, we see the authority\nof the Church employed in destroying the remains of cruel customs. In\nthe year 442, the Council of Vaison, establishing a regulation for the\nlegitimate possession of foundlings, decrees ecclesiastical censure\nagainst those who disturb by importunate reproaches charitable persons\nwho have received children. The Council adopts this measure with the\nview of protecting a beneficent custom; for, adds the canon, _these\nchildren were exposed to be eaten by dogs_. There were still found\nfathers unnatural enough to kill their children. The Council of Lerida,\nheld in 546, imposes seven years of penance on those who commit such\na crime; and that of Toledo, held in 589, forbids, in the 17th canon,\nparents to commit this crime. Still, the difficulty did not consist in\ncorrecting these excesses; crimes thus opposed to the first notions of\nmorality--so much in contradiction to the feelings of nature--tended\nto their own extirpation. The difficulty consisted in finding proper\nmeans to organize a vast system of beneficence, to provide constant\nsuccor, not only for children, but for old men, for the sick, for the\npoor incapable of living by their own labor; in a word, for all the\nnecessitous. Familiarized as we are with such a system universally\nestablished, we see nothing in it but what is simple and natural; we\ncan hardly find any merit in it. But let us suppose for a moment that\nsuch institutions do not exist; let us transport ourselves to the times\nwhen there was not even the first idea of them, what continued efforts\nwould there not be required to establish and organize them!\n\nIt is clear that by the mere extension of Christian charity in the\nworld the various wants of humanity must have been more frequently\nsuccored, and with more efficacy, than they were before; and this\neven if we suppose that the exercise of charity was limited to purely\nindividual means. Assuredly, there would always have been a great\nnumber of the faithful who would have remembered the doctrines and\nexample of Jesus Christ. Our Saviour did not content Himself with\nteaching us by his discourses the obligation of loving our neighbor\nas ourselves, nor with a barren affection, but by giving food to\nthe hungry, drink to the thirsty, clothes to the naked; by visiting\nthe sick and prisoners. He showed us in his own conduct a model of\nthe practice of charity. He could have shown in a thousand ways the\npower which belonged to Him in heaven and on earth; his voice could\nhave controlled all the elements, stopped the motions of the stars,\nand suspended all the laws of nature; but He delighted above all in\ndisplaying his beneficence; He only attested his divinity by miracles\nwhich healed or consoled the unfortunate. His whole life is summed\nup in the sublime simplicity of these two words of the sacred text:\n_pertransiit benefaciendo; He went about doing good_.\n\nWhatever good might be expected from Christian charity when left to\nits own inspiration, and acting in a sphere purely individual, it\nwas not desirable to leave it in this state. It was necessary to\nrealize it in permanent institutions, and not to leave the consolation\nof the unfortunate to the mercy of man and passing circumstances;\nthis is the reason why there was so much wisdom and foresight in the\nidea of founding establishments of beneficence. It was the Church\nthat conceived and executed this idea. Therein she only applied to a\nparticular case her general rule of conduct; which is, never to leave\nto the will of individuals what can be connected with an institution:\nand observe, that this is one of the causes of the strength inherent\nin all that belongs to Catholicity. As the principle of authority\nin matters of faith preserves to her unity and constancy therein,\nso the rule of intrusting every thing to institutions secures the\nsolidity and duration of all her works. These two principles have an\nintimate connection; for if you examine them attentively, the one\nsupposes that she distrusts the intellect of man, the other, that she\ndistrusts his individual will and capacity. The one supposes that man\nis not sufficient of himself to attain to, and preserve the knowledge\nof, certain truths; the other, that he is so feeble and capricious,\nthat it is unwise to leave to his weakness and inconstancy the care\nof doing good. Now, neither one nor the other is injurious to man;\nneither one nor the other lowers his proper dignity. The Church only\ntells him, that he is, in reality, subject to error, inclined to\nevil, inconstant in his designs, and very miserable in his resources.\nThese are melancholy truths; but the experience of every day attests\nthem, and the Christian religion explains them, by establishing, as a\nfundamental dogma, the fall of man in the person of our first parent.\nProtestantism, following principles diametrically opposite, applies the\nsame spirit of individuality to the will as to the intelligence; it\nis even the natural enemy of institutions. Without going further than\nour present subject, we see that its first step, on its appearance,\nwas to destroy what existed, without in any way replacing it. Will\nit be believed that Montesquieu went so far as to applaud this work\nof destruction? This is another proof of the fatal influence exerted\nover minds by the pestilential atmosphere of the last century: \"Henri\nVIII.,\" says Montesquieu, \"voulant r\u00e9former l'\u00e9glise d'Angleterre,\nd\u00e9truisit les moines: nation paresseuse elle-m\u00eame, et qui entretenait\nla paresse des autres, parceque, practiquant l'hospitalit\u00e9, une\ninfinit\u00e9 de gens oisifs, gentilhommes et bourgeois, passoient leur vie\n\u00e0 courir de couvent en couvent. _Il \u00f4ta encore les h\u00f4pitaux, o\u00f9 le bas\npeuple trouvait sa subsistence_, comme les gentilhommes trouvaient la\nleur dans les monast\u00e8res. Depuis ce changement, l'esprit de commerce\net d'industrie s'\u00e9tablit en Angleterre.\" (_De l'Esprit des Lois_, liv.\nxxiii. chap. 19.) That Montesquieu should praise this conduct of Henry\nVIII., and the destruction of monasteries, for the miserable reason,\nthat it was good to deprive the idle of the hospitality of the monks,\nis a notion which ought not to astonish us, as such vulgar ideas were\nin accordance with the taste of the philosophy which had then begun to\nprevail. It attempted to find profound economical and political reasons\nfor all that was in opposition to the institutions of Catholicity; and\nthis was not difficult, for a prejudiced mind always finds in books,\nas well as in facts, what it seeks. We might inquire of Montesquieu,\nhowever, what is become of the property of the monasteries? As these\nrich spoils were in great part given to the same nobles who found\nhospitality with the monks, we might observe to him, that it was a\nsingular way of diminishing the idleness of people, to give them as\ntheir own the property which they had previously enjoyed as guests.\nIt cannot be denied, that to take to the houses of the nobles the\nproperty which had supported the hospitality which the monks showed\nthem, was certainly to save them the trouble of _running from monastery\nto monastery_. But what we cannot tolerate is, to hear vaunted as a\npolitical _chef-d'\u0153uvre_, the _suppression of the hospitals where the\npoor people found their subsistence_. What! are these your lofty views,\nand is your philosophy so devoid of compassion, that you think the\ndestruction of the asylums of misfortune proper means for encouraging\nindustry and commerce? The worst of it is, that Montesquieu, seduced by\nthe desire of offering new and piquant observations, goes so far as\nto deny the utility of hospitals, pretending that, in Rome, they make\nall live in comfort except those who labor. He does not wish to have\nthem in rich nations or in poor ones. He supports this cruel paradox by\na reason stated in the following words: \"Quand la nation est pauvre,\"\nsays he, \"la pauvret\u00e9 particuli\u00e8re d\u00e9rive de la mis\u00e8re g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, et\nelle est, pour ainsi dire, la mis\u00e8re g\u00e9n\u00e9rale. Tous les h\u00f4pitaux du\nmonde ne sauraient gu\u00e9rir cette pauvret\u00e9 particuli\u00e8re; _au contraire\nl'esprit de paresse qu'ils inspirent augmente la pauvret\u00e9 g\u00e9n\u00e9rale,\net par cons\u00e9quent la particuli\u00e8re_.\" Thus, hospitals are represented\nas dangerous to poor nations, and consequently condemned. Let us now\nlisten to what is said of rich ones: \"J'ai dit que les nations riches\navaient besoin d'h\u00f4pitaux, parceque la fortune y \u00e9tait sujette a mille\naccidents; mais _on sent que les recours passagers vaudraient bien\nmieux que les \u00e9tablissements perp\u00e9tuels_. Le mal est momentan\u00e9; il faut\ndonc des secours de m\u00eame nature, et qui soient applicables \u00e0 l'accident\nparticulier.\" (_De l'Esprit des Lois_, liv. xxiii. chap. 19.) It is\ndifficult to find any thing more empty or more false. Undoubtedly, if\nwe were to judge, by these passages, of the _Esprit des Lois_, the\nmerit of which has been so much exaggerated, we should be compelled to\ncondemn it in terms more severe than those employed by M. de Bonald,\nwhen he called it \"the most profound of superficial works.\" Happily for\nthe poor, and for the good order of society, Europe in general has not\nadopted these maxims; and on this point, as on many others, prejudices\nagainst Catholicity have been laid aside, in order to continue, with\nmore or less modification, the system which she taught. We find in\nEngland herself a considerable number of establishments of beneficence;\nand it is not believed in that country that it is necessary, in order\nto excite the activity of the poor, to expose them to the danger\nof dying of hunger. We should always remember that the system of\npublic establishments for beneficence, now general in Europe, would\nnot have existed without Catholicity; indeed, we may rest assured,\nthat if the religious schism had taken place before the foundation\nand organization of this system, European society would not now have\nenjoyed these establishments which do it so much honor, and are so\nprecious an element of good government and public tranquillity. It is\none thing to found and maintain an establishment of this kind, when a\ngreat number of similar ones already exist,--when governments possess\nimmense resources, and strength sufficient to protect all interests;\nbut it is a very different thing to establish a multitude of them in\nall places, when there is no model to be copied, when it is necessary\nto _improvise_ in a thousand ways the indispensable resources,--when\npublic authority has no _prestige_ or force to control the violent\npassions that struggle to gain every thing that they can feed on. Now,\nin modern times, since the existence of Protestantism, the first only\nof these things has been done; the second was accomplished centuries\nbefore by the Catholic Church; and let it be observed, that what has\nbeen done in Protestant countries in favor of public beneficence, has\nbeen done by administrative acts of the government, acts which were\nnecessarily inspired by the view of the happy results already obtained\nfrom similar institutions. But Protestantism, by itself, considered as\na separate Church, has done nothing, and it could do nothing; for in\nall places where it preserves any thing of hierarchical organization,\nit is the mere instrument of the civil power; consequently it\ncannot there act by its own inspirations. Such is the vice of its\nconstitution. Its prejudice against the religious institutions, both\nof men and women, make it sterile in this respect. Thus, indeed,\nit is deprived of one of the most powerful elements possessed by\nCatholicity to accomplish the most arduous and laborious works of\ncharity. For the great works of charity, it is necessary to be free\nfrom worldly attachments and self-love; and these qualities are found\nin an eminent degree in persons who are devoted to charity in religious\ninstitutions. There they commence with that freedom which is the root\nof all the rest--the absence of self-love. The Catholic Church has\nnot been instigated to this by the civil power; she has considered\nit as one of her own peculiar duties to provide for the unfortunate.\nHer bishops have always been looked upon as the protectors and the\nnatural inspectors of beneficent establishments. Therefore there was\na law which placed hospitals under the charge of the bishops; and\nthence it comes that that class of charitable institutions has always\noccupied a distinguished place in canonical legislation. The Church,\nfrom remote times, has made laws concerning hospitals. Thus, we see\nthe Council of Chalcedon place under the authority of the bishop the\nclergy residing in Ptoch\u00fcs,--that is, as explained by Zonarus, in the\nestablishments destined to support and provide for the poor: \"Such,\"\nhe says, \"as those where orphans and the old and infirm are received\nand cared for.\" The Council makes use of this expression, _according to\nthe tradition of the holy Fathers_; thereby indicating that regulations\nhad been made of old by the Church concerning establishments of this\nkind. The learned also know what the ancient _diaconies_ were,--places\nof charity, where poor widows, orphans, old men, and other unfortunate\npersons, were received.\n\nWhen the irruption of the barbarians had introduced everywhere the\nreign of force, the possessions which hospitals already had, and those\nwhich they afterwards gained, were exposed to unbounded rapacity. The\nChurch did all she could to protect them. It was forbidden to take\nthem, under the severest penalties; those who made the attempt were\npunished as murderers of the poor. The Council of Orleans, held in\n549, forbids, in its 13th canon, taking the property of hospitals; the\n15th canon of the same Council confirms the foundation of a hospital\nat Lyons, a foundation due to the charity of King Childebert and\nQueen Ultrogotha. The Council takes measures to secure the safety and\ngood management of the funds of that hospital; all violating these\nregulations are anathematized as guilty of homicide of the poor.\n\nWe find, with respect to the poor, in very ancient Councils,\nregulations of charity and police at the same time, quite similar\nto measures now adopted in certain countries. For example, parishes\nare enjoined to make a list of their poor, to maintain them, &c. The\nCouncil of Tours, held in 566 or 567, by its 5th canon orders every\ntown to maintain its poor; and the priests in the country, as well as\nthe faithful, to maintain their own, in order to prevent mendicants\nfrom wandering about the towns and provinces. With respect to lepers,\nthe 21st canon of the Council of Orleans, before quoted, prescribes\nto bishops to take particular care of these unfortunate beings in all\ndioceses, and to furnish them with food and clothing out of the Church\nfunds; the Council of Lyons, held in 583, in its 6th canon ordains\nthat the lepers of every town and territory shall be supported at the\nexpense of the Church under the care of the bishop. The Church had\na register of the poor, intended to regulate the distribution which\nwas made to them of a portion of the ecclesiastical property; it\nwas expressly forbidden to demand any thing from the poor for being\ninscribed in this book of charity. The Council of Rheims, held in\n874, in the second of its five articles forbids receiving any thing\nfrom the poor thus inscribed, and that under pain of deposition. Zeal\nfor improving the condition of prisoners, a kind of charity which has\nbeen so much displayed in modern times, is extremely ancient in the\nChurch. We must observe that in the sixth century there was already\nan inspector of prisons; the archdeacon or the provost of the church\nwas obliged to visit prisoners on all Sundays; no class of criminals\nwas excluded from the benefit of this solicitude. The archdeacon was\nbound to learn their wants, and to furnish them, by means of a person\nrecommended by the bishop, with food and all they stood in need of.\nThis was ordered by the 20th canon of the Council of Orleans, held\nin 549. It would be too long to enumerate even a small part of the\nordinances which attest the zeal of the Church for the comfort and\nconsolation of the unfortunate; besides, it would be beyond my purpose,\nfor I have only undertaken to compare the spirit of Protestantism\nwith that of Catholicity with respect to works of charity. Yet, and as\nthe development of this question has naturally led me to state several\nhistorical facts, I shall allude to the 141st canon of the Council of\nAix-la-Chapelle, enjoining upon prelates to found, according to the\nexample of their predecessors, a hospital to receive all the poor that\nthe revenues of the Church were able to support. Prebendaries were\nbound to give to the hospital the tenth of their fruits; one of them\nwas appointed to receive the poor and strangers, and to watch over the\nadministration of the hospital. Such was the rule of prebendaries.\nIn the rule destined for the canonesses, the same Council ordains\nthat a hospital shall be established close to the house, and that it\nshall itself contain a place reserved for poor women. Therefore, were\nthere seen, many centuries later, in various places, hospitals near\nto prebendal churches. As we approach our own times, we everywhere\nsee innumerable institutions founded for charity. Ought we not to\nadmire the fruitfulness with which there arise, on all sides, as many\nresources as are necessary to succour all the unfortunate? We cannot\ncalculate with precision what would have happened if Protestantism had\nnot appeared, but at least there is a conjecture authorized by reasons\nof analogy. If the development of European civilization had been fully\ncarried out under the principle of religious unity, if the so-called\nReformation had not plunged Europe into continual revolutions and\nreactions, there would certainly have been produced in the bosom of the\nCatholic Church some general system of beneficence, which, organized\non a grand scale and in conformity with the new progress of society,\nwould have been able to prevent or effectually to remedy the sore of\npauperism, that cancer of modern nations. What was not to be expected\nfrom all the intelligence and all the resources of Europe, working in\nconcert to obtain this great result? Unhappily, the unity of faith was\nbroken; authority, the proper centre, past, present, and future, was\nrejected. From that time Europe, which was destined to become a nation\nof brothers, was changed into a most fiercely-contested battle-field.\nHatred, engendered by religious differences, prevented any united\nefforts for new arrangements; and the necessities which arose out of\nthe bosom of the social and political organization, which was for\nEurope the fruit of so many centuries of labor, could not be provided\nfor. Bitter disputes, rebellions, and wars were acclimatized among us.\n\nLet us remember that the Protestant schism not only prevented the\nunion of all the efforts of Europe to attain the end in question, but,\nmoreover, it has been the reason why Catholicism has not been able to\nact in a regular manner even in those countries where it has preserved\nits complete empire, or a decided predominance. In these countries it\nhas been compelled to hold itself in an attitude of defence; it has\nbeen obliged, by the attacks of its enemies, to employ a great part of\nits resources in defending its own existence: it is very probably for\nthis reason that the state of things in Europe is entirely different\nfrom what it would have been on a contrary supposition; and perhaps\nin the latter case there would not have existed the sad necessity of\nexhausting itself in impotent efforts against an evil, which, according\nto all appearances, and unless hitherto unknown means can be devised,\nappears without remedy. I shall be told that the Church in this case\nwould have had an excessive authority over all that relates to charity,\nand would have unjustly usurped the civil power. This is a mistake;\nthe Church has never claimed any thing that is not quite conformable\nto her indelible character of protector of all the unfortunate. During\nsome centuries, it is true, we hardly hear any other voice or perceive\nany other action than hers, in all that relates to beneficence;\nbut we must observe that the civil power during that time was very\nfar from possessing a regular and vigorous administration, capable\nof doing without the aid of the Church. The latter was so far from\nbeing actuated by any motives of ambition, that her double charge of\nspiritual and temporal things imposed on her all sorts of sacrifices.\n\nThree centuries have passed away since the event of which we now\nlament the fatal results. Europe during this period has been submitted\nin great part to the influence of Protestantism, but it has made no\nprogress thereby. I cannot believe that these three centuries would\nhave passed away under the exclusive influence of Catholicity, without\nproducing in the bosom of Europe a degree of charity sufficient\nto raise the system of beneficence to the height demanded by the\ndifficulties and new interests of society. If we look at the different\nsystems which ferment in minds devoted to the study of this grave\nquestion, we shall always find there _association_ under one form or\nanother. Now association has been at all times one of the favorite\nprinciples of Catholicity, which, by proclaiming unity in faith,\nproclaims it also in all things; but there is this difference, that\na great number of associations which are conceived and established\nin our days are nothing but an agglomeration of interests; they want\nunity of will and of aim, conditions which can be obtained only by\nmeans of Christian charity. Yet these two conditions are indispensably\nnecessary to accomplish great works of beneficence, if any thing else\nis required than a mere measure of public administration. As to the\nadministration itself, it is of little avail when it is not vigorous;\nand unfortunately, in acquiring the necessary vigor, its action becomes\nsomewhat stiff and harsh. Therefore it is that Christian charity is\nrequired, which, penetrating on all sides like a balsam, softens all\nthat is harsh in human action. I pity the unfortunate who in their\nnecessities find only the succor of the civil authorities, without the\nintervention of Christian charity. In reports presented to the public,\nphilanthropy may and will exaggerate the care which it lavishes on the\nunfortunate, but things will not be so in reality. The love of our\nbrethren, when it is not founded on religious principle, is as fruitful\nin words as it is barren in deeds. The sight of the poor, of the sick,\nof impotent old age, is too disagreeable for us long to bear it, unless\nwe are urged to it by very powerful motives. Even much less can we hope\nthat a vague feeling of humanity will suffice to make us encounter, as\nwe should, the constant cares required to console these unfortunate\nbeings. When Christian charity is wanting, a good administration will\nno doubt enforce punctuality and exactitude--all that can be demanded\nof men who receive a salary for their services: but one thing will be\nwanting, which nothing can replace and money cannot buy, viz. love.\nBut it will be asked, have you no faith in philanthropy? No; for as M.\nde Chateaubriand says, philanthropy is only the false coin of charity.\nIt was then perfectly reasonable that the Church should have a direct\ninfluence in all branches of beneficence, for she knew better than any\nothers how to make Christian charity active, by applying it to all\nkinds of necessities and miseries. Therein she did not gratify her\nambition, but found food for her zeal; she did not claim a privilege,\nbut exerted a right. In fine, if you will persevere in calling such a\ndesire ambition, you cannot deny at least that it was ambition of a\nnew kind. An ambition truly worthy of glory and reward, is that which\nclaims the right of succoring and consoling the unfortunate.[23]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIV.\n\nON TOLERATION IN RELIGIOUS MATTERS.\n\n\nThe question of the improvement of manners, treated in the preceding\nchapters, naturally leads me to another, sufficiently thorny in itself,\nand rendered still more so by innumerable prejudices. I allude to\ntoleration in matters of religion. The word Catholicity, to certain\npersons, is the synonyme of intolerance; and the confusion of ideas\non this point has become such, that no more laborious task can be\nundertaken than to clear them up. It is only necessary to pronounce the\nword intolerance, to raise in the minds of some people all sorts of\nblack and horrible ideas. Legislation, institutions, and men of past\ntimes, all are condemned without appeal, the moment there is seen the\nslightest appearance of intolerance. More than one cause contributes\nto this universal prejudice. Yet, if called upon to point out the\nprincipal one, we would repeat the profound maxim of Cato, who, when\naccused at the age of eighty-six of certain offences of his past life,\ncommitted at times long gone by, said, \"It is difficult to render an\naccount of one's own conduct to men belonging to an age different from\nthat in which one has lived.\" There are some things of which one cannot\naccurately judge without, not only a knowledge of them, but also a\ncomplete appreciation of the times when they occurred. How many men are\ncapable of attaining to this? There are few who are able to succeed\nin freeing their minds from the influence of the atmosphere which\nsurrounds them; but there are fewer still who can do the same with\ntheir hearts. The age in which we live is precisely the reverse of the\nages of intolerance; and this is the first difficulty which meets us in\ndiscussing questions of this kind. The prejudice and bad faith of some\nwho have applied themselves to this subject, have contributed also in\na considerable degree to erroneous opinions. There is nothing in the\nworld which cannot be undervalued by showing only one side of it; for\nthus considered, all things are false, or rather are not themselves.\nAll bodies have three dimensions; only to look at one is not to form an\nidea of the body itself, but of a quantity very different from it. Take\nany institution, the most just and useful that can be imagined, then\nall the inconveniences and evils which it has caused, taking care to\nbring together into a few pages what in reality was spread over a great\nmany ages; then your history will be disgusting, hideous, and worthy\nof execration. Let a partisan of democracy describe to you in a narrow\ncompass, and by means of historical facts, all the inconveniences and\nevils of monarchy, the vices and the crimes of kings; how will monarchy\nthen appear to you? But let a partisan of monarchy paint to you, in his\nturn, by the same method of historical facts, democracy and demagogues;\nand what will you then think of democracy? Assemble in one picture all\nthe evils occasioned to nations by a high degree of development of the\nsocial state; civilization and refinement will then appear detestable.\nBy seeking and selecting in the annals of the human mind certain\ntraits, the history of science may be made the history of folly, and\neven of crime. By heaping together the fatal accidents that have\noccurred to masters of the healing art, their beneficent profession may\nbe represented as a career of homicide. In a word, every thing may be\nfalsified by proceeding in this way. God himself would appear to us as\na monster of cruelty and tyranny, if, taking away his goodness, wisdom,\nand justice, we only attended to the evils which we see in a world\ncreated by his power and governed by his providence.\n\nHaving laid down these principles, let us apply them. The spirit of the\nage, particular circumstances, and an order of things quite different\nfrom ours, are all forgotten, and the history of the religious\nintolerance of Catholics is composed by taking care to condense into a\nfew pages, and paint in the blackest colours, the severity of Ferdinand\nand Isabella, of Philip II., of Mary of England, of Louis XIV., and\nevery thing of the kind that occurred during three centuries. The\nreader who receives, almost at the same moment, the impression of\nevents which occurred during a period of three hundred years,--the\nreader, accustomed to live in society where prisons are being converted\ninto houses of recreation, and where the punishment of death is\nvigorously opposed, can he behold the appearance of darksome dungeons,\nthe instruments of punishment, the _san-benitos_ and scaffolds, without\nbeing deeply moved? He will bewail the unfortunate lot of those who\nperish; he will be indignant against the authors of what he calls\nhorrible atrocities. Nothing has been said to this candid reader of the\nprinciples and conduct of Protestants at the same time; he has not been\nreminded of the cruelty of Henry VIII. and of Elizabeth of England.\nThus all his hatred is directed against Catholics, and he is accustomed\nto regard Catholicity as a religion of tyranny and blood. But will a\njudgment thus formed be just? Will this be a sentence passed with a\nfull knowledge of the cause? What would impartiality direct us to do,\nif we met with a dark picture, painted in the way we have described,\nof monarchy, democracy, or civilization, of science, or of the healing\nart? What we should do, or rather what we ought to do, is to extend\nour view further, to examine the subject in its different phases; to\ninquire into its good as well as its evil: this would be to look upon\nthese evils as they really are, that is, spread at great distances over\nthe course of centuries; this would weaken the impression they had\nmade upon us: in a word, we should thus be just, we should take the\nbalance in hand to weigh the good and evil, to compare the one with\nthe other, as we ought always to do when we have duly to appreciate\nthings in the history of humanity. In the case in question, we should\nact in the same way, in order to provide against the error into which\nwe may be led by the false statements and exaggerations of certain men,\nwhose evident intention it has been to falsify facts by representing\nonly one side of them. The Inquisition no longer exists, and assuredly\nthere is no probability of its being re-established; the severe laws in\nforce on this matter in former times no longer exist; they are either\nabrogated or they are fallen into desuetude: no one, therefore, has an\ninterest in representing this institution in a false point of view. It\nmay be imagined that some men had an interest in this while they were\nengaged in destroying their ancient laws, but that once attained, the\nInquisition and its laws are become a historical fact, which ought to\nbe examined here with attention and impartiality. We have here two\nquestions, that of principle, and that of its application; in other\nwords, that of intolerance, and that of the manner of showing it.\nWe must not confound these two things, which, although very closely\nconnected, are very different. I shall begin with the first.\n\nThe principle of universal toleration is now proclaimed, and all kind\nof intolerance is condemned without appeal. But who takes care to\nexamine the real meaning of these words? who undertakes to analyze\nthe ideas which they contain by the light of reason, and explain them\nby means of history and experience? Very few. They are pronounced\nmechanically; they are constantly employed to establish propositions of\nthe highest importance, without even the suspicion that they contain\nideas, the right or wrong comprehension and application of which is\nevery thing for the preservation of society. Few persons consider\nthat these words include questions as profound as they are delicate,\nand the whole of a large portion of history; very few observe that,\naccording to one solution given to the problem of toleration, all the\npast is condemned, and all the present overturned; nothing is left\nthereby to build on for the future but a moving bed of sand. Certainly,\nthe most convenient way in such a case is, to adopt and employ these\nwords such as we already find them in circulation, in the same way as\nwe take and circulate the current coin, without considering whether\nit be composed of alloy or not. But what is the most convenient is\nnot always the most useful; and, as when receiving coins of value,\nwe carefully examine them, so we ought to weigh words the meaning of\nwhich is of such paramount importance. Toleration--what is the meaning\nof this word? It means, properly speaking, the patience with which\nwe suffer a thing which we judge to be bad, but which we think it\ndesirable not to punish. Thus, some kinds of scandals are tolerated;\nprostitutes are tolerated; such and such abuses are tolerated; so that\nthe idea of toleration is always accompanied by the idea of evil.\nWhen toleration is exercised in the order of ideas, it always supposes\na misunderstanding, or error. No one will say that he tolerates the\ntruth. We have an observation to make here. The phrase _to tolerate\nopinions_ is commonly used: now, opinion is very different from error.\nAt first sight, the difficulty appears great; but if we examine the\nthing well, we shall be able to explain it. When we say that we\ntolerate an opinion, we always mean an opinion contrary to our own. In\nthis case, the opinion of another is, according to us, an error; for\nit is impossible to have an opinion on any point whatever--that is, to\nthink that a thing is or is not, is in one way or in another--without\nthinking at the same time that those who judge otherwise are deceived.\nIf our opinion is only an opinion--that is, if our judgment, although\nbased on reasons which appear to us to be good, has not attained to a\ndegree of complete certainty--our judgment of another will be only a\nmere opinion; but if our conviction has become completely established\nand confirmed--that is, if it has attained to certainty--we shall be\nsure that those who form a judgment opposed to ours are deceived.\nThence it follows, that the word toleration, applied to opinions,\nalways means the toleration of an error. He who says, yes, thinks no\nis false; and he who says, no, thinks yes is a mistake. This is only\nan application of the well-known principle, _that it is impossible\nfor the same thing to be and not to be at the same time_. But, we\nshall be asked, What do you mean when you use these words, 'to respect\nopinions?' is it always understood that we respect errors? No; for\nthese words can have two different and equally reasonable meanings.\nThe first is founded on the feebleness of the conviction of the person\nfrom whom the respect comes. When on any particular point we have only\njust formed an opinion, it is understood that we have not reached\ncertainty; consequently, we know that there are reasons on the other\nside. In this sense, we may well say that we respect the opinions of\nothers: we express thereby our conviction that it is possible that we\nare deceived--that it is possible the truth is not on our side. In the\nsecond meaning, to respect opinions is to respect, sometimes those who\nprofess them, sometimes their good faith, sometimes their intentions.\nThus, when we say that we respect prejudices, it is clear that we do\nnot mean a real respect professed in this place. We see thus, that the\nexpression 'to respect the opinions of others' has a very different\nmeaning, according as the person from whom the respect comes has or has\nnot assured convictions in the contrary sense.\n\nIn order the better to understand what toleration is, what its origin\nand its effects, it is necessary, before we examine it in society,\nto reduce it to its simplest element. Let us analyze toleration\nconsidered in the individual. An individual is called tolerant, when\nhe is habitually in a disposition of mind to bear without irritation\nor disturbance opinions contrary to his own. This toleration will\nbear different names, according to the different matters to which it\nrelates. In religious matters, tolerance as well as intolerance may be\nfound in those who have religion as well as in those who have none; so\nthat neither of these situations, with respect to religion, necessarily\nimplies the one or the other. Some people imagine that tolerance is\npeculiar to the incredulous, and intolerance to the religious; but they\nare mistaken. Who is more tolerant than St. Francis de Sales? who more\nintolerant than Voltaire?\n\nTolerance in religious men--that tolerance which does not come from\nwant of faith, and which is not inconsistent with an ardent zeal\nfor the preservation and propagation of the faith--is born of two\nprinciples, charity and humility. Charity, which makes us love all\nmen, even our greatest enemies; charity, which inspires us with\ncompassion for their faults and errors, and obliges us to regard them\nas brothers, to employ all the means in our power to withdraw them from\nbeing fatally deceived; charity, which forbids us ever to regard them\nas deprived of the hope of salvation as long as they live. Rousseau\nhas said, that \"it is impossible to live in peace with those that\none believes to be damned.\" We do not, and we cannot, believe in the\ncondemnation of any man as long as he lives; however great may be his\niniquity, the mercy of God and the value of the blood of Jesus Christ\nare still greater. We are so far from thinking with the philosopher\nof Geneva, \"that to love such people would be to hate God,\" that no\none could maintain such a doctrine among us without ceasing to belong\nto our faith. The other source of tolerance is Christian humility:\nhumility, which inspires us with a profound sense of our weakness,\nand makes us consider all that we have as given by God; humility,\nwhich makes us consider our advantages over our neighbor as so many\nmore powerful motives for acknowledging the liberality of Providence;\nhumility, which, placing before our eyes the spectacle of humanity\nin its proper light, makes us regard ourselves and all others as\nmembers of the great family of the human race, fallen from its ancient\ndignity by the sin of our first parent; humility, which shows us the\nperverse inclinations of our hearts, the darkness of our minds, and the\nclaims which man has to pity and indulgence in his faults and errors;\nhumility, that virtue sublime even in its abasement. \"If humility is so\npleasing to God,\" is the admirable observation of St. Theresa, \"it is\nbecause it is the truth.\" This is the virtue which renders us indulgent\ntowards all men, by never allowing us to forget that we ourselves,\nperhaps, more than any others, have need of indulgence.\n\nYet for a man to be tolerant, in the full extent of the word, it is\nnot enough for him to be humble and charitable; this is a truth which\nexperience teaches and reason explains to us. In order perfectly to\nclear up a point, the obscurity of which produces the confusion which\nalmost always prevails in these questions, let us make a comparison\nbetween two men equally religious, whose principles are the same,\nbut whose conduct is very different. Let us suppose two priests both\ndistinguished for learning and eminent virtue. The one has passed\nhis life in retirement, surrounded by pious persons, and having no\nintercourse with any but Catholics: the other has been a missionary\nin countries where different religions are established, he has been\nobliged to live and converse with men of creeds different from his\nown; he has been under the necessity of witnessing the establishment\nof temples of a false religion close to those of the true one. The\nprinciples of Christian charity will be the same with both these\npriests; both will look upon faith as a gift of God, which he has\nreceived, and must preserve; their conduct, however, will be very\ndifferent, if they meet with a man of a faith different from their\nown, or of none at all. The first, who, never having had intercourse\nwith any but the faithful, has always heard religion spoken of with\nrespect, will be horrified, will be indignant, at the first word he\nshall hear against the faith or ceremonies of the Church; it will be\nimpossible, or nearly so, for him to remain calm during a conversation\nor discussion on the question: the second, accustomed to such things,\nto hear his faith impugned, to dispute with men of creeds opposed to\nhis own, will remain tranquil; he will engage in a discussion with\ncoolness, if it be necessary; he will skilfully avoid one, if prudence\nshall advise such a course. Whence comes this difference? It is not\ndifficult to discover. The second of these priests, by intercourse\nwith men, by experience, by contradiction, has obtained a clear notion\nof the real condition of men's minds in the world; he is aware of the\nfatal combination of circumstances which has led a great number of\nunfortunate persons into error, and keeps them there; he knows how,\nin some measure, to put himself in their place; and the more lively\nis his sense of the benefit conferred upon him by Providence, the\nmore mild and indulgent he is towards others. The other may be as\nvirtuous, as charitable, and as humble as you please; but how can you\nexpect of him that he will not be deeply moved, and give utterance\nto his indignation, the first time that he hears that denied which\nhe has always believed with the most lively faith? He has up to this\ntime met with no opposition in the world, but a few arguments in\nbooks. Certainly he was not ignorant that there existed heretics and\nunbelievers, but he has not frequently met with them, he has not heard\nthem state their hundred different systems, and he has not witnessed\nthe erroneous creeds of men of all sorts, of different characters, and\nthe most varied minds; the lively susceptibility of his mind, which\nhas never met with resistance, has not been blunted; for this reason,\nalthough endowed with the same virtues, and, if you will, with the same\nknowledge as the other, he has not acquired that penetration, that\nvivacity, so to speak, with which a man of practised intellect enters\ninto the minds of those with whom he has to deal, discerns the reasons,\nseizes the motives which blind them and hinder them from obtaining a\nknowledge of the truth.\n\nThus tolerance, in a person who is religious, supposes a certain\ndegree of gentleness of mind, the fruit of intercourse with men, and\nthe habits thereby engendered; yet this quality is consistent with\nthe deepest conviction, and the purest and most ardent zeal for the\npropagation of the truth. In the moral, as in the physical world,\nfriction polishes, use wears away, and nothing can remain for a long\ntime in an attitude of violence. A man will be indignant, once, twice,\na hundred times, when he hears his manner of thinking attacked; but it\nis impossible for him to remain so always; he will, in the end, become\naccustomed to opposition; he will, by habit, bear it calmly. However\nsacred may be his articles of belief, he will content himself with\ndefending and putting them forward at convenient opportunities; in all\nother cases, he will keep them in the bottom of his soul, as a treasure\nwhich he is desirous to preserve from any thing that may injure them.\nTolerance, then, does not suppose any new principles in a man, but\nrather a quality acquired by practice; a disposition of mind, into\nwhich a man finds himself insensibly led; a habit of patience, formed\nin him by constantly having to bear with what he disapproves of.\n\nNow, if we consider tolerance in men who are not religious, we shall\nobserve that there are two ways of being irreligious. There are men who\nnot only have no religion, but who have an animosity against it, either\non account of some fatal error they entertain, or because they find it\nan obstacle to their designs. These men are extremely intolerant; and\ntheir intolerance is the worst of all, because it is not accompanied\nby any moral principle which can restrain it. A man thus circumstanced\nfeels himself, as it were, continually at war with himself and the\nhuman race; with himself, because he must stifle the cries of his own\nconscience: with the human race, because all protest against the mad\ndoctrine that pretends to banish the worship of God from the earth.\nTherefore we find among men of this kind much rancor and spleen;\ntherefore their words are full of gall; therefore they have constantly\nrecourse to raillery, insult, and calumny.\n\nBut there is another class of men who, although devoid of religion,\nare not strongly prejudiced against the faith. They live in a kind of\nskepticism, into which the reading of bad books, or the observations\nof a superficial and frivolous philosophy, have led them; they are\nnot attached to religion, but they are not its enemies. Many of them\nacknowledge the importance of religion for the good of society, and\nsome of them even feel within themselves a certain desire to return\nto the faith; in their moments of recollection and meditation, they\nremember with pleasure the days when they offered to God an obedient\nspirit and a pure heart; and at the sight of the rapid course of life,\nthey perhaps love to cherish the hope of becoming reconciled with the\nGod of their fathers, before they descend into the grave. These men\nare tolerant; but, if carefully examined, their tolerance is not a\nprinciple or a virtue, it is only a necessity resulting from their\nposition. It is difficult to be indignant at the opinions of others,\nwhen we have none of our own--when, consequently, we do not come\ninto collision with any. It is difficult to be violently opposed to\nreligion, when we consider it as a thing necessary for the welfare of\nsociety; there can be no hatred or rancor towards faith in a soul which\ndesires its mercy, and which, perhaps, fixes its eyes upon it as the\nlast beam of hope amid the terrors of an alarming future. Tolerance, in\nthis case, is nothing strange; it is natural and necessary. Intolerance\nwould be inconceivable and extravagant, and could arise only from a bad\nheart.\n\nIn applying these remarks to society instead of individuals, it must\nbe observed that tolerance, as well as intolerance, may be considered\nin government, or in society. It sometimes happens that government and\nsociety are not agreed; while the former maintains one principle, the\nreverse may prevail in the latter. As governments are composed of a\nlimited number of individuals, all that has been said of tolerance,\nconsidered individually, may be applied to them. Let us not forget,\nhowever, that men placed in authority are not free to give themselves\nup without limit to the impulses of their own opinions or feelings;\nthey are often forced to immolate their own feelings on the altar of\npublic opinion. They may, owing to peculiar circumstances, oppose or\nimpede that opinion for a time; but it will soon stop them, and force\nthem to change their course.\n\nAs sooner or later government becomes the expression of the ideas\nand feelings of society, we shall content ourselves with considering\ntolerance in the latter; we shall observe that society, with respect to\ntolerance, follows the same path as individuals. This is with it not\nthe effect of a principle, but of a habit. Men of different creeds, who\nlive together for a long time in the same society, end by tolerating\neach other; they are led to this by growing weary of collision with\neach other, and by the wish for a kind of life more quiet and peaceful.\nBut when men, thus divided in creed, find themselves face to face for\nthe first time, a shock more or less rude is the inevitable result. The\ncauses of this phenomenon are to be found in human nature itself; it is\none of those necessities against which we struggle in vain.\n\nSome modern philosophers have imagined that society is indebted to them\nfor the spirit of toleration which prevails there; they have not seen\nthat it is much rather a fact slowly brought about by the force of\ncircumstances, than it is the fruit of their doctrines. Indeed, what\nhave they said that is new? They have recommended universal fraternity;\nbut this has always been one of the doctrines of Christianity. They\nhave exhorted men of all the different religions to live in peace\ntogether; but before they had opened their mouths to tell them this,\nmen began to adopt this course in many countries of Europe; for,\nunhappily, religions in many countries were so numerous and different,\nthat none of them could pretend to exclusive dominion. It is true\nthat some infidel, philosophers have a claim, and a deplorable one,\nin support of their pretensions with respect to the development of\ntoleration; it is, that, by their efforts to disseminate infidelity\nand skepticism, they have succeeded in making general, in nations and\ngovernments, that false toleration which has nothing virtuous, but is\nindifference with respect to all religions. Indeed, why is tolerance\nso general in our age? or, rather, in what does our tolerance consist?\nIf you observe well, you will find that it is nothing but the result\nof a social condition perfectly similar to that of the individual\nwho has no creed, but who does not hate creeds, because he considers\nthem as conducive to the public good, and cherishes a vague hope of\none day finding a last asylum therein. All that is good in this is\nin no degree owing to the infidel philosophers, but may rather be\nsaid to be a protest against them. Indeed, when they could not obtain\nthe supreme command, they lavished calumnies and sarcasms on all\nthat is most sacred in heaven and on earth; and, when they did raise\nthemselves to power, they overturned with indescribable fury all\nthat existed, and destroyed millions of victims in exile or on the\nscaffolds. The multitude of religions,--infidelity, indifference, the\nimprovement of manners, the lassitude produced by wars,--industrial\nand commercial organization, which every day becomes more powerful in\nsociety,--communication rendered more frequent among men by means of\ntravelling,--the diffusion of ideas by the press;--such are the causes\nwhich have produced in Europe that universal tolerance which has taken\npossession of all, and has been established in fact when it could not\nby law. These causes, as it is easy to observe, are of different kinds;\nno doctrine can pretend to an exclusive influence; they are the result\nof a thousand different influences, which act simultaneously on the\ndevelopment of civilization.[24]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXV.\n\nON THE RIGHT OF COERCION IN GENERAL.\n\n\nHow much, during the last century, was said against intolerance! A\nphilosophy less superficial than that which then prevailed would have\nreflected a little more on a fact which may be appreciated in different\nways, but the existence of which cannot be denied. In Greece, Socrates\ndied drinking hemlock. Rome, whose tolerance has been so much vaunted,\ntolerated, indeed, foreign gods; but these were only foreign in name,\nsince they formed a part of that system of pantheism which was the\nfoundation of the Roman religion; gods, who, in order to be declared\ngods of Rome, only needed the mere formality, as it were, of receiving\nthe name of citizens. But Rome did not admit the gods of Egypt any\nmore than the Jewish or Christian religion. She had, no doubt, many\nfalse ideas with respect to these religions; but she was sufficiently\nacquainted with them to know that they were essentially different\nfrom her own. The history of the Pagan emperors is the history of\nthe persecution of the Church; as soon as they became Christians, a\nsystem of penal legislation was commenced against those who differed\nfrom the religion of the state. In subsequent centuries, intolerance\ncontinued under various forms; it has been perpetuated down to our\ntimes, and we are not so free from it as some would wish to make us\nbelieve. The emancipation of Catholics in England is but of recent\ndate; the violent disputes of the Prussian government with the Pope,\non the subject of certain arbitrary acts of that government against\nthe Catholic religion, are of yesterday; the question of Argau, in\nSwitzerland, is still pending; and the persecution of Catholicity by\nthe Russian government is pursued in as scandalous a manner as at any\nformer period. Thus it is with religious sects. As to the toleration of\nthe _humane_ philosophers of the 18th century, it was exemplified in\nRobespierre.\n\nEvery government professing a religion is more or less intolerant\ntowards those which it does not profess; and this intolerance is\ndiminished or destroyed, only when the professors of the obnoxious\nreligions are either feared on account of their great power, or\ndespised on account of their weakness. Apply to all times and countries\nthe rule which we have just laid down, you will everywhere find it\nexact; it is an abridgment of the history of governments in their\nrelations with religions. The Protestant government of England has\nalways been intolerant toward Catholics; and it will continue to be so,\nmore or less, according to circumstances. The governments of Russia\nand Prussia will continue to act as they have done up to this time,\nwith the exception of modifications required by difference of times;\nin the same way, in countries where Catholicity prevails, the exercise\nof the Protestant worship will always be more or less interfered with.\nI shall be told of the instance of France as a proof of the contrary;\nin that country, where the immense majority profess the Catholic\nreligion, other worships are allowed, without any disposition on the\npart of the state to disturb them. This toleration will perhaps be\nattributed to public opinion; it comes, I think, from this, that no\nfixed principle prevails there in the government: all the policy of\nFrance, internal and external, is a constant compromise to get out\nof difficulties in the best possible way. This is shown by facts;\nit appears from the well-known opinions of the small number of men\nwho, for some years, have ruled the destinies of France. It has been\nattempted to establish in principle universal toleration, and refuse\nto government the right of violating consciences in religious matters;\nnevertheless, in spite of all that has been said, philosophers have\nnot been able to make a very clear exposition of their principle,\nstill less have they been able to procure its general adoption as a\nsystem in the government of states. In order to show that the thing is\nnot quite so simple as has been supposed, I will beg leave to ask a\nfew questions of these _soi-disant_ philosophers. If a religion which\nrequired human sacrifices were established in your country, would you\ntolerate it? No. And why? Because we cannot tolerate such a crime.\nBut then you will be intolerant; you will violate the consciences of\nothers, by proscribing, as a crime, what in their eyes is a homage to\nthe Divinity. Thus thought many nations of old, and so think some now.\nBy what right do you make your conscience prevail over theirs?--It\nmatters not; we shall be intolerant, but our intolerance will be for\nthe good of humanity.--I applaud your conduct; but you cannot deny that\nit is a case in which intolerance with respect to a religion appears to\nyou a right and a duty. Still further: if you proscribe the exercise\nof this atrocious worship, would you allow the doctrine to be taught\nwhich preaches as holy and salutary the practice of human sacrifices?\nNo; for that would be permitting the teaching of murder. Very well,\nbut you must acknowledge that this is a doctrine with respect to\nwhich you have a right to be, and are obliged to be, intolerant. Let\nus pursue our subject. You are aware, no doubt, of the sacrifices\noffered in antiquity to the goddess of Love, and the infamous worship\nwhich was paid to her in the temples of Babylon and Corinth. If such\na worship reappeared among you, would you tolerate it? No; for it is\ncontrary to the sacred laws of modesty. Would you allow the doctrine\non which it was based to be taught? No; for the same reason. This,\nthen, is another case in which you believe you have the right and the\nobligation to violate the consciences of others; and the only reason\nyou can assign for it is, that you are compelled to do so by your own\nconscience. Moreover, suppose that some men, over-excited by reading\nthe Bible, desired to establish a new Christianity, in imitation of\nMathew of Haarlem or John of Leyden; suppose that these sectaries began\nto propagate their doctrines, to assemble together in bodies, and that\ntheir fanatical declamation seduced a portion of the people, would you\ntolerate this new religion? No; for these men might renew the bloody\nscenes of Germany in the 16th century, when, in the name of God, and\nto fulfil, as they said, the order of the Most High, the Anabaptists\ninvaded all property, destroyed all existing power, and spread\neverywhere desolation and death. This would be to act with as much\njustice as prudence; but you cannot deny that you would thereby commit\nan act of intolerance. What, then, becomes of universal toleration,\nthat principle so evident, so predominant, if you are compelled at\nevery step to limit, and I will say more, to lay it aside, and act in a\nway diametrically opposite to it? You will say that the security of the\nstate, the good order of society, and public morality compel you to act\nin this way. But then, what sort of a principle is it that, in certain\ncases, is in opposition to the interests of morality and to society,\nand to the safety of the state? Do you think that the men against whom\nyou declaim did not intend also to protect these interests, by acting\nwith that intolerance which is so revolting to you?\n\nIt has been acknowledged at all times and in all countries, as an\nincontestable principle, that the public authority has, in certain\ncases, the right of prohibiting certain acts, in violation of the\nconsciences of individuals who claim the right of performing them.\nIf the constant testimony of history were not enough, at least the\ndialogue which we have just held ought to convince us of this truth;\nwe have seen that the most ardent advocates of tolerance may well be\ncompelled, in certain cases, to be intolerant. They would be obliged to\nbe so in the name of humanity, of modesty, of public order; universal\ntoleration, then, with respect to doctrines and religions--that\ntoleration which is proclaimed as the duty of every government--is an\nerror; it is a theory which cannot be put in practice. We have clearly\nshown that intolerance has always been, and still is, a principle\nrecognised by all governments, and the application of which, more or\nless indulgent or severe, depends on circumstances, and above all, on\nthe particular point of view in which the government considers things.\n\nA great question of right now presents itself--a question which seems,\nat first sight, to require to be solved by condemning all intolerance,\nboth with respect to doctrines and acts; but which, when thoroughly\nexamined, leads to a very different result. If we grant that the\nmind is incapable of completely removing the difficulty by means of\ndirect reasoning, it is not the less certain that indirect means, and\nthe reasoning called _ad absurdum_, are here sufficient to show us\nthe truth, at least as far as it is necessary for us to know it as\na guide for human prudence, always uncertain. The question is this:\n\"By what right do you hinder a man from professing a doctrine, and\nacting in conformity with it, if he is convinced that it is true, and\nthat he only fulfils his duty, or exercises a right, by acting as\nit prescribes?\" In order to prevent the prohibition being vain and\nridiculous, there must be a penalty attached to it; now, if you inflict\nthis penalty, you punish a man who, according to his own conscience,\nis innocent. Punishment by the hand of justice supposes culpability;\nand no one is culpable without being so first in his conscience.\nCulpability has its root in the conscience; and we cannot be\nresponsible for the violation of a law, unless that law has addressed\nus through our conscience. If our conscience tells us that an action is\nbad, we cannot perform it, whatever may be the injunctions of the law\nwhich prescribes it; on the contrary, if conscience tells us that an\naction is a duty, we cannot omit it, whatever may be the prohibitions\nof the law. This is, in a few words, and in all its force, the whole\nargument that can be alleged against intolerance in regard to doctrines\nand facts emanating from them. Let us now see what is the real value of\nthese observations, apparently so conclusive.\n\nIt is apparent that the admission of this principle would render\nimpossible the punishment of any political crime. Brutus, when\nplunging his dagger into the heart of C\u00e6sar; Jacques Clement, when he\nassassinated Henry III., acted, no doubt, under the influence of an\nexcitement of mind, which made them view their attempts as deeds of\nheroism; and yet, if they had both been brought before a tribunal,\nwould you have thought them entitled to impunity--the one on account\nof his love of country, and the other on account of his zeal for\nreligion? Most political crimes are committed under a conviction of\ndoing well; and I do not speak merely of those times of trouble, when\nmen of parties the most opposed are fully persuaded that they have\nright on their side. Conspiracies contrived against governments in\ntimes of peace are generally the work of some individuals who look\nupon them as illegal and tyrannical; when working to overthrow them,\nthey are acting in conformity with their own principles. Judges punish\nthem justly when they inflict on them the penalties appointed by\nlegislators; and yet, neither legislators when they decree the penalty,\nnor the judges when they inflict it, are, or can be, ignorant of the\ncondition of mind of the delinquent who has violated the law. It may be\nsaid, that compassion and indulgence with respect to political crimes\nincrease every day, for these reasons. I shall reply, that if we lay\ndown the principle that human justice has not the right to punish,\nwhen the delinquent acts according to his conviction, we must not\nonly mitigate our punishments, but even abolish them. In this case,\ncapital punishment would be a real murder, a fine a robbery, and\nother penalties so many acts of violence. I shall remark in passing,\nthat it is not true that severity towards political crimes diminishes\nas much as it is said to do; the history of Europe of late years\naffords us some proofs to the contrary. We do not now see those cruel\npunishments which were in use at other times; but that is not owing\nto the conscience of the criminal being considered by the judge, but\nto the improvement of manners, which, being everywhere diffused, has\nnecessarily influenced penal legislation. It is extraordinary that so\nmuch severity has been preserved in laws relating to political crimes,\nwhen so great a number of legislators among the different nations of\nEurope knew well that they themselves, at other times, had committed\nthe same crimes. And there is no doubt that more than one man, in the\ndiscussion of certain penal laws, has inclined to indulgence, from the\npresentiment that these very laws might one day apply to himself. The\nimpunity of political crimes would bring about the subversion of social\norder, by rendering all government impossible. Without dwelling longer\non the fatal results which this doctrine would have, let us observe,\nthat the benefit of impunity in favor of the illusions of conscience\nwould not be due to political crimes alone, but would be applicable\nalso to those of an ordinary kind. Offences against property are crimes\nof this nature; and yet we know that many at former periods regarded,\nand that unfortunately some still regard, property as a usurpation and\nan injustice. Offences against the sanctity of marriage are ordinarily\nconsidered crimes; and yet have there not been sects in whose sight\nmarriage was unlawful, and others who have desired, and still\ndesire, a community of women? The sacred laws of modesty and respect\nfor innocence have alike been regarded by some sects as an unjust\ninfringement of the liberty of man; to violate these laws, therefore,\nwas a meritorious action. At the time when the mistaken ideas and blind\nfanaticism of the men who professed these principles were undoubted,\nwould any one have been found to deny the justice of the chastisement\nwhich was inflicted on them when, in pursuance of their doctrines, they\ncommitted a crime, or even when they had the audacity to diffuse their\nfatal maxims in society?\n\nIf it were unjust to punish the criminal for acting according to his\nconscience, all imaginable crimes would be permitted to the atheist,\nthe fatalist, the disciple of the doctrine of private interest; for by\ndestroying, as they do, the basis of all morality, these men do not\nact against their consciences; they have none. If such an argument\nwere to hold good, how often would we have reason to charge tribunals\nwith injustice, when they inflict any punishment on men of this class.\nBy what right, we would say to magistrates, do you punish this man,\nwho, not admitting the existence of God, does not acknowledge himself\nculpable in his own eyes, or consequently in yours? You have made a\nlaw, by virtue of which you punish him; but this law has no power over\nthe conscience of this man, for you are his equals; and he does not\nacknowledge the existence of any superior, to give you the power of\ncontrolling his liberty. By what right do you punish another, who is\nconvinced that all his actions are the effect of necessary causes,\nthat free-will is a chimera, and who, in the action which you charge\non him as a crime, believes that he had no more power of restraining\nhimself than the wild beast, when he throws himself upon the prey\nbefore his eyes, or upon any other animal that excites his fury? With\nwhat justice do you punish him, who is persuaded that all morality is\na lie; that there is no other principle than individual interest; that\ngood and evil are nothing but this interest, well or ill understood?\nIf you make him undergo any punishment, it will not be because he is\nculpable in his own conscience; you will punish him for being deceived\nin his calculation, for having ill-understood the probable result of\nthe action which he was about to commit. Such are the necessary and\ninevitable deductions from the doctrine, which refuses to the public\nauthority the power of punishing crimes committed in consequence of an\nerror of the mind.\n\nBut I shall be told that the right of punishment only extends to\nactions, and not to doctrines; that actions ought to be subject to the\nlaw, but that doctrines are entitled to unbounded liberty. Do you mean\ndoctrines shut up in the mind and not outwardly manifested? It is clear\nthat not only the right, but also the possibility of punishing them is\nwanting, for God alone can tell the secrets of the heart of man. If\navowed doctrines are meant, then the principle is false; and we have\njust shown that those who maintain it in theory, find it impossible to\nreduce it to practice. In fine, we shall be told that, however absurd\nin its results may be the doctrine which we have been combating, it\nis still impossible to justify the punishment of an action which was\nordered or authorized by the conscience of the man who committed it.\nHow is this difficulty to be solved? How is this great obstacle to be\nremoved? Is it lawful in any case to treat as culpable the man who is\nnot so at the tribunal of his own conscience?\n\nAlthough this question seems entirely to turn upon some point on which\nmen of all opinions are agreed, there is nevertheless a wide difference\nin this respect between Catholics on one side and unbelievers and\nProtestants on the other. The first lay it down as an incontestable\nprinciple, _that there are errors of the understanding which are\nfaults_; the others, on the contrary, think, _that all errors of the\nunderstanding are innocent_. The first consider error in regard to\ngreat moral and religious truths, as one of the gravest offences which\nman can commit against God; their opponents look upon errors of this\nkind with great indulgence, and they ought to do so in order to be\nconsistent. Catholics admit the possibility of invincible ignorance\nwith respect to some very important truths; but with them this\npossibility is limited to certain circumstances, out of which they\ndeclare man to be culpable: their opponents constantly extol liberty of\nthought, without any other restriction than that imposed by the taste\nof each one in particular; they constantly affirm that man is free to\nhold the opinions which he thinks proper; they have gone so far as to\npersuade their followers that there are no culpable errors or opinions,\nthat man is not obliged to search into the secret recesses of his soul,\nto make sure that there are no secret causes which induce him to reject\nthe truth; they have in the end monstrously confounded physical with\nmoral liberty of thought; they have banished from opinions the ideas of\nlawful and unlawful, and have given men to understand that such ideas\nare not applicable to thought. That is to say, in the order of ideas,\nthey have confounded right with fact, declaring, in this respect, the\nuselessness and incompetency of all laws, divine and human. Senseless\nmen! as if it were possible for that which is most noble and elevated\nin human nature to be exempt from all rule; as if it were possible for\nthe element which makes man the king of the creation, to be exempted\nfrom concurring in the ineffable harmony of all parts of the universe\nwith themselves and with God; as if this harmony could exist, or even\nbe conceived in man, unless it were declared to be the first of human\nobligations to adhere constantly to truth.\n\nThis is one of the profound reasons which justify the Catholic Church,\nwhen she considers the sin of heresy as one of the greatest that man\ncan commit. You, who smile, with pity and contempt at these words,\n_the sin of heresy_; you, who consider this doctrine as the invention\nof priests to rule over consciences, by retrenching the liberty of\nthought; by what right do you claim the power of condemning heresies\nwhich are opposed to your orthodoxy? By what right do you condemn those\nsocieties that profess opinions hostile to property, public order,\nand the existence of authority? If the thought of man is free, if you\ncannot attempt to restrain it without violating sacred rights, if it\nis an absurdity and a contradiction to wish to oblige a man to act\nagainst his conscience, or disobey its dictates--why do you interfere\nwith those men who desire to destroy the existing state of society?\nWhy baffle, why oppose those dark conspiracies, which, from time to\ntime, send one of their members to assassinate a king? You invoke your\nconvictions to declare unjust and cruel the intolerance which has been\npractised at certain times against your enemies; but you must remember\nthat such societies and such men can also invoke their convictions. You\nsay that the doctrines of the Church are human inventions; they say\nthat the doctrines prevailing in society are also human inventions. You\nsay that the ancient social order was a monopoly; they say the present\nsocial order is a monopoly. In your eyes, the ancient authorities\nwere tyrannical; in theirs the present ones are so. You pretended to\ndestroy what existed, in order to found new institutions conducive to\nthe good of humanity; to-day these men hold the same language. You\nhave proclaimed holy the war which was waged against ancient power;\nthey proclaim holy the war against present power. When you availed\nyourselves of the means which offered themselves, you pretended that\nnecessity rendered them legitimate; they declare to be not less\nlegitimate the only means which they possess, that of combinations, of\npreparing for their opportunity, and of hastening it by assassinating\ngreat men. You have pretended to make all opinions respected, even\natheism, and you have taught that nobody has a right to prevent your\nacting in conformity with your principles; but the fanatics in question\nhave also their horrible principles and their dreadful convictions.\nDo you require a proof of this? See them amid the gayety of public\ncelebrations, glide, pale and gloomy, among the joyful multitude,\nchoose the fitting moment to cast desolation over a royal family, and\ncover a nation with mourning, while they accumulate on their own heads\nthe public execration, certain, moreover, of finishing their lives\non the scaffold. But our adversaries will say, such convictions are\ninexcusable. Yours are so also. All the difference is, that you have\ncontrived your ambitious and fatal systems amid ease and pleasure,\nperhaps in opulence, and under the shadow of power, while they have\nconceived their abominable doctrines in the bosom of obscurity,\npoverty, misery, and despair.\n\nIndeed, the inconsistency of some men is shocking to the last degree.\nTo ridicule all religions, to decry the spirituality and immortality\nof the soul, and the existence of God, to overturn all morality, and\nsap its deepest foundations, all this they have considered excusable,\nand we may even say, worthy of praise; moreover, the writers who have\nundertaken this fatal task are worthy of apotheosis; men must expel\nthe Divinity from his temples to place there the names and busts of\nthe leaders of their schools; under the vaults of splendid basilicas,\nwhere repose the ashes of Christians awaiting the resurrection, they\nmust raise the mausoleum of Voltaire and Rousseau, in order that future\ngenerations, when they descend into their dark and silent abodes, may\nreceive the inspirations of their genius. But have they, then, a right\nto complain that property, and domestic life, and social order are\nattacked? Property is sacred; but is it more sacred than God? However\ngreat may be the importance of the truths relating to the family and\nto society, are they of a superior order to the eternal principles of\nmorality, or rather, are they any thing more than the application of\nthese principles?\n\nBut let us resume the thread of our discourse. When the principle,\nthat there are culpable errors, is once established (a principle which\nin practice, if not in theory, must be received by all men, but which\nCatholicity alone can logically maintain in theory), it is easy to see\nthe reason of the punishments which human power decrees against the\npropagation and teaching of certain doctrines; and we can understand\nwhy it is legitimate to punish, without considering the conviction\nthat animated the culprit, the actions which are the result of his\ndoctrines. The law shows that this mortal error has existed, or can\nexist; but in this case it declares the error itself to be culpable;\nand if man adduces the testimony of his own conscience, the law\nreminds him that it is his duty to rectify his conscience. Such is, in\ntruth, the foundation of a legislation which has appeared so unjust; a\nfoundation which it is necessary to point out, in order to vindicate\na great many human laws from a deep disgrace; for it would be a great\ndisgrace to claim the right of punishing a man who was really innocent.\nSuch an absurd right is so far from belonging to human justice, that it\ndoes not belong even to God. The infinite justice of God would cease to\nbe what it is, if it could punish the innocent.\n\nPerhaps another origin will be assigned for the right which governments\npossess, of punishing the propagation of certain doctrines and the\nactions committed in consequence of them, when the criminal has acted\nfrom the deepest conviction. \"Governments,\" it may be said, \"act in\nthe name of society, which, like every being, possesses the right of\nself-defence. There are certain doctrines which menace its existence;\nit has, therefore, of necessity and right, the power of resisting those\nwho promulgate them.\" Such a reason, however plausible it may appear,\nis liable to this grave objection, that it destroys at one blow the\nidea of punishment and justice. To wound an aggressor in self-defence\nis not to chastise but to resist him. If we consider society in this\npoint of view, the criminal led to punishment will no longer be a real\ncriminal, but the unfortunate victim of a rash and unequal struggle.\nThe voice of the judge condemning him will no longer be the august\nvoice of justice; his sentence will only be the act of society avenging\nthe attack made upon it. The word punishment will then assume quite\na different meaning; the gradations of it will depend entirely upon\ncalculations, and not on justice. We must remember this; if we suppose\nthat society, by virtue of the right of self-defence, inflicts a\npunishment upon the man whom it considers quite innocent, it no longer\njudges or condemns, but fights and struggles. That which is perfectly\nsuitable with respect to the relations between one society and another,\nis in no way suitable to society in its relations with individuals. It\nthen appears like a combat between a giant and a pigmy. The giant takes\nthe pigmy in his hand, and crushes him against a stone.\n\nThe doctrine which I have just explained evidently shows the value\nof the much vaunted principle of universal toleration; it has been\ndemonstrated that that principle is as impracticable in fact as it is\nunsustainable in theory; consequently all the accusations made against\nthe Catholic Church on the subject of intolerance are overturned. It\nhas been clearly shown that intolerance is in some measure the right of\nall public power; this has always been acknowledged; it is acknowledged\nstill, generally speaking, when philosophers, the partisans of\ntolerance, attain to power. No doubt, governments have a thousand times\nabused this principle; no doubt, more than once the truth has been\npersecuted in virtue of it; but what do men not abuse? Their duty,\nthen, as good philosophers, was not to establish principles that cannot\nbe sustained, and are extremely dangerous; not to declaim to satiety\nagainst the times and institutions which have preceded us; but to\nendeavor to propagate sentiments of mildness and indulgence, and, above\nall, not to impugn important truths, without which society cannot be\nsustained, and which cannot be destroyed without abandoning the world\nto the empire of force, and, consequently, to despotism and tyranny.\n\nMen have attacked dogmas; but they have not been willing to see that\nmorality was intimately connected with dogmas, and that it was itself a\ndogma. By proclaiming unbounded liberty of thought, they have asserted\nthe impeccability of the mind; error has ceased to figure among the\nfaults of which men can be guilty. They have forgotten that, in order\nto _will_, it was necessary to _know_; and that to _will rightly_, it\nwas necessary to _know truly_. If we examine the greater part of the\nerrors of our hearts, we shall see that they have their source in a\nmisunderstanding; is it possible, then, that it should not be the duty\nof man to preserve his mind from error? But since it has been said\nthat opinions are of little importance, that man is free to choose such\nas please him, even in matters of religion and morality, truth has lost\nits value; its intrinsic worth is no longer what it was in the eyes of\nman; and too many consider themselves exempt from attempting to attain\nit,--a deplorable condition of mind, which is one of the greatest evils\nafflicting society.[25]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVI.\n\nON THE INQUISITION IN SPAIN.\n\n\nI find myself naturally led to make a few observations on the\nintolerance of certain Catholic princes, on the Inquisition, and in\nparticular on that of Spain. I must make a rapid examination of the\ncharges against Catholicity on account of its conduct during the last\ncenturies. The dungeons, the burnings of the Inquisition, and the\nintolerance of some Catholic princes, have furnished the enemies of\nthe Church with one of their most effective arguments in depreciating\nher, and rendering her the object of odium and hatred; and it must\nbe allowed that they have, in attacks of this kind, many advantages,\nwhich give them good prospects of success. Indeed (as we have said\nabove, for the generality of readers, who, without undertaking to\nexamine things to the bottom, na\u00efvely allow themselves to be led away\nby a subtle writer; as we have said, for all those who have sensitive\nhearts, and are prompt to pity the unfortunate), what is more likely to\nexcite indignation than the exhibition of dark dungeons, instruments\nof torture, _san-benitos_, and burnings? Imagine what effect must be\nproduced, amid our toleration, our gentle manners, our humane penal\ncodes, by the sudden exhibition of the severities, the cruelties of\nanother age; the whole exaggerated and grouped into one picture,\nwhere are shown all the melancholy scenes which occurred in different\nplaces, and were spread over a long period of time. They take care to\nremind us that all this was done in the name of the God of peace and\nlove; thereby the contrast is rendered more vivid, the imagination\nis excited, the heart becomes indignant; and the result is, that the\nclergy, magistrates, kings, and popes of those remote times, appear\nlike a troop of executioners, whose pleasure consists in tormenting\nand desolating the human race. Writers, who have ventured to act in\nthis way, have certainly not added to their reputation for delicacy of\nconscience. There is a rule which orators and writers ought never to\nforget, viz. that it is not allowable to excite the passions, until\nthey have convinced the reason, unless it had been convinced before.\nBesides, there is a degree of bad faith in appealing to the feelings\nwith respect to matters which ought to be examined by the light of\nreason alone, if they are to be examined properly. In such a case we\nought not to begin by moving, but by convincing; to do otherwise is to\ndeceive the reader.\n\nI am not going to write the history of the Inquisition, or of the\ndifferent systems which various countries have adopted with respect\nto religious intolerance; this would be impossible within my narrow\nlimits; besides, it would lead me away from the object of my work.\nOught we to draw from the Inquisition in general, that of Spain in\nparticular, or from the greater or less intolerance of the legislation\nof some countries, an accusation against Catholicity? Can it, in\nthis respect, be put in comparison with Protestantism? Such are the\nquestions I have to examine.\n\nThree things at first present themselves to the eyes of the observer:\n1st, the legislation and institutions proceeding from the principle of\nintolerance; 2d, the use which has been made of this legislation and\nthese institutions; 3d, the intolerant acts which have been committed\nillegally. With respect to the latter, I must say at once that they\nhave nothing to do with the question. The Massacre of St. Bartholomew,\nand other atrocities committed in the name of religion, ought not to\ntrouble the apologists of religion: to render her responsible for\nall that has been done in her name, would be to act with manifest\ninjustice. Man is endowed with so strong and lively a sense of the\nexcellence of virtue, that he endeavors to cover the greatest crimes\nwith her mantle;--would it be reasonable to banish virtue from the\nearth on that account? There are, in the history of mankind, terrible\nperiods, where a fatal giddiness seizes upon the mind; rage, inflamed\nby disorder, blinds the intellect and changes the heart; evil is\ncalled good, and good evil; the most horrible attempts are made under\nthe most respectable names. Historians and philosophers, in treating\nof such periods, should know what ought to be their line of conduct;\nstrictly accurate in the narration of such facts, they ought to\nbeware of drawing from them a judgment as to the prevailing ideas and\ninstitutions. Society then resembles a man in a state of delirium;\nwe should ill judge of the ideas, character, and conduct of such a\nman, from what he says and does in that deplorable condition. What\nparty, in those calamitous times, can boast of not having committed\ngreat crimes? If we fix our eyes on the period just mentioned, do we\nnot see the leaders of both parties assassinated by treason? Admiral\nColigny died by the hands of the assassins who began the massacre of\nSt. Bartholomew; but the Duke of Guise had been also assassinated\nby Poltrot, before Orleans. Henry III. was assassinated by Jacques\nClement; but this same Henry III. had treacherously murdered the other\nDuke of Guise in the corridors of his palace, and his brother, the\nCardinal, in the tower of Moulins; this same Henry III. had taken\npart in the massacre of St. Bartholomew. We see atrocities committed\nby the Catholics; but did not their opponents also commit them? Let\nus throw a veil over these catastrophes, over these afflicting proofs\nof the misery and perversity of the human heart. The tribunal of\nthe Inquisition, considered in itself, is only the application to a\nparticular case of that doctrine of intolerance, which, to a greater\nor less degree, is that of every existing power. Thus, we have only to\nexamine the character of that particular application, and see whether\nits enemies are correct in their charges against it. In the first\nplace, we must observe that those who extol antiquity, sadly falsify\nhistory, if they pretend that intolerance only appeared after the time\nwhen, according to them, the Church had degenerated from her primitive\npurity. As for myself, I see that from the earliest times, when the\nChurch began to exert political influence, heresy began to figure in\nthe codes as a crime; and I have never been able to discover a period\nof complete tolerance. I must here make an important remark, which\nshows one of the causes of the rigor displayed in later centuries.\nThe Inquisition was first directed against the Manichean heretics;\nthat is, against the sectaries who at all times were treated with\nthe greatest severity. In the 11th century, when the punishment of\nfire had not yet been applied to the crime of heresy, the Manicheans\nwere excepted from this rule. Even in the time of the Pagan emperors,\nthese sectaries were treated with extreme rigor. In the year 296, we\nsee Diocletian and Maximilian, by an edict, condemning to different\npunishments the Manicheans who had not abjured their dogmas, and\nconsigning their leaders to the fire. These sectaries have always been\nconsidered as great criminals; and to punish them has always been\njudged necessary, not only for the interests of religion, but even for\nthe morals and good order of society. This was one of the causes of\nthe rigor of the Inquisition at its commencement: if we add to this,\nthe turbulent character of the sects which, under various names, arose\nin the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries, we shall have two of the causes\nthat contributed to produce those scenes which now we can scarcely\ncredit. In studying the history of those centuries, and fixing our\nattention on the troubles and disasters which ravaged the south of\nFrance, we clearly see that it was not a dispute as to a particular\ndogma, but that the whole social system was compromised. The sectaries\nof those times were precursors of those of the 16th century; with this\ndifference, that the latter, if we except the frantic Anabaptists, were\nless democratic, less apt to address the multitude. Amid the cruelties\nof those times, when long ages of violence and revolution had given an\nexcessive preponderance to brute force, what could be expected from\ngovernments incessantly menaced with such imminent danger? It is clear\nthat the laws, and their application, must savour of the times.\n\nAs to the Spanish Inquisition, which was only an extension of that\nwhich was established in other countries, we must divide it, with\nrespect to its duration, into three great periods;--we omit the time of\nits existence in the kingdom of Aragon, before its introduction into\nCastille. The first of these comprehends the time when the Inquisition\nwas principally directed against the relapsed Jews and Moors, from\nthe day of its installation under the Catholic sovereigns, till the\nmiddle of the reign of Charles V. The second extends from the time\nwhen it began to concentrate its efforts to prevent the introduction\nof Protestantism into Spain, until that danger entirely ceased; that\nis, from the middle of the reign of Charles V. till the coming of\nthe Bourbons. The third and last period is that when the Inquisition\nwas limited to repress infamous crimes, and exclude the philosophy\nof Voltaire; this period was continued until its abolition in the\nbeginning of the present century. It is clear that, the institution\nbeing successively modified according to circumstances at these\ndifferent epochs,--although it always remained fundamentally the\nsame,--the commencement and termination of each of these three periods\nwhich we have pointed out cannot be precisely marked; nevertheless,\nthese three periods really existed in its history, and present us with\nvery different characters.\n\nEvery one knows the peculiar circumstances in which the Inquisition\nwas established in the time of the Catholic sovereigns; yet it is\nworthy of remark, that the Bull of establishment was solicited by Queen\nIsabella; that is, by one of the most distinguished sovereigns in our\nhistory,--by that queen who still, after three centuries, preserves the\nrespect and admiration of all Spaniards. Isabella, far from opposing\nthe will of the people in this measure, only realized the national\nwish. The Inquisition was established chiefly against the Jews; the\nPapal Bull had been sent in 1478; now, before the Inquisition published\nits first edict, dated Seville, in 1481, the Cortes of Toledo, in 1480,\nhad adopted severe measures on the subject. To prevent the injury\nwhich the intercourse between Jews and Christians might occasion to\nthe Catholic faith, the Cortes had ordered that unbaptized Israelites\nshould be obliged to wear a distinctive mark, dwell in separate\nquarters, called _Juiveries_, and return there before night. Ancient\nregulations against them were renewed; the professions of doctor,\nsurgeon, shopkeeper, barber, and tavern-keeper, were forbidden them.\nIntolerance was, therefore, popular at that time. If the Inquisition be\njustified in the eyes of friends to monarchy, by conformity with the\nwill of kings, it has an equal claim to be so in the eyes of lovers of\ndemocracy.\n\nNo doubt the heart is grieved at reading the excessive severities\nexercised at that time against the Jews; but must there not have\nbeen very grave causes to provoke such excesses? The danger which\nthe Spanish monarchy, not yet well established, would have incurred\nif the Jews, then very powerful on account of their riches and their\nalliances with the most influential families, had been allowed to act\nwithout restraint, has been pointed out as one of the most important\nof these causes. It was greatly to be feared that they would league\nwith the Moors against the Christians. The respective positions of the\nthree nations rendered this league natural: this is the reason why it\nwas looked upon as necessary to break a power which was capable of\ncompromising anew the independence of the Christians. It is necessary\nalso to observe, that at the time when the Inquisition was established,\nthe war of eight hundred years against the Moors was not yet finished.\nThe Inquisition was projected before 1474; it was established in\n1480, and the conquest of Granada did not take place till 1492. Thus\nit was founded at the time when the obstinate struggle was about\nto be decided; it was yet to be known whether the Christians would\nremain masters of the whole peninsula, or whether the Moors should\nretain possession of one of the most fertile and beautiful provinces;\nwhether these enemies, shut up in Granada, should preserve a position,\nexcellent for their communication with Africa, and a means for all the\nattempts which, at a later period, the Crescent might be disposed to\nmake against us. Now, the power of the Crescent was very great, as was\nclearly shown by its enterprises against the rest of Europe in the next\ncentury. In such emergencies, after ages of fighting, and at the moment\nwhich was to decide the victory for ever, have combatants ever been\nknown to conduct themselves with moderation and mildness? It cannot be\ndenied that the system of repression pursued in Spain, with respect\nto the Jews and the Moors, was inspired, in great measure, by the\ninstinct of self-preservation: we can easily believe that the Catholic\nprinces had this motive before them when they decided on asking for the\nestablishment of the Inquisition in their dominions. The danger was not\nimaginary: it was perfectly real. In order to form an idea of the turn\nwhich things might have taken if some precaution had not been adopted,\nit is enough to recollect the insurrections of the last Moors in later\ntimes.\n\nYet it would be wrong, in this affair, to attribute all to the policy\nof royalty; and it is necessary here to avoid exalting too much the\nforesight and designs of men; for my part, I am inclined to think that\nFerdinand and Isabella naturally followed the generality of the nation,\nin whose eyes the Jews were odious when they persevered in their creed,\nand suspected when they embraced the Christian religion. Two causes\ncontributed to this hatred and animadversion. First, the excited state\nof religious feeling then general in all Europe, and especially in\nSpain; 2d, the conduct by which the Jews had drawn upon themselves the\npublic indignation.\n\nThe necessity of restraining the cupidity of the Jews, for the sake\nof the independence of the Christians, was of ancient date in Spain:\nthe old assemblies of Toledo had attempted it. In the following\ncenturies the evil reached its height; a great part of the riches of\nthe peninsula had passed into the hands of the Jews, and almost all the\nChristians found themselves their debtors. Thence the hatred of the\npeople against the Jews; thence the frequent troubles which agitated\nsome towns of the peninsula; thence the tumults which more than once\nwere fatal to the Jews, and in which their blood flowed in abundance.\nIt was difficult for a people accustomed for ages to set themselves\nfree by force of arms, to resign themselves peacefully and tranquilly\nto the lot prepared for them by the artifices and exactions of a\nstrange race, whose name, moreover, bore the recollection of a terrible\nmalediction.\n\nIn later times, an immense number of Jews were converted to the\nChristian religion; but the hatred of the people was not extinguished\nthereby, and mistrust followed these converts into their new state. It\nis very probable that a great number of these conversions were hardly\nsincere, as they were partly caused by the sad position in which the\nJews who continued in Judaism were placed. In default of conjectures\nfounded on reason in this respect, we will regard as a sufficient\ncorroboration of our opinion, the multitude of Judaizing Christians\nwho were discovered as soon as care was taken to find out those who\nhad been guilty of apostacy. However this may be, it is certain that\nthe distinction between _new and old_ Christians was introduced;\nthe latter denomination was a title of honor, and the former a\nmark of ignominy; the converted Jews were contemptuously called\n_marranos_,--impure men, pigs. With more or less foundation, they were\naccused of horrible crimes. In their dark assemblies they committed,\nit was said, atrocities which could hardly be believed, for the honor\nof humanity. For example, it was said that, to revenge themselves on\nthe Christians and in contempt of religion, they crucified Christian\nchildren, taking care to choose for the purpose the greatest day\namong Christian solemnities. There is the often-repeated history of\nthe knight of the house of Guzman, who, being hidden one night in the\nhouse of a Jew whose daughter he loved, saw a child crucified at the\ntime when the Christians celebrated the institution of the sacrifice\nof the Eucharist. Besides infanticide, there were attributed to the\nJews, sacrileges, poisonings, conspiracies, and other crimes. That\nthese rumors were generally believed by the people is proved by the\nfact, that the Jews were forbidden by law to exercise the professions\nof doctor, surgeon, barber, and tavern-keeper; this shows what degree\nof confidence was placed in their morality. It is useless to stay to\nexamine the foundations for these sinister accusations. We are not\nignorant how far popular credulity will go, above all when it is under\nthe influence of excited feelings, which makes it view all things\nin the same light. It is enough for us to know that these rumors\ncirculated everywhere and with credit, to understand what must have\nbeen the public indignation against the Jews, and consequently how\nnatural it was that authority, yielding to the impulse of the general\nmind, should be urged to treat them with excessive rigor.\n\nThe situation in which the Jews were placed is sufficient to show, that\nthey might have attempted to act in concert to resist the Christians;\nwhat they did after the death of St. Peter Arbues shows what they\nwere capable of doing on other occasions. The funds necessary for the\naccomplishment of the murder, the pay of the assassins, and the other\nexpenses required for the plot, were collected by means of voluntary\ncontributions imposed on themselves by all the Jews of Aragon. Does not\nthis show an advanced state of organization, which might have become\nfatal if it had not been watched.\n\nIn alluding to the death of St. Peter Arbues, I wish to make an\nobservation on what has been said on this subject, as proving the\nunpopularity of the establishment of the Inquisition in Spain.\nWhat more evident proof, we shall be told, can you have than the\nassassination of the Inquisitor? Is it not a sure sign that the\nindignation of the people was at its height, and that they were quite\nopposed to the Inquisition? Would they otherwise have been hurried\ninto such excesses? If by 'the people' you mean the Jews and their\ndescendants, I will not deny that the establishment of the Inquisition\nwas indeed very odious to them; but it was not so with the rest of the\nnation. The event we are speaking of gave rise to a circumstance which\nproves just the reverse. When the report of the death of the Inquisitor\nwas spread through the town, the people made a fearful tumult to\navenge his death. They spread through the town, they went in crowds in\npursuit of the _new Christians_, so that a bloody catastrophe would\nhave ensued, had not the young Archbishop of Saragossa, Alphonsus of\nAragon, presented himself to the people on horseback, and calmed them\nby the assurance that all the rigor of the laws should fall on the\nheads of the guilty. Was the Inquisition as unpopular as it has been\nrepresented; and will it be said that its adversaries were the majority\nof the people? Why, then, could not the tumult at Saragossa have been\navoided in spite of all the precautions which were no doubt taken\nby the conspirators, at that time very powerful by their riches and\ninfluence?\n\nAt the time of the greatest rigor against the Judaizing Christians,\nthere is a fact worthy of attention. Persons accused, or threatened\nwith the pursuit of the Inquisition, took every means to escape the\naction of that tribunal: they left the soil of Spain and went to\nRome. Would those who imagine that Rome has always been the hotbed of\nintolerance, the firebrand of persecution, have imagined this? The\nnumber of causes commenced by the Inquisition, and summoned from Spain\nto Rome, is countless, during the first fifty years of the existence\nof that tribunal; and it must be added, that Rome always inclined to\nthe side of indulgence. I do not know that it would be possible to\ncite one accused person who, by appealing to Rome, did not ameliorate\nhis condition. The history of the Inquisition at that time is full of\ncontests between the Kings and Popes; and we constantly find, on the\npart of the Holy See, a desire to restrain the Inquisition within the\nbounds of justice and humanity. The line of conduct prescribed by the\ncourt of Rome was not always followed as it ought to have been; thus we\nsee the Popes compelled to receive a multitude of appeals, and mitigate\nthe lot that would have befallen the appellants, if their cause had\nbeen definitely decided in Spain. We also see the Pope name the judge\nof appeal, at the solicitation of the Catholic sovereigns, who desired\nthat causes should be finally decided in Spain: the first of these\njudges was Dr. Inigo Manrique, Archbishop of Seville. Nevertheless, at\nthe end of a short time, the same Pope, in a Bull of the 2d of August,\n1483, said that he had received new appeals, made by a great number\nof the Spaniards of Seville, who had not dared to address themselves\nto the judge of appeal for fear of being arrested. Such was then the\nexcitement of the public mind; such was, at that time, the necessity\nof preventing injustice, or measures of undue severity. The Pope\nadded, that some of those who had had recourse to his justice had\nalready received the absolution of the Apostolical Penitentiary, and\nthat others were about to receive it; he afterwards complained that\nindulgences granted to divers accused persons had not been sufficiently\nrespected at Seville; in fine, after several other admonitions, he\nobserved to Ferdinand and Isabella, that mercy towards the guilty was\nmore pleasing to God than the severity which it was desired to use; and\nhe gave the example of the good Shepherd following the wandering sheep.\nHe ended by exhorting the sovereigns to treat with mildness those who\nvoluntarily confessed their faults, desiring them to allow them to\nreside at Seville, or in some other place they might choose; and to\nallow them the enjoyment of their property, as if they had not been\nguilty of the crime of heresy.\n\nMoreover, it is not to be supposed that the appeals admitted at Rome,\nand by virtue of which the lot of the accused was improved, were\nfounded on errors of form and injustice committed in the application\nof the law. If the accused had recourse to Rome, it was not always\nto demand reparation for an injustice, but because they were sure of\nfinding indulgence. We have a proof of this in the considerable number\nof Spanish refugees convicted at Rome of having fallen into Judaism.\nTwo hundred and fifty of them were found at one time; yet there was not\none capital execution. Some penances were imposed on them, and when\nthey were absolved, they were free to return home, without the least\nmark of ignominy. This took place at Rome in 1498.\n\nIt is a remarkable thing that the Roman Inquisition was never known to\npronounce the execution of capital punishment, although the Apostolic\nSee was occupied during that time by Popes of extreme rigor and\nseverity in all that relates to the civil administration. We find\nin all parts of Europe scaffolds prepared to punish crimes against\nreligion; scenes which sadden the soul were everywhere witnessed. Rome\nis an exception to the rule; Rome, which it has been attempted to\nrepresent as a monster of intolerance and cruelty. It is true, that\nthe Popes have not preached, like Protestants, universal toleration;\nbut facts show the difference between the Popes and Protestants. The\nPopes, armed with a tribunal of intolerance, have not spilled a drop of\nblood; Protestants and philosophers have shed torrents. What advantage\nis it to the victim to hear his executioners proclaim toleration? It\nis adding the bitterness of sarcasm to his punishment. The conduct\nof Rome in the use which she made of the Inquisition, is the best\napology of Catholicity against those who attempt to stigmatize her as\nbarbarous and sanguinary. In truth, what is there in common between\nCatholicity and the excessive severity employed in this place or that,\nin the extraordinary situation in which many rival races were placed,\nin the presence of danger which menaced one of them, or in the interest\nwhich the kings had in maintaining the tranquillity of their states,\nand securing their conquests from all danger? I will not enter into a\ndetailed examination of the conduct of the Spanish Inquisition with\nrespect to Judaizing Christians; and I am far from thinking that the\nrigor which it employed against them was preferable to the mildness\nrecommended and displayed by the Popes. What I wish to show here is,\nthat rigor was the result of extraordinary circumstances,--the effect\nof the national spirit, and of the severity of customs in Europe at\nthat time. Catholicity cannot be reproached with excesses committed\nfor these different reasons. Still more, if we pay attention to the\nspirit which prevails in all the instructions of the Popes relating\nto the Inquisition; if we observe their manifest inclination to\nrange themselves on the side of mildness, and to suppress the marks\nof ignominy with which the guilty, as well as their families, were\nstigmatized, we have a right to suppose that, if the Popes had not\nfeared to displease the kings too much, and to excite divisions which\nmight have been fatal, their measures would have been carried still\nfurther. If we recollect the negotiations which took place with respect\nto the noisy affair of the claims of the Cortes of Aragon, we shall see\nto which side the court of Rome leaned.\n\nAs we are speaking of intolerance with regard to the Judaizers, let us\nsay a few words as to the disposition of Luther towards the Jews. Does\nit not seem that the pretended reformer, the founder of independence of\nthought, the furious declaimer against the oppression and tyranny of\nthe Popes, should have been animated with the most humane sentiments\ntowards that people? No doubt the eulogists of this chieftain of\nProtestantism ought to think thus also. I am sorry for them; but\nhistory will not allow us to partake of this delusion. According to\nall appearances, if the apostate monk had found himself in the place\nof Torquemada, the Judaizers would not have been in a better position.\nWhat, then, was the system advised by Luther, according to Seckendorf,\none of his apologists? \"Their synagogues ought to be destroyed, their\nhouses pulled down, their prayer-books, the Talmud, and even the books\nof the Old Testament, to be taken from them; their rabbis ought to\nbe forbidden to teach, and be compelled to gain their livelihood by\nhard labor.\" The Inquisition, at least, did not proceed against the\nJews, but against the Judaizers; that is, against those who, after\nbeing converted to Christianity, relapsed into their errors, and added\nsacrilege to their apostacy, by the external profession of a creed\nwhich they detested in secret, and which they profaned by the exercise\nof their old religion. But Luther extended his severity to the Jews\nthemselves; so that, according to his doctrines, no reproach can be\nmade against the sovereign who expelled the Jews from their dominions.\n\nThe Moors and the Mooriscoes no less occupied the attention of the\nInquisition at that time; and all that has been said on the subject\nof the Jews may be applied to them with some modifications. They were\nalso an abhorred race--a race which had been contended with for eight\ncenturies. When they retained their religion, the Moors inspired\nhatred; when they abjured it, mistrust; the Popes interested themselves\nin their favor also in a peculiar manner. We ought to remark a Bull\nissued in 1530, which is expressed in language quite evangelical: it is\nthere said, that the ignorance of these nations is one of the principal\ncauses of their faults and errors; the first thing to be done to render\ntheir conversion solid and sincere was, according to the recommendation\ncontained in this Bull, to endeavor to enlighten their minds with sound\ndoctrine.\n\nIt will be said that the Pope granted to Charles V. the Bull which\nreleased him from the oath taken in the Cortes of Saragossa in the year\n1519; an oath, by which he had engaged not to make any change with\nrespect to the Moors; whereby, it is said, the Emperor was enabled to\ncomplete their expulsion. But, we must observe, that the Pope for a\nlong time resisted that concession; and, that if he at length complied\nwith the wishes of the Emperor, it was only because he thought that the\nexpulsion of the Moors was indispensable to secure the tranquillity of\nthe kingdom. Whether this was true or not, the Emperor, and not the\nPope, was the better judge; the latter, placed at a great distance,\ncould not know the real state of things in detail. Moreover, it was not\nthe Spanish monarch alone who thought so; it is related that Francis\nI., when a prisoner at Madrid, one day conversing with Charles V., told\nhim that tranquillity would never be established in Spain, if the Moors\nand Mooriscoes were not expelled.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVII.\n\nSECOND EPOCH OF THE INQUISITION IN SPAIN.\n\n\nIt has been said that Philip II. founded a new Inquisition in Spain,\nmore terrible than that of the Catholic sovereigns; at the same\ntime the Inquisition of Ferdinand and Isabella receives a certain\ndegree of indulgence, which is refused to that of their successors.\nAt the very outset, we find an important historical mistake in this\nassertion. Philip did not establish a new Inquisition; he maintained\nthat which the Catholic sovereigns had left him, and which Charles\nV., his father and predecessor, had particularly recommended to him\nby will. The Committee of the Cortes of Cadiz, in the project for the\nabolition of the tribunal of the Inquisition, excuses the conduct of\nthe Catholic sovereigns, and blames with severity that of Philip II.;\nit attempts to make all the fault and odium fall on that prince. An\nillustrious French writer, very recently treating of this important\nquestion, has allowed himself to be led into the same errors, with\nthat candor which sometimes accompanies genius. \"There were,\" says M.\nLacordaire, \"in the Spanish Inquisition, two solemn periods, which\nmust not be confounded; the one at the end of the fifteenth century,\nunder Ferdinand and Isabella, before the Moors were expelled from\nGranada, their last asylum; the other, in the middle of the sixteenth,\nunder Philip II., when Protestantism threatened to propagate itself in\nSpain. The Committee of the Cortes has perfectly distinguished these\ntwo epochs; and while it stigmatizes the Inquisition of Philip II.,\nexpresses itself with moderation with respect to that of Ferdinand and\nIsabella.\" After these words the writer quotes a text, where it is\naffirmed that Philip II. was the real founder of the Inquisition; if\nthat institution attained in the end to a high degree of power, it was\nowing, it says, to the refined policy of that prince. We read, a little\nfurther on, that Philip II. was the inventor of the _auto-da-f\u00e9_, to\nterrify heretics; and that the first of these bloody spectacles was\nseen at Seville in 1559. (_M\u00e9moire pour le r\u00e9tablissement de l'Ordre\ndes Fr\u00e8res Precheurs_, chap, vi.) Setting aside the historical mistake\nwith respect to the _auto-da-f\u00e9s_, it is well known that neither the\n_san-benitos_ nor the fagots were the invention of Philip II. Such\nmistakes easily escape a writer who is satisfied with alluding to a\nfact incidentally; if we bring forward this one, it is because it\ncontains an accusation against a monarch to whom, for a long time,\ntoo little justice has been done. Philip II. continued the work which\nhad been begun by his predecessors; if they are excused, he ought not\nto be treated with greater severity. Ferdinand and Isabella directed\nthe Inquisition against the apostate Jews; why could not Philip II.\navail himself of it against Protestants? But I shall be told he abused\nhis right and carried rigor to excess. Certainly there was not more\nindulgence in the times of Ferdinand and Isabella. Are the numerous\nexecutions at Seville and other places forgotten? Or what Mariana\nsays in his history, and the public measures taken by the Popes for\nthe purpose of checking the excessive severity? The words quoted\nagainst Philip II. are taken from the work called _La Inquiciti\u00f3n sin\nmascura_ (the Inquisition unveiled,) published in Spain in 1811. We\nmay judge of the value of this authority, when we know that the author\nof the book was distinguished till his death by a deep hatred to the\nSpanish kings. The book bears the name of Nathanael Jomtob; but the\nreal author is a well-known Spaniard, who, in his latter writings,\nseems to have undertaken to avenge, by his unbounded exaggerations\nand furious invectives, all that he had previously attacked; a writer\nwho assails, with an intolerable partiality, all that presents itself\nbefore him--religion, country, classes of society, individuals, and\nopinions--insulting and tearing to pieces all, as if he had been\nseized with a sally of passion, and not even sparing the men of his\nown party. Is it, then, surprising that this writer regarded Philip\nII. as Protestants and philosophers do, that is, as a monarch placed\non the earth for the disgrace and misfortune of humanity,--a monster\nof Machiavellianism, anxious to diffuse darkness, in order to maintain\nhimself in safety in his cruelty and perfidy? I will not undertake\nto justify, on all points, the policy of Philip II.; I will not deny\nthat there are exaggerations in the eulogiums which some Spanish\nwriters have given to that prince. But, on the other hand, it cannot be\ndoubted, that Protestants and the political enemies of Philip II. have\never been careful to denounce him. And do you know why Protestants have\ndone this? It is because it was he who prevented Protestantism from\npenetrating into Spain; it was he who, at that period of agitation,\nmaintained the cause of Catholicity. Let us set aside the great events\nof the rest of Europe, of which each one will judge as he pleases;\nlet us limit ourselves to Spain. We do not fear to assert, that the\nintroduction of Protestantism into that country was imminent and\ninevitable without the system which he pursued. Whether Philip used\nthe Inquisition for political purposes, in certain cases, is not the\nquestion we have to examine here; but at least it must be acknowledged\nthat it was not a mere instrument of ambitious projects; it was an\ninstitution strengthened and maintained in presence of an imminent\ndanger.\n\nIt appears, from the proceedings of the Inquisition at this time,\nthat Protestantism began to spread in an incredible manner in Spain;\neminent ecclesiastics, monks, nuns, seculars of distinction, in a word,\nindividuals of the most influential classes, were attached to the new\nerrors. Could the efforts of Protestants to introduce their creed\ninto Spain remain altogether unproductive, when they employed every\nstratagem in their ardor to introduce their books? They went so far as\nto place their prohibited writings in casks of Champagne and Burgundy\nwine, with so much art as to deceive the custom-house men: thus wrote\nthe Spanish Ambassador at Paris.\n\nTo perceive the whole danger, it is enough to observe with attention\nthe state of minds in Spain at this time; besides, incontestable\nfacts come in support of conjectures. The Protestants, taking great\ncare to declaim against abuses, represented themselves as reformers,\nand labored to draw to their side all who were animated by an ardent\ndesire for reform. This desire for reform had existed for a long time\nin the Church; but with some it was inspired by bad intentions; in\nother words, the specious name of reform concealed the real intention\nof many, which was to destroy. At the same time, with some sincere\nCatholics, this desire, although pure in principle, went to imprudent\nzeal, and reached an ill-regulated ardor. It is probable that such\nzeal, carried to too great an extent, was, with many, changed into\nacrimony; thence a certain facility in receiving the insidious\nsuggestions of the enemies of the Church. Many people who had begun\nwith indiscreet zeal, perhaps fell into exaggeration, then into\nbitterness, and finally into heresy. Spain was not exempt from this\ndisposition of mind, from whence the course of events might have drawn\nvery bitter results, if Protestantism had obtained any footing on our\nsoil. We know that the Spaniards at the Council of Trent distinguished\nthemselves by their reforming zeal, and their boldness in expressing\ntheir opinions. Let us remark, moreover, that religious discord being\nonce introduced into a country, minds are excited by disputes, they are\nirritated by frequent shocks, and it sometimes happens that respectable\nmen precipitate themselves into excesses which they would have abhorred\na short time before. It is difficult to say with precision what would\nhave happened if the rigor had been at all relaxed on this point.\nCertain it is, that, when reading some passages of Luis Vives, of Arias\nMontanus, of Carranza, and of the consultation of Melchior Cano, we can\nfancy we find, at the bottom of their minds, a sort of disquietude and\nagitation, which may best be compared to those heavy murmurings which\nannounce from afar the commencement of a tempest.\n\nThe famous trial of the Archbishop of Toledo, Fray Bartolom\u00e9 de\nCarranza, is one of the facts which are most frequently cited to show\nthe arbitrary nature of the proceedings of the Spanish Inquisition.\nWe certainly cannot see without emotion, shut up in prison for many\nyears, one of the most learned men in Europe, the Archbishop of Toledo,\nhonored with the intimate confidence of Philip II. and the Queen of\nEngland, allied in friendship with the most distinguished men of the\ntime, and known to all Christendom by the brilliant part which he had\nplayed at the Council of Trent. The process lasted seventeen years;\nand although the cause was carried to Rome, where the Archbishop must\nhave found powerful friends, a declaration of innocence in his favor\ncould not be obtained. Without staying to notice the many incidents\nof a cause so long and so complicated, without insisting on the more\nor less reason which the discourses and writings of Carranza may have\nafforded for suspicions against his faith, I am quite certain, in my\nown mind, that, in his own conscience and before God, he was perfectly\ninnocent. Here is a proof that places my opinion beyond a doubt. A\nshort time after the judgment was given, he fell ill; his malady was\nsupposed to be mortal, and the sacraments were administered to him.\nAt the moment of receiving the Viaticum, in the presence of a large\nconcourse, he declared, in the most solemn manner, that he had never\nleft the Catholic faith, that his conscience acquitted him of all the\naccusations made against him; and he confirmed his declaration by\ncalling to witness God, in whose presence he was, whom he was about to\nreceive under the most sacred species, and before whose awful tribunal\nhe was in a few moments to appear. This pathetic act drew tears from\nall present; all suspicions against him were dissipated as by a breath,\nand a new sympathy was added to that which his continued misfortunes\nhad excited. The Sovereign Pontiff did not doubt the sincerity of the\ndeclaration, as a magnificent epitaph was placed upon his tomb, which\ncertainly would not have been allowed if there had been the least doubt\nof it. It certainly would be rash to refuse to believe a declaration so\nexplicit from the mouth of such a man as Carranza, expiring, and in the\npresence of Jesus Christ Himself.\n\nAfter having paid this tribute to the knowledge, virtues, and\nmisfortunes of Carranza, it remains for us to examine whether, whatever\nmay have been the purity of his conscience, it can be justly said that\nhis trial was a perfidious intrigue, carried on by envy and hatred.\nThis is not the place to examine the immense procedure in this case;\nbut since allusion has been made to it to condemn Philip II. and the\nadversaries of Carranza, I wish, in my turn, to make some observations,\nto endeavor to place the affair in its proper light. In the first\nplace, is it not astonishing that a trial devoid of all foundation\nshould have had so extraordinary a duration? At least there must have\nbeen some appearance of it. Besides, if the cause had been decided in\nSpain, the length of the trial might not have been so extraordinary.\nBut it was not so; the cause remained pending in Rome many years. Were\nthe judges so blind or so wicked that they could not discover the\ncalumny, or that they wanted the virtue to destroy it, supposing it\nto have been as clear and evident as it has been pretended? It may be\nreplied to this, that the intrigues of Philip II., who was determined\non the destruction of the Archbishop, prevented the truth from\nappearing; in proof of this assertion, have we not the difficulties\nwhich the king made to allow the prisoner to be transferred to Rome?\nIt was necessary, it is said, for Pius V. to effect this by the threat\nof excommunication. I will not deny that Philip II. attempted to\naggravate the situation of the Archbishop, and wished for a sentence\nlittle favorable to the illustrious accused. Yet, before deciding\nthat the conduct of the king was criminal, we must know whether he\nacted thus from personal resentment, from conviction, or from the\nsuspicion that the Archbishop inclined towards Lutheranism. Carranza,\nbefore his disgrace, was highly favored and esteemed by Philip, as\nappears from the missions which were confided to him in England, and\nfrom his elevation to the first ecclesiastical dignity in Spain. How,\nthen, can we presume that so much good-will was converted on a sudden\ninto personal and violent hatred? Is it not, at least, necessary that\nhistory should afford a fact in support of this conjecture? Now, I find\nthis nowhere in history, nor am I aware that others have done so. If\nPhilip took so decided a part against the Archbishop, it was evidently\nbecause he believed, or strongly suspected him of being heretical. In\nthat case, Philip may have been rash, imprudent--all that you please;\nbut it cannot be said that, in the pursuit, he was moved by the spirit\nof vengeance, or by low animosity.\n\nOther men of the time were equally accused. Among the rest, Melchior\nCano. Carranza himself seemed to be suspicious; he bitterly complained\nthat Melchior Cano had ventured to say that the Archbishop was as\nheretical as Luther. But Salazar de Mendoza, when relating the fact in\nthe life of Carranza, asserts that Cano, hearing this, openly denied\nit, saying, that he had said nothing of the kind. Indeed, the mind\nis easily inclined to believe him; men with intellects as favored as\nhis, have, in their own dignity, too powerful a preservative against\nbaseness, to allow them to be suspected of playing the infamous part of\ncalumniators.\n\nI do not believe that it is necessary to seek for the cause of the\nmisfortunes of Carranza in private hatred or jealousy; it is found\nin the critical circumstances of the time, and in the character of\nthis illustrious man himself. The grave symptoms which produced alarm\nlest Protestantism might make proselytes in Spain; the efforts of\nthe Protestants to introduce their books and emissaries there; the\nexperience of what happened in other countries, and particularly in\nthe kingdom of France, created so much dread in men's minds, rendered\nthem so fearful and mistrustful, that the least suspicion of error,\nabove all, in persons elevated in dignity or distinguished for their\nknowledge, occasioned disquietude and apprehension. We are aware of\nthe hot disputes which took place with respect to the Polyglot of\nAntwerp and Arias Montanus, and we are not ignorant of the sufferings\nof the famous Fray Luis de Leon, and some other illustrious men of that\ntime. Another conjuncture which contributed to push things to extremes\nwas, the political situation of Spain with respect to strangers.\nThe Spanish monarchy had too many enemies and rivals for her not to\nhave reason to fear that heresy, in the hands of her adversaries,\nwould become a means of introducing discord and civil war into her\nbosom. These causes united, naturally rendered Philip suspicious and\nmistrustful; the hatred of heresy combining in his mind with the desire\nof self-preservation, he showed himself severe and inexorable with\nrespect to all that could affect the purity of the Catholic faith in\nhis empire.\n\nOn the other hand, it must be acknowledged that the character of\nCarranza was not exactly what was required, in such critical times,\nto avoid all dangerous wanderings. We perceive, in reading his\ncommentaries on the Catechism, that he was a man of acute penetration,\nof vast erudition, of profound learning, of severe character, and of a\nheart generous and frank. He spoke his thoughts without circumlocution,\nwithout regard to the displeasure which his words might give to this\nperson or that. When he believed that he had discovered an abuse,\nhe pointed it out and condemned it openly, wherein he resembled his\nsupposed adversary, Melchior Cano, in more features than one. The\naccusations against him in the trial were founded, not only on his\nwritings, but also on some of his sermons and private conversations.\nI know not to what extent he exceeded the just limits; but I hesitate\nnot to affirm, that a man who wrote in the tone which we find in his\nworks, must have expressed himself _viva voce_ with great force, and\nperhaps with excessive boldness. It must be added, to speak the whole\ntruth, that when treating of justification, in his commentaries on\nthe Catechism, he does not explain himself with all the clearness\ndesirable, and is wanting in the simplicity required by the unhappy\ncircumstances of the times. Men versed in this delicate matter know how\ndelicate certain points are. These points were then the subject of the\nerrors of Germany; and it may be easily imagined how much the attention\nmust have been fixed on the words of Carranza, and how alarming the\nleast shadow of ambiguity must have been. It is certain that, at Rome\nhe was not acquitted of all the accusations; he was compelled to abjure\na series of propositions, with respect to which he was judged liable\nto suspicion; and some penances were imposed on him. Carranza on his\ndeath-bed protested his innocence; but he took care to declare that\nhe did not regard the sentence of the Pope as unjust. The explanation\nof the enigma is this: the innocence of the heart is not always\naccompanied by the prudence of the lips.\n\nI have dwelt upon this famous cause because it involves considerations\nwhich strikingly exhibit the spirit of the age. These considerations\nhave, besides, the advantage of showing the truth in its proper light,\nand prevent every thing being explained according to the wretched\nmeasure of the malice of men. There is unhappily a tendency to explain\nall in this way; and it may be truly said, that men too often give a\njust foundation for it; yet, whenever there is no evident necessity\nto do so, we ought to abstain from condemnation. The picture of the\nhistory of humanity is sombre enough in itself; let us not take\npleasure in darkening it still more by new stains. We often call crime\nthat which was only ignorance. Man is inclined to evil; but he is not\nless subject to error, and error is not always culpable.\n\nMoreover, I believe that to Protestants themselves were owing the rigor\nand anxious mistrust which the Inquisition of Spain displayed at that\ntime. They excited a religious revolution; and it is a constant law,\nthat all revolutions either destroy the power assailed, or render it\nmore harsh and severe. What before was looked upon as indifferent, is\nnow considered as suspected; and what, in all other circumstances,\nwould only have appeared a fault, is now regarded as a crime. Men are\nin continual dread of seeing liberty converted into licentiousness;\nand as revolutions destroy all, while they profess to reform,\nwhoever ventures to speak of reform, runs the risk of being blamed\nas a disturber. Even prudent conduct is stigmatized as hypocritical\ncaution; frank and sincere language is termed insolence and dangerous\nsuggestion; reserve is a concealment full of cunning; even silence\nitself assumes a meaning--it becomes alarming dissimulation. We have\nseen so many things come to pass in our days, that we are placed in\nan incomparable situation easily to understand the various phases of\nthe history of humanity. It is an undoubted fact, that Protestantism\nproduced a reaction in Spain. Its errors and excesses were the\nreason why the ecclesiastical and civil power infinitely restrained\nthe liberty which had been previously enjoyed in all that related to\nreligion. Spain was preserved from the Protestant doctrines, when all\nthe probabilities were in favor of their being introduced there, in one\nway or another. It is clear that this could not be obtained without\nextraordinary efforts. Spain, at that time, appears to me like a place\nbesieged by a powerful enemy, where the leaders continually watched,\nnot only against attacks from without, but also against treason from\nwithin. I will confirm these observations by an example, which will\nserve for many others. Let us remember what took place with respect\nto Bibles in the vulgar tongue; we shall then have an idea of what\npassed with relation to all the rest, according to the natural order\nof things. I have before me a testimony of what I have just said, as\nrespectable as it is worthy of interest--that of Carranza himself.\nHear what he says in his prologue to his commentaries on the Christian\nCatechism: \"Before the heresies of Luther had come from the infernal\nregions to the light of this world, I do not know that the Holy\nScriptures in the vulgar tongue were anywhere forbidden. In Spain,\nBibles were translated into it by order of the Catholic sovereigns,\nat the time when the Moors and Jews were allowed to live among the\nChristians according to their own law. After the expulsion of the Jews\nfrom Spain, the judges of religion found that some of those who had\nbeen converted to our holy faith instructed their children in Judaism,\nand taught them the ceremonies of the law of Moses by means of those\nBibles in the vulgar tongue, which they took care to have printed in\nItaly, in the town of Ferrara. This is the real cause why Bibles in the\nvulgar tongue were forbidden in Spain; but the possession and reading\nof them were always allowed to colleges and monasteries, as well as\nto persons of distinction above all suspicion.\" Carranza continues to\ngive, in a few words, the history of these prohibitions in Germany,\nFrance, and other countries; then he adds: \"In Spain, which was, and\nstill is, by the grace and goodness of God, pure from the cockle, care\nwas taken to forbid generally all the translations of the Scriptures in\nthe vulgar tongue, in order to prevent strangers having an opportunity\nof holding controversy with simple and ignorant persons, and also\nbecause they had, and still have, experience of certain particular\ncases, and of the errors which began to arise in Spain from the\nill-understood reading of certain passages of the Bible. What I have\njust stated is the real history of what took place; this is why the\nBible in the vulgar tongue was prohibited.\"\n\nThis curious passage of Carranza shows us, in a few words, the progress\nof things. At first there was no prohibition; but the abuse committed\nby the Jews provoked one, although still confined, as we have just\nseen, within certain limits. Afterwards came the Protestants, upsetting\nall Europe by means of their Bibles; Spain is threatened with the\nintroduction of the new errors; it is discovered that some persons\nhave been misled by the false interpretation of certain passages of\nthe Bible; they are compelled to take away this weapon from these\nstrangers, who attempt to use it to seduce simple people: from that\ntime the prohibition becomes rigorous and general.\n\nTo return to Philip II., let us not forget that this monarch was one\nof the firmest defenders of the Catholic Church; and that in him was\npersonified the policy of the faithful ages, amid the vertigo which,\nunder the impulse of Protestantism, had taken possession of European\npolicy. If the Catholic Church, amid these great perturbations, could\nreckon on a powerful protection from the princes of the earth, it was\nin great measure owing to Philip II. This age was critical and decisive\nin Europe. If it is true that he was unfortunate in Flanders, it is\nnot less undoubted that his power and ability afforded a counterpoise\nto the Protestant power, which prevented it making itself master of\nEurope. Even supposing that the efforts of Philip had only the result\nof gaining time, by breaking the first shock of the Protestant policy,\nthis was not a slight service rendered to the Catholic Church, then\nattacked on so many sides. What would have happened to Europe, if\nProtestantism had been introduced into Spain as into France? if the\nHuguenots had been able to count on the assistance of the Peninsula?\nAnd what would have happened in Italy, if she had not been held in\nrespect by the power of Philip? Would not the sectaries of Germany have\nsucceeded in introducing their errors there? Here I appeal to all men\nwho are acquainted with history, whether, if Philip had abandoned his\nmuch-decried policy, the Catholic religion would not have run the risk\nof finding itself, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, under\nthe hard necessity of existing only as a tolerated religion in the\ngenerality of the kingdoms of Europe? Now, we know what this toleration\nis worth to the Catholic Church; England has told us for centuries;\nPrussia shows us at this moment, and Russia adds her testimony in\na manner still more lamentable. Such is the point of view in which\nwe must consider Philip II. One is forced to allow that, considered\nin this way, that prince is a great historical personage,--one of\nthose who have left the deepest marks on the policy of the age which\nfollowed,--one of those who exert the greatest influence after them on\nthe course of events.\n\nSpaniards, who anathematize the founder of the Escurial, have you,\nthen, forgotten our history, or do you esteem it of no value? Do you\nstigmatize him as an odious tyrant? Do you not know that, in denying\nhis glory, in covering it with ignominy, you efface a feature of your\nown glory, and throw into the mud the diadem which encircled the brows\nof Ferdinand and Isabella? If you cannot pardon Philip II. for having\nsustained the Inquisition,--if that reason alone obliges you to load\nhis name with execration, do the same with his illustrious father,\nCharles V.; and, going back to Isabella of Castille, write also on\nthe list of the tyrants and scourges of humanity that name which\nwas venerated by both worlds, and which is the emblem of the glory\nand power of the Spanish monarchy. They all took part in the fact\nwhich excites your indignation; do not curse some, while you lavish\nhypocritical indulgence on the others. If that indulgence is found in\nyour words, it is that the feeling of nationality which beats in your\nbosom compels you to partiality--to inconsistency; you recoil when you\nare about to efface the glories of Spain with a stroke of the pen--to\nwither all her laurels--to deny your country. We have nothing left,\nunfortunately, but great recollections; let us at least avoid despising\nthem: these recollections are, in a nation, like the titles of ancient\nnobility in a fallen family; they raise the mind, they fortify the soul\nin adversity; and, nourishing hope in the bottom of the heart, they\nserve to prepare what is to come.\n\nThe immediate effect of the introduction of Protestantism into Spain\nwould have been, as in other countries, civil war; and this war\nwould have been more fatal to us than to other people, because the\ncircumstances were much more critical for us. The unity of the Spanish\nmonarchy could not have resisted the shocks and disturbances of\nintestine dissension; the different parts were so heterogeneous among\nthemselves, and were so slightly united, that the least blow would\nhave parted them. The laws and manners of the kingdoms of Navarre and\nAragon were very different from those of Castille; a lively feeling\nof independence, supported by frequent meetings of their own Cortes,\nwas kept alive in the hearts of those unconquered nations; they would\ncertainly have availed themselves of the first opportunity to shake\noff a yoke which was not pleasing to them. Moreover, in the other\nprovinces, factions were not wanting to distract the country. The\nmonarchy would have been miserably divided at a time when it was\nnecessary to make head in the affairs of Europe, Africa, and America.\nThe Moors were still in sight of our coasts; the Jews had not had time\nto forget Spain: certainly both would have availed themselves of the\nconjuncture to raise themselves by means of our discords. On the policy\nof Philip depended not only the tranquillity, but perhaps even the\nexistence of the Spanish monarchy. He is now accused of having been a\ntyrant; if he had pursued another course, he would have been taxed with\nincapacity and weakness.\n\nOne of the most unjust attacks of the enemies of religion against\nher friends is, to attribute bad faith to them, to accuse them of\nhaving in every thing false intentions, tortuous and interested views.\nWhen they speak of the Machiavellianism of Philip II., they suppose\nthat the Inquisition, while apparently only religious in its object,\nwas, in reality, an obedient instrument of policy in the hands of a\ncrafty monarch. Nothing is more specious to the man in whose eyes\nhistory is only a matter for piquant and malicious observations; but\nnothing is more false according to facts. Some people, seeing in the\nInquisition an extraordinary tribunal, have not been able to imagine\nthe existence of that exceptional tribunal, without supposing, in the\nmonarch who sustained and encouraged it, profound reasons, and views\ncarried much further than appears on the surface of things. They have\nnot been willing to see that an epoch has its spirit, its own manner\nof regarding things, its own system of action, both in doing good\nand in preventing evil. During those times, when all the nations of\nEurope appealed to fire and sword to decide questions of religion,\nwhen Protestants and Catholics burnt their adversaries, when England,\nFrance, and Germany assisted at the bloodiest scenes, to bring a\nheretic to the scaffold was a natural and customary thing, which gave\nno shock to prevailing ideas. We feel our hair grow stiff on our heads\nat the mere idea of burning a man alive. Placed in society where the\nreligious sentiment is considerably diminished; accustomed to live\namong men who have a different religion, and sometimes none at all; we\ncannot bring ourselves to believe that it could be at that time quite\nan ordinary thing to see heretics or the impious led to punishment.\nBut, if we read the authors of the time, we shall see the immense\ndifference on this point between their manners and ours; and we shall\nremark, that our language of moderation and toleration would not even\nhave been understood by the man of the sixteenth century.\n\nDo you know what Carranza himself, who suffered so much from the\nInquisition, thought of this matter? Every time that he has occasion\nto touch on this point in the work which I have quoted, he expresses\nthe ideas of his time, without even staying to prove them; he gives\nthem as undoubted principles. In England, with Queen Mary, he did not\nfear to express his opinions as to the rigor with which heretics ought\nto be treated; and he was certainly far from suspecting that his name\nwould one day be made use of to attack this intolerance. Kings and\npeoples, ecclesiastics and seculars, were all agreed on this point.\nWhat would be said now-a-days of a king who would carry with his own\nhands the wood to burn heretics, and would condemn blasphemers to\nhave their tongues pierced with a hot iron? Now, the first of these\nthings is related of St. Ferdinand, and we know that the second was\ndone by St. Louis. We now exclaim in seeing Philip II. assisting at\nan _auto-da-f\u00e9_; but, if we consider that the court, the great men,\nall that was most select in society, surrounded the king on these\noccasions, we shall understand that, if this spectacle is horrible\nand intolerable to us, it was not so in the eyes of those men, widely\ndifferent from us in ideas and feelings. And let it not be said that\nthey were forced there by the will of the monarch,--that they were\ncompelled to obey: this was not the effect of the monarch's will; it\nwas only a consequence of the spirit of the age. No monarch would have\nbeen sufficiently powerful to perform such a ceremony, if the spirit\nof the age had been opposed to it; besides, no monarch is so hard and\ninsensible as not to feel the influence of the times in which he lives.\nSuppose the most absolute despot of our time, Napoleon, at the height\nof his power, or the present Emperor of Russia, and see whether they\ncould thus violate the manners of the age.\n\nAn anecdote is related which is little adapted to confirm the opinion\nof those who assert that the Inquisition was a political instrument in\nthe hands of Philip. As it paints in a curious and interesting manner\nthe customs and ideas of the age, I will insert it here. Philip II.\nheld his court at Madrid; a certain preacher, in a sermon delivered in\npresence of the king, advanced, that _sovereigns had an absolute power\nover the persons as well as over the property of their subjects_. The\nproposition was not of a nature to displease a king; the preacher at\none blow relieved kings from all control over the exercise of their\npower. Now, it seems that at that time all men were not in such abject\nsubjection to despotic control as we have been led to believe; some\none was found to denounce to the Inquisition the words in which the\npreacher had not been ashamed to flatter the absolute power of kings.\nSurely the orator had chosen a secure asylum; and our readers may well\nsuppose that this denunciation coming into collision with the power of\nPhilip, the Inquisition would have maintained a prudent silence. Yet\nit was not so: the Inquisition made an inquiry, found the proposition\ncontrary to sound doctrine, and the preacher, who was perhaps far from\nexpecting such a reward, had divers penances imposed on him, and was\ncondemned to retract publicly his proposition in the same place where\nhe had made it. The retractation took place with all the ceremonies\nof a juridical proceeding; the preacher declared that he retracted\nhis proposition as erroneous; he explained the reasons by reading,\nas he had been directed, the following words, well worthy of remark:\n\"_Indeed, messieurs, kings have no other power over their subjects\nthan that which is given to them by the divine and human law; they\nhave none proceeding from their own free and absolute will._\" This is\nrelated by D. Antonio Perez, as may be seen at length in the note which\ncorresponds to the present chapter. We know, moreover, that he was not\na fanatical partisan of the Inquisition.\n\nThis took place at the time which some persons never mention without\nstigmatizing it with the words obscurantism, tyranny, and superstition.\nYet I doubt whether, at a time nearer to us--that, for example, when it\nis asserted that light and liberty dawned on Spain under the reign of\nCharles III.--a public and solemn condemnation of despotism would have\nbeen carried so far. This condemnation, at the time of Philip II., did\nas much honor to the tribunal which ordered it as to the monarch who\nconsented to it.\n\nWith respect to knowledge, it is a calumny to say that a design was\nformed to maintain and perpetuate ignorance. Certainly the conduct\nof Philip does not indicate such a design, when we see this prince,\nnot content with favoring the great enterprise of the Polyglot of\nAntwerp, recommending to Arias Montanus to devote to the purchase of\nchosen works, printed or manuscript, the money which would revert to\nthe printer Plantinus, to whom the king had advanced a large sum to\naid in the enterprise. This chosen collection was to be placed in the\nlibrary of the monastery of the Escurial, which was then built. The\nking had also charged _Don Francis de Alaba, his ambassador in France,\nto collect in that kingdom the best books which it was possible for him\nto procure_, as he himself says in his letter to Arias Montanus. No;\nthe history of Spain, with respect to intolerance in religious matters,\nis not so black as it has been represented. When foreigners reproach us\nwith cruelty, we will reply that, when Europe was stained with blood\nby civil wars, Spain was at peace. As to the number of persons who\nperished on the scaffold or died in exile, we challenge the two nations\nwho claim to be at the head of civilization, France and England, to\nshow us their statistics on that subject at the same time, and to\ncompare them with ours: we do not fear the comparison.\n\nIn proportion as the danger of the introduction of Protestantism into\nSpain diminished, so did the rigor of the Inquisition. We may observe,\nmoreover, that the procedure of that tribunal always became milder,\nin accordance with the spirit of criminal legislation in the other\ncountries of Europe. Thus we see the _auto-da-f\u00e9_ becoming more rare\nas we approach our own times, so that, at the end of the last century,\nthe Inquisition was only a shadow of what it had been. It is useless\nto insist on this point, which nobody denies, and on which we are in\nunison with the most ardent enemies of that tribunal; and this it is\nwhich, in our eyes, proves, in the most convincing manner, that we must\nseek in the ideas and manners of the time, what people have attempted\nto find in the cruelty, in the wickedness, or in the ambition of men.\nIf the doctrines of those who plead for the abolition of the punishment\nof death are carried into effect, posterity, when reading the\nexecutions of our time, will be seized with the same horror with which\nwe view the punishment of times past, and the gibbet and the guillotine\nwill figure in the same rank as the ancient Quemaderos.[26]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVIII.\n\nRELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THEMSELVES.\n\n\nReligious institutions are another of those points whereon\nProtestantism and Catholicity are in complete opposition to each\nother: the first abhors, the second loves them; the one destroys them,\nthe other establishes and encourages them. One of the first acts of\nProtestantism, whenever it is introduced, is to attack religious\ninstitutions by its doctrines and its acts; it labors to destroy them\nimmediately; one would say that the pretended Reformation cannot behold\nwithout irritation those holy abodes, which continually remind it of\nthe ignominious apostacy of its founder. Religious vows, especially\nthat of chastity, have been the subject of the most cruel invectives\non the part of Protestants; but it must be observed, that what is said\nnow, and what has been repeated for three centuries, is only the echo\nof the first voice which was raised in Germany; and what was that\nvoice? It was the voice of a monk without modesty, who penetrated into\nthe sanctuary and carried away a victim. All the pomp of learning\nemployed to combat a sacred dogma is insufficient to hide so impure an\norigin. Through the excitement of the false prophet we perceive the\nimpure flames which devour his heart.\n\nLet us observe in passing, that the same thing took place with respect\nto the celibacy of the clergy. Protestants, from the beginning, could\nnot endure this; they threw off the mask, and condemned it without\ndisguise; they attempted to combat it with a certain ostentation of\nlearning; but, at the bottom of all their declamation, what do we find?\nThe clamor of a priest who has forgotten his duty; who strives against\nthe remorse of his conscience, and endeavors to hide his shame by\ndiminishing the horror of the scandal by the allegations of falsehood.\nIf such conduct had been pursued by the Catholics, all the arms of\nridicule would have been employed to cover them with contempt, to stamp\nit, as it deserves, with the brand of infamy; but it was a man who\ndeclared deadly war against Catholicity: that was enough to turn away\nthe contempt of philosophers, and find indulgence for the declamation\nof a monk whose first argument against celibacy was, to profane his\nvows and consummate a sacrilege.\n\nThe rest of the disturbers of that age imitated the example of\nso worthy a master. All demanded and required from Scripture and\nphilosophy a veil to cover their weakness and baseness. Just\npunishment! blindness of the mind was the result of corruption of the\nheart; impudence sought and obtained the companionship of error. Never\nis the mind more vile than when, to excuse a fault, it becomes the\naccomplice of it; then it is not deceived, but prostituted.\n\nThis hatred of religious institutions has been inherited by philosophy\nfrom Protestantism. This is the reason why all revolutions, excited and\nguided by Protestants or philosophers, have been signalized by their\nintolerance towards the institutions themselves, and by their cruelty\ntowards those who belonged to them. What the law could not do was\ncompleted by the dagger and the torch of the incendiary. What escaped\nthe catastrophe was left to the slow punishment of misery and famine.\nOn this point, as well as on many others, it is manifest that the\ninfidel philosophy is the daughter of the Reformation. It is useless\nto seek for a more convincing proof of this than the parallel of the\nhistories of both, in all that relates to the destruction of religious\ninstitutions; the same flattery of kings, the same exaggeration of the\ncivil power, the same declamation against the pretended evil inflicted\non society, the same calumnies; we have only to change the names and\nthe dates. And we must also remark this peculiarity, that, in this\nmatter, the difference which, apparently, ought to have resulted from\nthe progress of toleration and the softening of manners in recent\ntimes, has scarcely been felt.\n\nBut is it true that religious institutions are as contemptible as\nthey have been represented? is it true that they do not even deserve\nattention, and that all the questions relating to them can be solved\nby merely pronouncing the word fanaticism? Does not the man of\nobservation, the real philosopher, find in them any thing worthy of\nattracting his attention? It is difficult to believe that such was the\nnullity of these institutions, whose history is so grand, and which\nstill preserve in their existence the promise of a great future. It is\ndifficult to believe that such institutions are not worthy of attention\nin the highest degree, and that their study is wholly devoid of lively\ninterest and solid profit. We see them appear at every epoch of Church\nhistory; their memorials and monuments are found every moment under\nour feet; they are preserved in the regions of Asia, in the sands of\nAfrica, in the cities and solitudes of America; in fine, when, after\nso much adversity, we see them more or less prosperous in the various\ncountries of Europe, sending forth again fresh shoots in those lands\nwhere their roots had been the most deeply torn up, there naturally\narises in the mind a spirit of curiosity to examine this phenomenon,\nto inquire what is the origin, the genius, and the character of these\ninstitutions. Those who love to descend into the heart of philosophical\nquestions discover, at first sight, that there must be there an\nabundant mine of the most precious information for the science of\nreligion, of society, and of man. He who has read the lives of the\nancient fathers of the desert without being touched, without feeling\nprofound admiration, and being filled with grave and lofty thoughts; he\nwho, treading under his feet with indifference the ruins of an ancient\nabbey, has not called up in fancy the shades of the cenobites who lived\nand died there; he who passes coldly through the corridors and cells\nof convents half-demolished, and feels no recollections, and not even\nthe curiosity to examine,--he may close the annals of history, and may\ncease to study the beautiful and the sublime. There exist for him no\nhistorical phenomena, no beauty, no sublimity; his mind is in darkness,\nhis heart is in the dust.\n\nWith the intention of hiding the intimate connection which subsists\nbetween religious institutions and religion herself, it has been said\nthat she can exist without them. This is an incontrovertible truth, but\nabstract and wholly useless--a barren and isolated assertion, which\ncan throw no light upon science, nor serve as any practical guide--an\ninsidious truth, which only tends entirely to change the whole state\nof the question, and persuade men that when religious institutions are\nconcerned, religion has nothing to do with the matter. There is here a\ngross sophism, which is too much employed, not only on this question,\nbut on many others. This consists in replying to all difficulties by\na proposition perfectly true in itself, but which has nothing to do\nwith the question. By this means, attention is turned another way; the\npalpable truth which is presented to the mind makes men wander from the\nprincipal object, and induces them to take that for a solution which\nis only a distraction. With respect, for example, to the support of\nthe clergy and divine worship, it is said, \"Temporals are altogether\ndifferent from spirituals.\" When the ministers of religion are\nsystematically calumniated, \"Religion,\" they say, \"is one thing, and\nher ministers are another.\" If it is wished to represent the conduct\nof Rome for many centuries as an uninterrupted chain of injustice,\nof corruption, and of invasion of right, all reply is anticipated by\nsaying, \"The supremacy of the Sovereign Pontiff has nothing to do with\nthe vices of Popes or their ambition.\" Reflections perfectly just, and\ntruths palpable, no doubt, which are very useful in certain cases,\nbut which writers of bad faith cunningly employ to conceal from the\nreader the real object they have in view. Such are the jugglers who\nattract the attention of the simple multitude on one side, while their\ncompanions perform their criminal operations on the other.\n\nBecause a thing is not necessary to the existence of another, it does\nnot follow that the first does not originate in the second,--does not\nfind in the spirit of the latter its peculiar and permanent existence,\nand that a system of intimate and delicate relation does not subsist\nbetween them. The tree can subsist without flowers and fruits; these\ncan certainly fall without destroying the trunk; but as long as the\ntree shall exist, will it ever cease to give proofs of its vigor and\nits beauty, and to offer its flowers to the eye, and its fruits to\nthe taste? The stream may constantly flow in its crystal bed without\nthe green margin which embellishes its sides; but while its source is\nnot dried up--as long as the fertilizing water penetrates the ground,\ncan its favored banks remain dry, barren, without color and ornament?\nLet us apply these images to our subject. It is certain that religion\ncan exist without religious communities, and that their ruin does not\nnecessarily entail that of religion herself. More than once it has\nbeen seen that in countries where religious institutions have been\ndestroyed, the Catholic faith has been long preserved. But it is not\nless certain, that there is a necessary dependence between them and\nreligion; that is, that she has given being to them, that she animates\nthem with her spirit, and nourishes them with her substance: this\nis the reason why they immediately germinate wherever the Catholic\nfaith takes root; and if they have been driven from a country where\nshe continues to exist, they will reappear. Without alluding to the\nexamples of other countries, do we not see this phenomenon take place\nin France in a remarkable manner? The number of convents of men and\nwomen which are again established on the French soil is already very\nconsiderable. Who would have told the men of the Constituent Assembly,\nthe Legislative Assembly, the Convention, that half a century should\nnot elapse without seeing religious institutions reappear and flourish\nin France, in spite of all their efforts to destroy even their memory?\n\"If that happen,\" they would have said, \"it will be because the\nrevolution which we are making will not be allowed to triumph--because\nEurope will have again imposed despotism upon us; then, and then only,\nwill be witnessed in France--in Paris--in this capital of the Christian\nworld--the re-establishment of religious institutions, that legacy of\nfanaticism and superstition, transmitted to us by the ideas and manners\nof an age which has passed away, never to return.\"\n\nSenseless men! your revolution _has_ triumphed; you _have_ conquered\nEurope; the old principles of the French monarchy _have_ been erased\nfrom legislation, institutions, and manners; the genius of war has led\nyour doctrines in triumph over Europe, and they were gilded by the\nrays of your glory. Your principles, all your recollections have again\ntriumphed at a recent period; they still live in all their force and\npride, personified in some men who glory in being the heirs of what\nthey call the glorious Revolution of '89; and yet, in spite of so many\ntriumphs, although your revolution has only receded as much as was\nnecessary the better to secure its conquests, religious institutions\nhave again arisen--they extend, they are propagated everywhere, and\nthey regain an important place in the annals of our times. To prevent\nthis revival, it would have been necessary to extirpate religion;\nit was not enough to persecute her; faith remained like a precious\ngerm covered by stones and thorns; Providence sends down a ray of\nthat divine star which softens stones, and gives life and fertility;\nthe tree rises again in all its beauty, in spite of the ruins which\nhindered its growth and development, and its leaves are immediately\ncovered with charming blossoms:--behold the religious institutions\nwhich you thought were for ever annihilated!\n\nThe example which we have just mentioned clearly shows the truth of\nwhat we wish to establish, with respect to the intimate connection\nwhich exists between religion and religious institutions. Church\nhistory furnishes proofs in support of this truth. Besides, the mere\nknowledge of religion, and of the nature of the institutions of which\nwe speak, would suffice to prove it to us, even if we had not history\nand experience in our favor.\n\nThe force of general prejudice on this subject is such, that it is\nnecessary to descend to the root of things, to show the complete\nmistake of our adversaries. What are religious institutions considered\ngenerally? Putting aside the differences, the changes, the alterations\nnecessarily produced by variety of times, countries, and other\ncircumstances, we will say that a religious institute is a society\nof Christians living together, under certain rules, for the purpose\nof practising the Gospel precepts. We include, in this definition,\neven the orders which are not bound by a vow. It will be seen that we\nhave considered the religious institution in its most general sense,\nlaying aside all that theologians and canonists say with respect to\nthe conditions indispensable to constitute or complete its essence. We\nmust, moreover, observe that we ought not to exclude from the honorable\ndenomination of religious institutes, those associations which possess\nall the conditions except the vows. The Catholic religion is fertile\nenough to produce good by means and forms widely different. In the\ngenerality of religious institutions, she has shown us what man can do\nby binding himself by a vow, for his whole life, to a holy abnegation\nof his own will; but she has also wished to show us that, while leaving\nhim at liberty, she could attach him by a variety of ties, and make him\npersevere until death, as if he had been obliged by a perpetual vow.\nThe congregation of the oratory of St. Philip Neri, which is found in\nthis latter category, is certainly worthy of figuring among religious\ninstitutions as one of the finest monuments of the Catholic Church.\nI am aware that the vow is comprised in the essence of religious\ninstitutes, as they are commonly understood; but my only object now\nis, to vindicate this kind of association against Protestants. Now we\nknow that they condemn indiscriminately, associations bound by vows\nand those which only consist of the permanent and free adhesion of\nthe persons who compose them. All that has the form of a religious\ncommunity is regarded by them with a look of anger. When they\nproscribed the religious orders, they included in the same fate those\nwhich had vows and those which had not. Consequently, when defending\nthem, we must class them together. Moreover, this will not prevent our\nconsidering the vow in itself, and justifying it before the tribunal of\nphilosophy.\n\nI do not imagine that it is necessary to say more to show that the\nobject of religious institutions--that is, as we have just said, the\nputting in practice of the Gospel counsels--is in perfect uniformity\nwith the Gospel itself. And let us well observe that, whatever may\nbe the name, whatever may be the form of the institutions, they have\nalways for their object something more than the simple observance\nof the precepts; the idea of perfection is always included, then,\neither in the active or the contemplative life. To keep the Divine\ncommandments is indispensable to all Christians who wish to possess\neternal life; the religious orders attempt a more difficult path; they\naim at perfection. This is the object of the men who, after having\nheard these words from the mouth of their Divine Master: \"If you wish\nto be perfect, go sell all you have, and give it to the poor,\" have not\ndeparted sorrowful, like the young man in the Gospel, but have embraced\nwith courage the enterprise of quitting all and following Jesus Christ.\n\nWe have now inquired whether association is the best means to carry\ninto execution so holy an object. It would be easy for me to show this\nby adducing various texts of Scripture, where the true spirit of the\nChristian religion, and the will of our Divine Master, are clearly\nshown on this point; but the taste of our age, and the self-evidence\neven of the truths in question, warn us to avoid, as much as possible,\nall that savors of theological discussion. I will remove the question,\nthen, from this level, to consider it in a light purely historical\nand philosophical; that is to say, without accumulating citations and\ntexts, I will prove that religious institutes are perfectly conformable\nto the spirit of the Christian religion; and that consequently that\nspirit has been deplorably mistaken by Protestants, when they have\ncondemned or destroyed them. If philosophers, while they do not admit\nthe truth of religion, still avow that it is useful and beautiful, I\nwill prove to them that they cannot condemn those institutions which\nare the necessary result of it. In the cradle of Christianity, when men\npreserved, in all their energy and purity, the sparks from the tongues\nof the Holy Spirit; in those times, when the words and examples of its\nDivine Founder were still fresh, when the number of the faithful who\nhad had the happiness of seeing and hearing Him was still very great in\nthe Church, we see the Christians, under the direction of the Apostles\nthemselves, unite, have all their property in common; thus forming only\none family, the Father of which was in heaven, and _which had only one\nheart and one soul_.\n\nI will not dispute as to the extent of this primitive proceeding;\nI will abstain from analyzing the various circumstances which\naccompanied it, and from examining how far it resembled the religious\ninstitutions of latter times; it is enough to state its existence,\nand show therefrom what is the true spirit of religion with respect\nto the most proper means to realize evangelical perfection. I will\nonly allude to the fact, that Cassian, in the description which he\ngives of the commencement of religious institutions, assigns as their\ncradle the proceeding we have just mentioned, and which is reported\nin the Acts of the Apostles. According to the same author, this kind\nof life was never wholly interrupted; so that there were always some\nfervent Christians who continued it; thus attaching, by a continued\nchain, the existence of the monks to the primitive associations of\nthe apostolical times. After having described the kind of life of\nthe first Christians, and traced the alterations of the times that\nfollowed, Cassian continues thus: \"Those who preserved the apostolical\nfervor in this way, recalling primitive perfection, quitted towns, and\nthe society of those who believed that they were allowed to live with\nless severity; they began to choose secret and retired places, where\nthey could follow in private the rules which they remembered to have\nbeen appointed by the Apostles for the whole body of the Church in\ngeneral. Thus commenced the formation of the discipline of those who\nhad quitted that contagion, as they lived separate from the rest of the\nfaithful; abstaining from marriage, and having no communication with\nthe world, even with their own families. In the progress of time, the\nname of monks was given to them, in consideration of their singular and\nsolitary life.\" (_Collat._ 18, cap. 5.)\n\nTimes of persecution immediately followed, which, with some\ninterruptions, that may be called moments of repose, lasted till\nthe conversion of Constantine. There were, then, during this time,\nsome Christians who attempted to continue the mode of life of the\napostolical years. Cassian clearly indicates this in the passage\nwhich we have just read. He omits to say that this primitive life was\nnecessarily modified, in its exterior form, by the calamities with\nwhich the Church was afflicted at that period. In all that time we\nought not to look for Christians living in community; we shall find\nthem confessing Jesus Christ, with imperturbable calmness, on the rack,\namid all torments, in the circus, where they were torn to pieces by\nwild beasts, on the scaffold, where they quietly gave up their heads to\nthe axe of the executioner. But observe what happened even during the\ntime of persecution; the Christians, of whom the world was not worthy,\npursued in the towns like wild beasts, wandered about in solitude,\nseeking refuge in the deserts. The solitudes of the East, the sand and\nrocks of Arabia, the most inaccessible places of the Theba\u00efd, receive\nthose troops of fugitives, who dwell in the abodes of wild beasts, in\nabandoned graves, in dried-up cisterns, in the deepest caverns, only\nasking for an asylum for meditation and prayer. And do you know the\nresult of this? These deserts, in which the Christians wandered, like\na few grains of sand driven by the wind, became peopled, as it were by\nmagic, with innumerable religious communities. There they meditated,\nprayed, and read the Gospel; hardly had the fruitful seed touched the\nearth, when the precious plant arose in a moment.\n\nAdmirable are the designs of Providence! Christianity, persecuted in\nthe towns, fertilizes and embellishes the deserts; the precious grain\nrequires for its development neither the moisture of the earth nor the\nbreeze of a mild atmosphere; when carried through the air on the wings\nof the storm, the seed loses nothing of its vitality; when thrown on\na rock, it does not perish. The fury of the elements avails nothing\nagainst the work of God, who has made the north wind His courser: the\nrock ceases to be barren when He pleases to fertilize it. Did He not\nmake pure water spring forth at the mysterious touch of His Prophet's\nrod?\n\nWhen peace was given to the Church by the conqueror of Maxentius, the\ngerms contained in the bosom of Christianity were able to develop\nthemselves everywhere; from that moment the Church was never without\nreligious communities. With history in our hands, we may defy the\nenemies of religious institutions to point out any period, however\nshort, when these institutions had entirely disappeared. Under some\nform or in some country, they have always perpetuated the existence\nwhich they had received in the early ages of Christianity. The fact\nis certain and constant, and is found in every page of ecclesiastical\nhistory; it plays an important part in all the great events in the\nannals of the Church. It is found in the west and in the east, in\nmodern and in ancient times, in the prosperity and in the adversity of\nthe Church; when the pursuit of religious perfection was an honor in\nthe eyes of the world, as well as when it was an object of persecution,\nraillery, and calumny. What clearer proof can there be that there is\nan intimate connection between religious institutions and religion\nherself? What more is required to show us that they are her spontaneous\nfruit? In the moral and in the physical order of things, the constant\nappearance of the one following the other, is regarded as a proof of\nthe reciprocal dependence of two phenomena. If these phenomena have\ntowards each other the relations of cause and effect--if we find in\nthe essence of the one all the principles that are required in the\nproduction of the other, the first is called the cause and the other\nthe effect. Wherever the religion of Jesus Christ is established,\nreligious communities are found under some form or other; they are,\ntherefore, its spontaneous effect. I do not know what reply can be made\nto so conclusive an argument.\n\nBy viewing the question in this way, the favor and protection which\nreligious institutions always found with the Pontiff is naturally\nexplained. It was his duty to act in conformity with the spirit which\nanimates the Church, of which he is the chief ruler upon earth; it is\ncertainly not the Pope who has made the regulation, that one of the\nmeans most apt to lead men to perfection is to unite themselves in\nassociations under certain rules, in conformity with the instructions\nof their Divine Master. The Eternal Lord thus ruled in the secrets of\nHis infinite wisdom, and the conduct of the Popes could not be contrary\nto the designs of the Most High. It has been said that interested\nviews interposed; it has been said that the policy of the Popes found\nin these institutions a powerful means of sustaining and aggrandizing\nitself. But can you not see any thing but the sordid instruments of\ncunning policy in the societies of the primitive faithful, in the\nmonasteries of the solitudes of the East, in that crowd of institutions\nwhich have had for their object only the sanctification of their own\nmembers and the amelioration of some of the great evils of humanity? A\nfact so general, so great, so beneficent, cannot be explained by views\nof interest and narrow designs; its origin is higher and nobler; and\nhe who will not seek for it in heaven ought at least to seek for it in\nsomething greater than the projects of a man or the policy of a court;\nhe ought to seek for lofty ideas, sublime feelings, capable, if they do\nnot mount to heaven, at least of embracing a large part of the earth;\nnothing less is here required than one of those thoughts which preside\nover the destinies of the human race.\n\nSome persons may be inclined to imagine private designs on the part\nof the Popes, because they see their authority interfere in all the\nfoundations of later ages, and their approbation constitute the\nvalidity of the rules of religious institutions; but the course\npursued in this respect by ecclesiastical discipline shows us that\nthe most active intervention of the Popes, far from emanating from\nprivate views, has been called for by a necessity of preventing an\nexcessive multiplication of the religious orders in consequence of an\nindiscreet zeal. This vigilance in preventing abuses was the origin\nof this supreme intervention. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries\nthe tendency to new foundations was so strong that the most serious\ninconveniences would have resulted from it, without a continual\nwatchfulness on the part of the ecclesiastical authority. Thus we see\nthe Sovereign Pontiff Innocent III. ordain, in the Council of Lateran,\nthat whoever wished to found a new religious house shall be bound to\nadopt one of the approved rules and institutions.\n\nBut let us pursue our design. I can understand how those who deny the\ntruth of the Christian religion, and turn into ridicule the counsels of\nthe Gospel, bring themselves to deny all that is celestial and divine\nin the spirit of the religious communities; but the truth of religion\nonce established, I cannot conceive how men who boast of following\nits laws can declare themselves the enemies of these institutions\nconsidered in themselves. How can he who admits the principle refuse\nthe consequence? How can he who loves the cause reject the effect? They\nmust either affect a religion hypocritically, or they profess without\ncomprehending it.\n\nIn default of any other proof of the anti-evangelical spirit which\nguided the leaders of the pretended Reformation, their hatred to an\ninstitution so evidently founded on the Gospel itself should suffice.\nDid not these enthusiasts for reading the Bible _without note or\ncomment_--they who pretend to find all its passages so clear--did they\nnot remark the plain and easy sense of that multitude of passages which\nrecommend self-abnegation, the renunciation of all possessions, and the\nprivation of all pleasures? These words are plain--they cannot be taken\nin any other signification--they do not require for their comprehension\na profound study of the sacred sciences, or that of languages; and\nyet they have not been heard: we should rather say, they have not\nbeen listened to. The intellect has understood, but the passions have\nrejected them.\n\nAs to those philosophers who have regarded religious institutions as\nvain and contemptible, if not dangerous, it is clear that they have\nmeditated but little on the human mind, and on the deep feelings of our\nhearts, full as they are of mystery. As their hearts have felt nothing\nat the sight of those numbers of men and women assembled for the\npurpose of sanctifying themselves or others, or of relieving wants,\nand consoling the unfortunate, it is but too clear that their souls\nhave been dried up by the breath of skepticism. To renounce for ever\nall the pleasures of life; to live in solitude, there to offer one's\nself, in austerity and penance, as a holocaust to the Most High: this,\ncertainly is a matter of horror to those philosophers who have only\nviewed the world through their own prejudices. But humanity has other\nthoughts; it feels itself attracted by those objects which philosophers\nfind so vain, so devoid of interest, so worthy of horror.\n\nWonderful are the secrets of our hearts! Although enervated by\npleasure, and involved in the whirlwind of amusement and mirth, we\ncannot avoid being seized with deep emotion at the sight of austerity\nand recollection of soul. Solitude, and even sadness itself, exert\nan inexpressible influence over us. Whence comes that enthusiasm\nwhich moves a whole nation, excites and makes it follow, as if by\nenchantment, the steps of a man whose brow is marked by recollection,\nwhose features display austerity of life, whose clothes and manners\nshow freedom from all that is earthly, and forgetfulness of the world?\nNow, it is a fact, proved by the history both of true and of false\nreligions; so powerful a means of attracting respect and esteem has\nnot remained unknown to imposture: licentiousness and corruption,\ndesirous of making their fortunes in the world, have more than once\nfelt the imperious necessity of disguising themselves under the\nmantle of austerity and purity. What at first sight might appear the\nmost opposed to our feelings, the most repugnant to our tastes--this\nshade of sadness diffused over the recollection and solitude of the\nreligious life--is precisely what enchants and attracts us the most.\nThe religious life is solitary and pensive; therefore it is beautiful,\nand its beauty is sublime. Nothing is more apt than this sublimity to\nmove our hearts deeply, and make indelible impressions on them. In\nreality, our soul has the character of an exile; it is affected by\nmelancholy objects only; it has not attained to that noisy joy which\nrequires to borrow a tint of melancholy only for the sake of a happy\ncontrast. In order to clothe beauty with its most seductive charms, it\nis necessary that a tear of anguish should flow from her eyes, that\nher forehead should assume an air of sadness, and her cheeks grow\npale with a melancholy remembrance. In order that the life of a hero\nexcite a lively interest in us, it is requisite that misfortune be his\ncompanion, lamentation his consolation--that disaster and ingratitude\nbe the reward of his virtues. If you wish that a picture of nature\nor art should strongly attract our attention, take possession of and\nabsorb the powers of our soul, it is necessary that a memorial of the\nnothingness of man, and an image of death, should be presented to our\nminds; our hearts should be appealed to by the feelings of a tranquil\nsadness; we desire to see sombre tints on a monument in ruins--the\ncross reminding us of the abode of the dead, the massive walls covered\nwith moss, and pointing out the ancient dwelling of some powerful man,\nwho, after having lived on earth for a short time, has disappeared.\n\nJoy does not satisfy us, it does not fill our hearts; it intoxicates\nand dissipates them for a few moments; but man does not find there\nhis happiness, because the joys of earth are frivolous, and frivolity\ncannot attach a traveller who, far from his country, walks painfully\nthrough the valley of tears. Thence it comes that, while sorrow and\ntears are accepted--we should rather say, are carefully sought for by\nart--whenever a deep impression is to be made upon the soul, joy and\nsmiles are inexorably banished. Oratory, poetry, sculpture, painting,\nmusic, have all constantly followed the same rule; or, rather, have\nalways been governed by the same instinct. It certainly required a\nlofty spirit and a heart of fire to declare _that the soul is naturally\nChristian_. In these few words an illustrious thinker has known how to\nexpress all the relations which unite the faith, morality, and counsels\nof this divine religion, with all that is most intimate, delicate, and\nnoble in our hearts. Do you know Christian pensiveness; that grave and\nelevated feeling which is painted on the forehead of the Christian,\nlike a memorial of sorrow on that of an illustrious proscribed one;\nthis feeling which moderates the enjoyments of life by the image of\nthe tomb, and lights up the depths of the grave with the rays of hope;\nthat pensiveness so natural and consoling, so grave and noble, which\ncauses diadems and sceptres to be trodden under foot like dust, and\nthe greatness and splendor of the world to be despised as a passing\nillusion? This melancholy, carried to its perfection, vivified and\nfertilized by grace, and subjected to a holy rule, is what presides\nover the foundation of religious institutions, and accompanies them\nas long as they preserve their primitive fervor, which they received\nfrom men who were guided by divine light, and animated by the Spirit\nof God. This holy melancholy, which carries with it freedom from all\nearthly things, is the feeling which the Church wishes to instil into\nand preserve in, the religious orders, when she surrounds their silent\nabodes with a shade of retirement and meditation.\n\nThat amid the fury and the convulsions of parties, a mad and\nsacrilegious hand, secretly excited by malice, should plunge a\nfratricidal dagger into an innocent heart, or set fire to a peaceful\ndwelling, may be conceived; for, unhappily, the history of man abounds\nin crimes and frenzies; but that the essence of religious institutions\nshould be attacked, that their spirit should be considered narrow and\nimbecile, that they should be deprived of the noble titles which give\nhonor to their origin, and the beauties which adorn their history,\ncan be allowed neither by the intellect nor by the heart. A false\nphilosophy, which dries up and withers all that it touches, has\nundertaken so mad a task. But, setting aside religion and reason,\nliterature and the fine arts have rebelled against this attempt;\nliterature and the fine arts, which have need of old recollections,\nand which are indebted for their wonders to lofty thoughts, to grave\nand noble scenes, and deep and melancholy feelings; literature and the\narts, which delight in transporting the mind of man into regions of\nlight, in guiding the imagination through new and unknown paths, and in\nruling the heart by mysterious charms.\n\nNo; a thousand times no! As long as the religion of that God made man,\nwho had not where to repose his head, and who sat down by a well on\nthe wayside to rest, like an humble traveller, shall last; of that\nGod-man, whose appearance was announced to the nations by a mysterious\nvoice coming from the desert--by the voice of a man clothed in a\ngoat-skin, whose reins were bound with a leathern girdle, and who lived\non nothing but locusts and wild honey: as long as this divine religion\nshall last, nothing will be more holy or more worthy of our respect\nthan those institutions, the true and original object of which is to\nrealize what Heaven intended to teach man by such eloquent and sublime\nlessons. Times, vicissitudes, and revolutions, succeed each other; the\ninstitution will change its form, will undergo alterations, will be\naffected more or less by the weakness of men, by the corrosive action\nof time, and the destructive power of events; but it will live--it will\nnever perish. If one society rejects it, it will seek an asylum in\nanother; driven from towns, it will take refuge in forests; if there\npursued, it will flee to the horrors of the desert. There will always\nbe, in some privileged hearts, an echo for the voice of that sublime\nreligion, which, holding in her hand a standard of sorrow and love--the\nsacred standard of the sufferings and death of the Son of God--the\nCross, will proclaim to men: \"Watch and pray, that you enter not into\ntemptation; if you assemble to pray, the Lord will be in the midst of\nyou; all flesh is but grass; life is a dream; above your heads is an\nocean of light and happiness; under your feet an abyss; your life on\nearth is a pilgrimage, an exile.\" Then she marks his forehead with the\nmysterious ashes, telling him, \"Thou art dust, and unto dust thou shalt\nreturn.\"\n\nWe shall perhaps be asked why the faithful cannot practise evangelical\nperfection while living in the bosom of their families, without\nassembling in communities? We shall reply, that we have no intention\nof denying the possibility of that practice, even in the midst of the\nworld; and we willingly acknowledge that a great number of Christians\nhave done so at all times, and do so now; but this does not prove that\nthe surest and easiest means is not that of the life in community with\nothers who have the same object in view, and in retirement from all\nthe things of this world. Laying aside for a moment all consideration\nof religion, are you not aware of the ascendency which the spirit of\nrepeated examples exerts on those with whom we live? Do you not know\nhow easily our spirit fails when we find ourselves alone in a difficult\nenterprise? Do you not know that, in the greatest misfortunes, it is a\nconsolation to behold others participate in our sorrows? On this point,\nas well as on all others, religion accords with sound philosophy, and\nboth unite in explaining to us the profound meaning contained in those\nwords of Scripture: \"_V\u00e6 soli! Wo to him who is alone!_\"\n\nBefore concluding this chapter, I wish to say a few words on the vows\nwhich commonly accompany religious institutes. Perhaps they are one\nof the principal causes of the violent antipathy of Protestantism\nagainst these institutions. Vows render things fixed and stable; and\nthe fundamental principle of Protestantism does not admit of fixity\nor stability. Essentially separating and anarchical, this principle\nrejects unity and destroys the hierarchy; dissolving in its nature,\nit allows the mind neither to remain in a permanent faith nor to be\nsubject to rule. For if virtue itself is only a vague entity, which\nhas no fixed foundation--a being which is fed on illusions, and which\ncannot endure the application of any certain and constant rule, this\nholy necessity of doing well, of constantly walking in the path\nof perfection, must be incomprehensible to it, and in the highest\ndegree repugnant; this necessity must appear to it inconsistent with\nliberty; as if man, by binding himself by a vow, lost his free will;\nas if the sanction which a promise given to God imparts to a design,\nat all diminished the merit of him who has the firmness necessary to\naccomplish what he had the courage to promise.\n\nThose who, to condemn this necessity which man imposes on himself,\ninvoke the rights of liberty against it, seem to forget that this\neffort of man to make himself the slave of good, and secure his own\nfuture, besides the sublime disinterestedness which it supposes, is the\nvastest exercise which man can make of his liberty. By one act alone,\nhe disposes of his whole life, and by fulfilling the duties resulting\nfrom that act, he continually fulfils his own will. But we shall be\ntold that man is so inconstant: this is the reason why, in order to\nprevent the effects of this inconstancy, he finds himself penetrating\ninto the vicissitudes of the future, renders himself superior to them,\nand governs them in advance. But, it will be said, in that case, good\nis done from necessity: this is true; but do you not know that the\nnecessity of doing good is a happy one, and in some measure assimilates\nman with God? Do you not know that Infinite Goodness is incapable of\ndoing evil, and Infinite Holiness can do nothing that is not holy?\nTheologians explain why a created being is capable of sinning by\npointing out this profound reason. \"It is,\" they say, \"because the\ncreature is made out of nothing.\" When man forces himself, as far as\nhe can, to do well, when he thus fetters his will, he ennobles it, he\nrenders himself more like to God, he assimilates himself to the state\nof the blessed, who have no longer the melancholy liberty of doing\nevil, and who are under the happy necessity of loving God.\n\nThe name of liberty, from the time when Protestants and false\nphilosophers took possession of it, seems condemned to be ill\nunderstood in all its applications. In the religious, moral, social,\nand political order, it is enveloped in such obscurity, that we\ncan perceive the many efforts which have been made to darken and\nmisrepresent it. Cicero gives an admirable definition of liberty when\nhe says, that it consists in being the slave of law. In the same\nway it may be said, that the liberty of the intellect consists in\nbeing the slave of truth; and the liberty of the will in being the\nslave of virtue; if you change this, you destroy liberty. If you take\naway the law, you admit force; if you take away the truth, you admit\nerror; if you take away virtue, you admit vice. If you venture to\nexempt the world from the external law, from that law which embraces\nman and society, which extends to all orders, which is the divine\nwisdom applied to reasonable creatures; if you venture to seek for an\nimaginary liberty out of that immense circle, you destroy all; there\nremains in society nothing but the empire of brute force, and in man\nthat of the passions; with tyranny, and consequently slavery.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIX.\n\nOF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN HISTORY.--THE FIRST SOLITARIES.\n\n\nI have just examined religious institutions in a general point of view,\nby considering them in their relations with religion and the human\nmind. I am now going to take a glance at the principal points of their\nhistory. This examination, I think, will show us an important truth:\nviz. that the appearance of these institutions under different forms\nhas been the expression and the fulfilment of great moral necessities,\nand a powerful means, in the hands of Providence, of promoting not\nonly the spiritual good of the Church, but also the salvation and\nregeneration of society. It will be understood that it is not possible\nfor me to enter into details, or pass in review the numerous religious\ninstitutions which have existed; besides, this is not necessary for my\nobject. I shall limit myself, therefore, to running over the principal\nphases of religious institutes, and making a few remarks on each of\nthem; I shall act like the traveller who, being unable to make a stay\nin the country through which he passes, looks at it for a short time\nfrom the highest points. I will begin with the solitaries of the East.\n\nThe Colossus of the Roman Empire threatened an approaching and stunning\nfall: the spirit of life was rapidly becoming extinguished, and\nthere was no longer any hope of a breath to reanimate it. The blood\ncirculated slowly in its veins; the evil was incurable: the symptoms of\ncorruption everywhere manifested themselves, and this agony was exactly\ncoincident with the critical and formidable hour when it was necessary\nto collect all its forces to resist the violent shock which was about\nto destroy it. The barbarians appeared on the frontiers of the empire,\nlike the carnivorous animals attracted by the exhalations of a dead\nbody; and at this crisis society found itself on the eve of a fearful\ncatastrophe. All the world was about to undergo an alarming change; the\nnext day was not likely to resemble the last; the tree was about to be\ntorn up; but its roots were too deep for it to be extirpated without\nchanging the whole face of the soil where it was planted. The greatest\nrefinement had to contend with barbarian ferocity,--the effeminate\nluxury of southern nations with the energy of the robust sons of\nthe forest; the result of the struggle could not be doubtful. Laws,\ncustoms, manners, monuments, arts and sciences,--all the civilization\nand refinement acquired during the course of many ages was all in\nperil, all foreboded approaching ruin, all understood that God had\nappointed an end to the power, and even the existence of the rulers of\nthe globe. The barbarians were only the instrument of Providence; the\nhand which had given a mortal blow to the mistress of the world, the\nqueen of nations, was that formidable hand which touches mountains with\nfire, and reduces them to ashes, which touches the rocks and melts them\nlike metal; it was the hand of Him who sends forth His fiery breath\nupon the nations, and burns them up like straw.\n\nThe world must be the prey of chaos for a short time; but was not light\nagain to come upon it? Was mankind to be melted, like gold in the\nfurnace, in order to come out more brilliant and more pure? Were ideas\nrespecting God and man to be corrected? Were more delicate and exalted\nnotions of morality to be diffused? Was it reserved for the heart of\nman to receive more grave and sublime inspirations, to emerge from its\ncorrupt state, and live in an atmosphere higher and more worthy of an\nimmortal being? Yes! Providence thus decreed, and His infinite wisdom\nhas brought about this end by ways which man could not understand.\n\nChristianity was already spread over the face of the world; her\nholy doctrines, rendered fruitful by grace, prepared the complete\nregeneration of the world; but it was necessary that mankind should\nagain receive a new impulse from her divine hands, that the mind of\nman should be moved by a new shock, that it might take its proper\nflight, and raise itself at once to the exalted position which was\nintended for it, and from which it was never to descend. History tells\nus of the obstacles which opposed the establishment and development\nof Christianity. According to the warlike expression of the Prophet,\nGod was compelled to assume His sword and buckler; by the strength of\nwonderful prodigies, He broke the resistance of the passions, destroyed\nevery knowledge which raised itself against the knowledge of God,\nscattered all the powers which rebelled against Him, and extinguished\nthe pride and obstinacy of hell. When, after three centuries of\npersecution, victory declared itself throughout the world in favor of\nthe true religion; when the temples of the false gods were deserted,\nand those idols which were not yet overthrown trembled on their\npedestals; when the sign of Calvary was inscribed on the Labarum of\nthe C\u00e6sars, and the legions of the empire bowed religiously before\nthe Cross, then had the moment arrived for Christianity to realize,\nin a permanent manner, in those sublime institutions conceived and\nestablished by herself alone, the lofty counsels given three centuries\nbefore in Palestine. The wisdom of philosophers had been vain; the time\nwas come to realize the wisdom of the Carpenter of Nazareth, of Him\nwho, without having consulted human learning, had proclaimed and taught\ntruths unknown to the most privileged of mortals.\n\nThe virtues of the Christians had already emerged from the obscurity of\nthe catacombs; they were to be resplendent in the light of heaven and\namid peace, as they had formerly shone in the depths of dungeons and\namid the flames. Christianity had obtained possession of the sceptre\nof command, as of the domestic hearth; her disciples, who now were\nmultitudinous, no longer lived in a community of goods; it is clear\nthat entire continence, and complete freedom from all earthly things,\ncould no longer be the mode of life of the regenerated families. The\nworld was to continue; the duration of the human race was not to cease\nat this point of its career; therefore, all Christians were not to\nobserve the lofty counsels which convert the life of man on earth into\nthe angelic. A great number of them were to belong to those who, in\norder to obtain eternal life, were satisfied with keeping the precepts,\nwithout aspiring to the sublime perfection which results from the\nrenouncement of all that is earthly, and the complete abnegation of\nself. Yet the Founder of the Christian religion was unwilling that\nthe counsels which He had given to men should be for a moment without\nsome disciples amid the coldness and dissipation of the world. He had\nnot given them in vain; and, besides, the practice of them, although\nconfined to a limited number of the faithful, exerted on all sides a\nbeneficent influence which facilitated and secured the observance of\nthe precepts. The force of example exerts so powerful an ascendency\nover the human heart, that it is often sufficient of itself to\ntriumph over the strongest and most obstinate resistance; there is\nsomething in our hearts which inclines them to sympathize with all that\napproaches them, whether good or evil; and there seems to be a secret\nstimulus urging us to follow others, whatever direction they may take.\nTherefore it is that there are so many advantages in the establishment\nof religious institutions, in which the virtues and austerity of life\nare given as an example to the generality of men, and make an eloquent\nreproach to the errors of passion.\n\nProvidence desired to attain this great end by singular and\nextraordinary means; the Spirit of God breathed on the earth, and\nimmediately the men and power to commence this great work appeared.\nThe frightful deserts of Theba\u00efd, the burning solitudes of Arabia,\nPalestine, and Syria, show us men rudely clad, with a mantle of\ngoat-skin on their shoulders, and a plain cowl on their heads: behold\nall the luxury with which they confound the vanity and pride of\nworldlings! Their bodies, exposed to the rays of the most burning sun\nand the most severe cold, besides being attenuated by long fasts,\nresemble walking spectres who have arisen from the dust of their\nsepulchres. The herbs of the earth are their only food, water their\nonly drink; the labor of their hands procures for them the scanty\nresources they require. Under the direction of a venerable old man,\nwhose claims to rule are a long life passed in the desert, and hairs\ngrown white amid privations and austerities, they constantly keep\nthe profoundest silence; their lips are opened only to pronounce the\nwords of prayer; their voice is only heard to intone a hymn of praise\nto God. For them the world has ceased to exist; the relations of\nfriendship, the sweet ties of family and relationship, are all broken\nby a spirit of perfection, carried to an extent which surpasses all\nearthly considerations. The cares of property do not disturb them;\nbefore retiring to the desert, they have abandoned all to him who was\nto succeed them; or they have sold all they had, and given the price to\nthe poor. The Holy Scriptures are the nourishment of their minds; they\nlearn by heart the words of that divine book; they meditate on them\nunceasingly, beseeching the Lord to grant that they may understand them\naright. In their retired meetings, nothing is heard but the voice of\nsome venerable cenobite, explaining with na\u00efve simplicity and touching\nunction the sense of the sacred text; but always in such a way as to\ndraw profit for the purification of souls.\n\nThe number of these solitaries was so great that we could not credit\nit, if it were not vouched for by eye-witnesses worthy of the highest\nrespect. As to their sanctity, spirit of penance, and purity of life,\nwe cannot doubt them after the testimonies of Rufinus, Palladius,\nSt. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and all the other\nillustrious men who distinguished themselves at that time. The fact\nis singular, extraordinary, prodigious; but no one can question its\nhistorical truth; it is attested by all who came to the desert from\nall parts to seek for light in their doubts, cures for their evils,\nand pardon for their sins. I could quote a thousand authorities to\nprove what I have said; but I will content myself with one, which shall\nsuffice for all--that of St. Augustine. Hear how this holy doctor\ndescribes the life of these extraordinary men: \"These fathers, not only\nvery holy in their manners, but very learned in the Christian doctrine,\nexcellent men in all respects, do not govern with pride those whom they\njustly call their sons, on account of the high authority of those who\ncommand, and the ready will of those who obey. At the decline of day,\none of them, still fasting, quits his habitation, and all assemble to\nhear their master. Each of these fathers _has at least three thousand\nunder his direction; for the number is sometimes much greater_. They\nlisten with incredible attention, in profound silence, manifesting\nby their groans, or tears, or by their modest and tranquil joy, the\nvarious feelings which the discourse excites in their souls.\" (St.\nAugustin. lib. 1, _De Moribus Ecclesi\u00e6_, cap. 31.)\n\nBut it will be said, Of what use were these men, except for their own\nsanctification? what good did they do to society? what influence did\nthey exert on ideas? what change did they make in manners? If we admit\nthat this plant of the desert was beautiful and fragrant, yet what did\nit avail? it remained sterile. It certainly would be an error to think\nthat so many thousands of solitaries did not exercise great influence.\nIn the first place, and to speak only of what relates to ideas, we must\nobserve, that the monasteries of the East arose within reach, and under\nthe eyes of, the schools of philosophy. Egypt was the country where the\ncenobitic life flourished the most. Now every one is aware of the high\nrenown which the schools of Alexandria enjoyed a short time before.\nOn all sides of the Mediterranean--on that border of land which,\nbeginning in Libya, terminates in the Black Sea--men's minds were at\nthat time in a state of extraordinary motion. Christianity and Judaism,\nthe doctrines of the East and those of the West--all was collected\nand accumulated in this part of the world; the remains of the ancient\nschools of Greece were formed of the treasures, which the course of\nages and the passage of the most famous nations of the earth had\nbrought to those countries. New and gigantic events were come to throw\nfloods of light upon the character and the value of ideas; minds had\nfelt shocks which did not allow them any longer to be contented with\nthe quiet lessons contained in the dialogues of the ancient masters.\nFrom these famous countries came the most eminent men of the early ages\nof Christianity; and we know from their works the extent and elevation\nof mind which man had attained at that time. Was it possible that a\nphenomenon so extraordinary--a girdle of monasteries and hermitages,\nembracing this zone of the world, and showing themselves in the face of\nthe schools of philosophy--should not exert great influence on men's\nminds? The ideas of the solitaries passed incessantly from the desert\ninto the towns; since, in spite of all the care which they took to\navoid the contact of the world, the world sought and approached them,\nand continually came to receive their inspirations.\n\nWhen we see the nations crowd to the solitaries the most eminent for\ntheir sanctity, to implore from their wisdom a remedy for suffering\nand a consolation in misfortunes; when we see these venerable men\nimpart, together with the unction of the Gospel, the sublime lessons\nwhich they had learned during long years of meditation and prayer in\nthe silence of solitude, it is impossible not to understand how much\nthese communications must have contributed to correct and elevate ideas\nrelating to religion and morality, and to amend and purify morals.\nLet us not forget that the human mind was, as it were, materialized\nby the corruption and grossness of the pagan religion. The worship of\nnature, of sensible forms, was so deeply rooted that, in order to raise\nminds to the conception of superior things, a strong and extraordinary\nreaction was required; it was necessary in some measure to annihilate\nmatter in order to present to man only the mind. The life of the\nsolitaries was the best adapted to produce this effect. In reading the\nhistory of these times, we seem to find ourselves transported out of\nthis world; the flesh has disappeared, and there remains nothing but\nthe spirit; and the force which has been employed in order to subdue\nthe flesh is such--they have insisted so much on the vanity of earthly\nthings--that reality itself is changed into illusion, and the physical\nworld vanishes to make way for the moral and intellectual; all the ties\nof earth have been broken; man puts himself in intimate communication\nwith Heaven. Miracles multiply exceedingly in these lives; apparitions\ncontinually appear; the abodes of the solitaries are arenas where\nearthly means are nothing; good angels struggle against demons, heaven\nagainst hell, God against Satan: the earth is there only to serve as\na field of battle; the body exists no longer except to be consumed as\na holocaust on the altars of virtue, in the presence of the demon who\nstruggles furiously to render it the slave of vice.\n\nWhat has become of the idolatrous worship which Greece paid to\nsensible forms, that adoration which it offered to nature by deifying\nall that was delicious and beautiful, all that could interest the\nsenses and the heart? What a profound change! the same senses are\nsubjected to the most severe privations; they are most strictly\ncircumcised in heart; and man, who then scarcely attempted to raise\nhis mind above the earth, now keeps it constantly fixed on Heaven. It\nis impossible to form an idea of what we are attempting to describe,\nwithout having read the lives of these solitaries; to understand all\nthe effect of their great prodigies, it is necessary to have spent many\nhours over these pages, where, so to speak, nothing is found which\nfollows the natural course of things. It is not enough to imagine pure\nlives, austerities, visions, and miracles; it is necessary to see all\nthis collected together, and carried to the most wonderful extent in\nthe path of perfection.\n\nIf you refuse to acknowledge the action of grace in facts so\nsurprising; if you will not see any supernatural effect in this\nreligious movement; I say more, if you go so far as to suppose that the\nmortification of the flesh and the elevation of the soul are carried\nto blamable exaggeration, still you cannot help allowing that such a\nreaction was very likely to spiritualize ideas, to awaken the moral and\nintellectual forces in man, and to concentrate all within himself, by\ngiving him the sentiment of that interior, intimate, and moral life,\nwith which, until then, he had not been occupied. The forehead which,\ntill then, had been bent towards the earth, was raised towards the\nDivinity; something nobler than material enjoyments was offered to the\nmind, and the brutal excesses authorized by the example of the false\ndivinities of paganism, at length appeared an offence against the high\ndignity of human nature.\n\nIn the moral order, the effect must have been immense. Man, until then,\nhad not even imagined that it was possible to resist the impetuosity\nof his passions. There were found, it is true, in the cold morality of\na few philosophers, certain maxims intended to restrain the dangerous\npassions; but this morality was only in the books, the world did not\nregard it as practicable, and if some men attempted to realize it,\nthey did so in such a manner that, far from giving it credit, they\nrendered it contemptible. What did it avail to abandon riches and\nprofess freedom from all earthly things, as some philosophers did, if\nat the same time they appeared so vain, so full of themselves, that it\nwas evident that they only sacrificed on the altar of pride? It was to\noverturn all the idols in order to place themselves on the altar, and\nreign there without rival gods; this was not to direct the passions, to\nsubject them to reason, but to create a monster passion surpassing and\ndevouring all. Humility, the foundation-stone whereon the solitaries\nraised the edifice of their virtue, placed them immediately in a\nposition infinitely superior to that of the ancient philosophers who\nwere distinguished for a life more or less severe. In fine, men were\ntaught to avoid vice and practise virtue, not for the futile pleasure\nof being regarded and admired, but for superior motives founded on the\nrelations of man with God, and the destinies of eternity. From that\nmoment man knew that it was not impossible for him to triumph over\nevil, in the obstinate struggle which he felt continually going on\nwithin himself. At the sight of so many thousands of persons of both\nsexes who followed a rule of life so pure and austere, mankind took\nfresh courage, and were convinced that the paths of virtue were not\nimpracticable for them.\n\nThe generous confidence with which man was inspired by the sight of\nsuch sublime examples, lost nothing of its strength in presence of the\nChristian dogma, which does not allow actions meritorious of eternal\nlife to be attributed to man himself, and teaches him the necessity of\ndivine aid, if he wishes to escape the paths of perdition. This dogma,\nwhich, on the other hand, accords so well with the daily lessons of\nexperience as to human frailty, far from destroying the strength of the\nmind or diminishing its courage, on the contrary, animates it more and\nmore to persevere in spite of all obstacles. When man thinks himself\nalone, when he does not feel himself supported by the powerful hand\nof Providence, he walks with the tottering steps of infancy; he wants\nconfidence in himself, in his own strength; the object he has in view\nseems too distant, the enterprise too arduous, and he is discouraged.\nThe dogma of grace, as it is explained by the Catholic Church, is not\nthat fatalist doctrine, the mother of despair, which has hardened the\nheart among Protestants, as Grotius laments. It is a doctrine which,\nleaving man all his free will, teaches him the necessity of superior\naid; but that aid will be abundantly furnished him by the infinite\ngoodness of God, who has shed His blood for him in torments and\nignominy, and has breathed out for him His last sigh on Mount Calvary.\n\nIt seems as if Providence had been pleased to choose a climate where\nmankind could make a trial of their strength vivified and sustained by\ngrace. It was under a sky apparently the most fatal for the corruption\nof the soul, in countries where the relaxation of the body naturally\nleads to relaxation of mind, and where even the air that they breathed\ninclined to pleasure,--it was there that the greatest energy of mind\nwas displayed, that the greatest austerities were practised, and the\npleasures of the senses were proscribed and banished with the greatest\nseverity. The solitaries fixed their abodes in deserts within the\ninfluence of the balmy breezes of the neighboring lands; from their\nmountains and sandy hills their eyes could distinguish the peaceful\nand smiling countries which invited to pleasure and enjoyment; like\nthe Christian virgin who abandoned her obscure cave to go and place\nherself in the hollow of a rock, whence she saw the palace of her\nfathers overflowing with riches, pleasures, and delights, while she\nherself lamented like a solitary dove in the holes of the rock. From\nthat time all climates were good for virtue; austerity of morals did\nnot at all depend on the proximity of the equatorial line; the morality\nof man, like man himself, could live in all climates. When the most\nperfect continence was practised in so wonderful a manner under the\nsky which we have described, the monogamy of Christianity could well\nbe established and preserved. When, in the secrets of the Eternal,\nthe time had arrived for calling a people to the light of truth, it\nmattered not whether they lived amid the snows of Scandinavia, or on\nthe burning plains of India. The spirit of the divine laws was not to\nbe confined within the narrow circle which the _Esprit des Lois_ of\nMontesquieu has attempted to assign it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XL.\n\nON RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE EAST.\n\n\nThe influence exercised by the lives of the solitaries of the East over\nreligion and morality is beyond a doubt; in truth it is not easy to\nappreciate it in all its extent and in all its effects; but it is not\nthe less true and real on that account. It has not marked the doctrines\nof humanity like those thundering events the effects of which are\noften inadequate to their promises; but it is like a beneficial rain\nwhich, diffusing itself gently over the thirsty earth, fertilizes the\nmeadows and the fields. If it were possible for man to comprehend and\ndistinguish the vast assemblage of causes which have contributed to\nraise his mind, to give him a lively consciousness of his immortality,\nand to render a return to his ancient degradation almost impossible,\nperhaps it would be found that the wonderful phenomenon of the Eastern\nsolitaries had a considerable share in that immense change. Let us\nnot forget that from thence did the great men of the East receive\ntheir inspiration; St. Jerome lived in a cave at Bethlehem, and the\nconversion of St. Augustine was accompanied by a holy emulation excited\nin his mind by reading the life of St. Anthony the Abbot.\n\nThe monasteries which were founded in the East and West in imitation\nof these early establishments of the solitaries, were a continuation\nof them, although with many differences, in consequence of times and\ncircumstances. Thence came the Basils, the Gregories, the Chrysostoms,\nand so many distinguished men, the glory of the Church. If a miserable\nspirit of dispute, ambition, and pride, sowing the seeds of discord,\nhad not prepared the rupture which was to deprive the East of the\nvivifying influence of the Roman See, perhaps the ancient monasteries\nof the East would have served, like those of the West, to prepare a\nsocial regeneration, by forming one people out of the conquerors and\nthe conquered.\n\nIt is evident that the want of unity was one of the causes of the\nweakness of the East; I will not deny that their position was very\ndifferent from ours; the enemy opposed to them did not at all resemble\nthe barbarians of the North; but I am not sure that it was easier to\nsubdue the latter than it was to rule the nations by whom the East\nwas conquered. In the East, the victory remained with the aggressors,\nas with us; but a conquered nation is not dead; its defeat does not\ntake from it all the great advantages which are able, by giving it a\nmoral ascendency over the conquerors, to prepare, in silence, their\ntransformation, if not their expulsion. The northern barbarians\nconquered the South of Europe; but the South, in its turn, triumphed\nover them by the Christian religion; the barbarians were not driven\nout, but they were transformed. Spain was conquered by the Arabs, and\nthe Arabs could not be transformed; but they were driven out in the\nend. If the East had preserved unity, if Constantinople and the other\nepiscopal sees had remained subject to Rome like those of the West; in\na word, if all the East had been contented to be a member of a great\nbody, instead of having the ambitious pretensions of being a great body\nitself, I consider it certain that, after the conquest of the Saracens,\na struggle, at once intellectual, moral, and physical, would have been\nengaged in; a profound change would have been worked in the conquered\nnation, or the struggle would have ended by the conquering barbarians\nbeing driven back to their deserts.\n\nIt will be said that the transformation of the Arabs was the work of\nages. But was not that of the barbarians of the North so likewise?\nWas this great work finished by their conversion to Christianity? A\nconsiderable part of them were Arians; and besides, they understood\nthe Christian ideas so ill, they found the practice of Gospel morality\nso difficult, that for a long time it was almost as difficult to treat\nwith them as with nations of a different religion. On the other hand,\nlet us not forget that the irruption of the barbarians was not a\nsolitary event; an event which, when once finished, did not recur; it\nwas continued for ages. But the force of the religious principle in the\nWest was such, that all the invading nations were compelled to retire,\nor were forced to bend to the ideas and manners of the countries\nthey had recently acquired. The defeat of the hordes of Attila, the\nvictories of Charlemagne over the Saxons and the other nations beyond\nthe Rhine, the successive conversion of the various idolatrous nations\nof the North by means of the missionaries sent from Rome,--in fine, the\nvicissitudes and the final result of the invasions of the Normans, and\nthe ultimate triumph of the Christians of Spain over the Moors after\na war of eight centuries, are so many decisive proofs of what I have\njust laid down--viz. that the West, vivified and fortified by Catholic\nunity, had had the secret of assimilating and appropriating to itself\nall that it was not able to reject, and the force to reject all that it\ncould not make its own.\n\nThis is what was wanting in the East: the enterprise was not more\ndifficult there than in the West. If the West alone was able to\nliberate the Holy Sepulchre, the West and East together would never\nhave lost it; or, at least, after having freed it, they would have kept\nit for ever. The same cause prevented the monasteries of the East from\nattaining to the same vitality and energy which distinguished those of\nthe West; therefore, they have always been seen to grow weak with time,\nwithout producing any thing great, and capable of preventing social\ndissolution, of silently preparing and slowly elaborating regeneration\nfor posterity, after the calamities with which it pleased Providence\nto afflict ancient times. He who has seen in history the brilliant\ncommencement of the Eastern monasteries, cannot behold without pain the\ndecline of their strength and splendor in the course of ages, after the\nravages caused by invasion, wars, and finally, the deadly influence\nof the schism of Constantinople; the ancient abodes of so many men\nillustrious for science and sanctity gradually disappeared from the\npage of history like expiring lamps, or the dying fires of an abandoned\ncamp.\n\nImmense injury was done to all the branches of human knowledge by\nthis decline, which, after having rendered the East barren, ended by\ndestroying it. If we pay attention, we shall see that, amid the great\nshocks and revolutions which disturbed Europe, Africa, and Asia, the\nnatural refuge for the remains of ancient knowledge, was not the West,\nbut the East. It was not in our monasteries that the books, and other\nintellectual riches, of which quieter and happier generations were one\nday to enjoy the benefit, should naturally have been preserved; this,\nit would seem, belonged to the monasteries of the eastern countries;\nthose lands, where the most different civilizations were brought\ntogether and commingled as on neutral ground; those regions, where the\nhuman mind had displayed the greatest activity, and taken the highest\nflights; where the most abundant treasures of tradition and sciences,\nand the beauties of art were accumulated; in a word, it was in this\nvast mart of all the riches of the civilization and refinement of\nall nations,--it was in this sanctuary and museum of antiquity, that\nthe intellectual patrimony of future generations ought to have been\npreserved.\n\nLet it not, however, be supposed that the monasteries of the East were\nof no service to the human mind; the science and literature of Europe\nare still mindful of the impulse which was communicated to them, by\nthe arrival of the precious materials thrown upon the coasts of Italy,\nafter the taking of Constantinople: but even these riches, brought\nto Europe by a few men, driven upon our shores by a tempest, came to\nus, like the remains of a shipwrecked crew, who, after having with\ndifficulty saved their lives from the fury of the waves, have only\npreserved in their benumbed hands some gold and a few precious stones.\n\nFor this reason, precisely, do we lament, because from the example\nwe have adduced, we are enabled the better to understand the immense\nriches of the vessel which was lost; this makes us grieve the more\nbitterly that the early times of the illustrious cenobites of the East\nhave not been brought down to our day by a continued chain. When we\nsee their works overflow with sacred and profane learning, when their\nlabors show us proofs of indefatigable activity, we think with sorrow\nof the inestimable treasures which their libraries must have contained.\n\nYet, in spite of the justness of the melancholy reflections we have\nhere made, it must be allowed that the influence of these monasteries\nnever ceased to be extremely useful to the preservation of knowledge.\nThe Arabs, in the times of their success, showed themselves to\nbe intelligent and cultivated; and Europe, in many respects, is\nindebted to them for much advancement. Bagdad and Grenada, during the\nmiddle ages, are two brilliant centres of intellectual movement and\nart, which serve not a little to diminish the sombre effect of the\nbarbarities of Islamism: they are two tranquil and pleasing features\nin a frightful picture. If it were possible to follow the history of\nintellectual development among the Arabs, through the transformations\nand catastrophes of the East, perhaps we should find in the sciences\nof the nations which they conquered or destroyed the origin of much\nof their progress. It is certain that their own civilization did not\ncontain any vital principle favorable to the development of the mind;\nwe have a proof of this in their religious and social organization,\nand in the small results which they obtained, after having been for so\nmany centuries peacefully established in the conquered countries. Their\nwhole system, with respect to letters and intellectual cultivation,\nis founded on that stupid maxim, uttered by one of their chiefs, when\nhe condemned an immense library to the flames: \"If these books are\ncontrary to the Alcoran, they should be burnt as pernicious; if they\nare not contrary to it, they should be burnt as useless.\"\n\nWe read in Palladius, that the monks of Egypt did not content\nthemselves with working with rude and simple objects, but that they\ndevoted themselves to labors of all kinds. These thousands of men, who,\nbelonging to all classes and to all countries, embraced the solitary\nlife, must have brought to the desert a large treasure of knowledge.\nWe know how far the human mind can go when left to itself, and applied\nto a fixed occupation; there is always some reason for thinking that a\ngreat part of the valuable ideas on the secrets of nature, the utility\nand properties of certain ingredients, the principles of some of the\narts and sciences, knowledge which formed the rich patrimony of the\nArabs at the time when they appeared in Europe, were nothing but the\nremains of ancient learning, gathered by them in countries which had\nformerly been inundated by men from all parts. We must remember that at\nthe time of the first invasions of the northern barbarians, when Spain,\nthe south of France, Italy, the north of Africa, and all the islands\nadjacent to these countries, were ravaged by these terrible men, the\nEast became a refuge, an asylum, for all those who could undertake the\nvoyage. Thus the treasures of Western science accumulated every day\nin these countries; this emigration from all the Western regions may\nhave contributed, in an extraordinary manner, to convey to the East the\nremains of ancient knowledge, which afterwards came to us transformed\nand disfigured by the hands of the Arabs.\n\nDeeply convinced of the nothingness of the world by so long a\nsuccession of heavy misfortunes, these unfortunate men felt the\nreligious sentiment strengthened in their hearts; the fugitives\nassembled in the East listened with lively emotion to the energetic\nwords of the solitary of the cave of Bethlehem. A great many of them\nretired into the monasteries, where they found relief for their wants,\nand consolation for their souls; thus did the Eastern monasteries gain\na great addition of valuable knowledge and information of all sorts.\n\nIf European civilization one day become complete mistress of the\ncountries which now groan under the Mussulman yoke, perhaps it will\nbe given to the history of science to add a noble page to its labors,\nwhen, through the obscurities of the times, and by means of manuscripts\ndiscovered by curiosity or chance, she shall have found the thread\nwhich shall lead to a knowledge of the connection of Arabian science\nwith that of antiquity. The succession of transformations will then be\ndisplayed, and we shall understand how the science of the sons of Omar\nhas appeared to have a different origin in our eyes. The archives of\nSpain contain, in documents relating to the dominion of the Saracens,\nriches, the examination of which may be said not yet to be commenced;\nperhaps they will throw some light on this point. There is no doubt\nthat they afford matter for careful investigation, extremely curious\nfor appreciating these two very different civilizations, the Mohammedan\nand the Christian.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLI.\n\nOF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE HISTORY OF THE WEST.\n\n\nLet us now examine religious institutions, such as they appear in the\nWest, but laying aside those which, although established in various\nparts of the West, were only a sort of ramification of the Eastern\nmonasteries. We observe that the religious establishments among us\nadded to the Gospel spirit, the principle of their foundation, a\nnew character, that of conservative, restorative, and regenerative\nassociations. The monks of the West were not content with sanctifying\nthemselves; from the first they influenced society. The light and\nlife which their holy abodes contained, labored to enlighten and\nfertilize the chaos of the world. I do not know in history a nobler\nor more consoling spectacle than that which is presented to us by the\nfoundation, existence, and development of the religious institutions\nof Europe. Society had need of strong efforts to preserve its life\nin the terrible crisis through which it had to pass. The secret of\nstrength is in the union of individual forces, in association; and it\nis remarkable that this secret has been taught to European society as\nif by a revelation from heaven. Every thing shakes, falls to pieces,\nand perishes. Religion, morality, public authority, laws, manners,\nsciences, and arts--every thing has sustained immense losses, every\nthing goes to ruin; and judging of the future fate of the world\naccording to human probabilities, the evils are so great and numerous\nthat a remedy appears impossible.\n\nThe observer who, fixing his eyes upon those desolate times,\nfinds there St. Bennet giving life to and animating the religious\ninstitutions, organizing them, giving them his wise rule and stability,\nimagines that he sees an angel of light issuing from the bosom of\ndarkness. Nothing can be imagined better calculated to restore to\ndissolved society a principle of life capable of reorganizing it, than\nthe extraordinary and sublime inspiration which guided this man. Who\ndoes not know what at that time was the condition of Italy--I should\nrather say, of the whole of Europe? What ignorance, what corruption,\nwhat elements of social dissolution! What desolation everywhere! and it\nis amid this deplorable state of things that the holy solitary appears,\nthe child of an illustrious family of Norcia, resolved to combat the\nevil which threatens to invade the world. His arms are his virtues; the\neloquence of his example gives him an irresistible ascendency; elevated\nabove the whole age, burning with zeal, and yet full of prudence and\ndiscretion, he founds that institution which is to remain amid the\nrevolution of ages, like the pyramids unmoved by the storms of the\ndesert.\n\nWhat idea has there been more grand, more beneficent, more full of\nforesight and wisdom? At a time when knowledge and virtue had no\nlonger an asylum, when ignorance, corruption, and barbarism rapidly\nextended their conquests, was it not a grand idea to raise a refuge\nfor misfortune, to form a sacred deposit for the precious monuments\nof antiquity, and to open schools of knowledge and virtue, where men\ndestined one day to figure in the vortex of the world might come\nfor instruction? When the reflecting man fixes his attention on the\nsilent abode of Monte Cassino, where the sons of the most illustrious\nfamilies of the empire are seen to come from all parts to that\nmonastery; some with the intention of remaining there for ever, others\nto receive a good education, and soon to carry back to the world a\nrecollection of the serious inspirations which the holy founder had\nreceived at Subiaco; when the monasteries of the order are seen to\nmultiply everywhere, to be established as great centres of activity\nin all places--in the plains, in the forests, in the most uninhabited\ncountries; he cannot help bending, with profound veneration, before\nthe extraordinary man who has conceived such grand designs. If we are\nunwilling to acknowledge in St. Bennet a man inspired by Heaven, at\nleast we ought to consider him as one of those geniuses who, from time\nto time, appear on earth to become the tutelary angels of the human\nrace.\n\nNot to acknowledge the powerful effect of such institutions would\nbe to show but little intelligence. When society is dissolved, it\nrequires not words, not projects, not laws, but strong institutions, to\nresist the shock of the passions, the inconstancy of the human mind,\nand the destructive power of events; institutions which raise the\nmind, pacify and ennoble the heart, and establish in society a deep\nmovement of reaction and resistance to the fatal elements which lead\nit to destruction. If there exists, then, an active mind, a generous\nheart, a soul animated by a feeling of virtue, they will all hasten to\nseek a refuge in the sacred asylums; it is not always granted to them\nto change the course of the world, but at least, as men of solitude\nand sacrifice, they labour to instruct and calm their own minds, and\nthey shed a tear of compassion over the senseless generations who are\nagitated by great disasters. From time to time they succeed in making\ntheir voices heard amid the tumult, to alarm the hearts of the wicked\nby accents which resemble the formidable warnings of Heaven; thus they\ndiminish the force of the evil while it is impossible to prevent it\nentirely; by constantly protesting against iniquity, they prevent its\nacquiring prescriptive right; in attesting to future generations, by a\nsolemn testimony, that there were always, amid darkness and corruption,\nmen who made efforts to enlighten the world and to restrain the torrent\nof vice and crime, they preserve faith in truth and virtue, and they\nreanimate the hopes of those who are afterwards placed in similar\ncircumstances. Such was the action of the monks in the calamitous times\nof which we speak; such was their noble and sublime mission to promote\nthe interests of humanity.\n\nPerhaps it will be said that the immense properties acquired by the\nmonasteries were an abundant recompense for their labors, and perhaps\nalso a proof that their exertions were little disinterested. No doubt,\nif we look at things in the light in which certain writers have\nrepresented them, the wealth of the monks will appear as the fruit of\nunbounded cupidity, of cruelty, and perfidious policy; but we have the\nwhole of history to refute the calumnies of the enemies of religion;\nand impartial philosophy, while acknowledging that all that is human\nis liable to abuse, takes care to assume a higher position, to regard\nthings _en masse_, and to consider them in the vast picture where so\nmany centuries have painted their features. It therefore despises the\nevil, which is only the exception, while it contemplates and admires\nthe good, which is the rule.\n\nBesides the numerous religious motives which brought property into\nthe hands of the monks, there is another very legitimate one, which\nhas always been regarded as one of the justest titles of acquisition.\nThe monks cultivated waste lands, dried up marshes, constructed\nroads, restrained rivers within their beds, and built bridges over\nthem; that is to say, in countries which had undergone another kind\nof general deluge, they renewed, in some measure, what the first\nnations had done to restore the revolutionized globe to its original\nform. A considerable portion of Europe had never received cultivation\nfrom the hands of men; the forests, the rivers, the lakes, the thorny\nthickets, were as rough as they had been left by the hands of nature.\nThe monasteries which were founded here and there may be regarded as\nthe centres of action, which the civilized nations established in the\nnew countries, the faces of which they proposed to change by their\npowerful colonies. Did there ever exist a more legitimate title for the\npossession of large properties? Is not he who reclaims a waste country,\ncultivates it, and fills it with inhabitants, worthy of preserving\nlarge possessions there? Is not this the natural course of things? Who\nknows how many cities and towns arose and flourished under the shadow\nof the abbeys?\n\nMonastic properties, besides their substantial utility, had another,\nwhich perhaps has not been sufficiently noticed. The situation of a\ngreat part of the nations of Europe, at the time we speak of, much\nresembled the state of fluctuation and inconstancy in which nations are\nfound, who have not yet made any progress in the career of civilization\nand refinement. The idea of property, one of the most fundamental in\nall social organization, was but little rooted. Attacks on property at\nthat time were very frequent, as well as attacks on persons. The man\nwho is constantly compelled to defend his own, is also constantly led\nto usurp the property of others; the first thing to do to remedy so\ngreat an evil, was to locate and fix the population by means of the\nagricultural life, and to accustom them to respect for property, not\nonly by reasons drawn from morality and private interest, but also\nby the sight of large domains belonging to establishments regarded\nas inviolable, and against which a hand could not be raised without\nsacrilege. Thus religious ideas were connected with social ones, and\nthey slowly prepared an organization which was to be completed in more\npeaceable times.\n\nAdd to this a new necessity, the result of the change which took place\nat that time in the habits of the people. Among the ancients, scarcely\nany other life than that of cities was known; life in the country, that\ndispersion of an immense population, which in modern times forms a\nnew nation in the fields, was not known among the ancients; and it is\nremarkable that this change in the mode of life was realized exactly\nwhen the most calamitous circumstances seemed to render it the most\ndangerous and difficult. It is to the existence of the monasteries\nin fields and in retired places that we owe the establishment and\nconsolidation of this new kind of life, which, no doubt, would have\nbeen impossible without the ascendency and the beneficial influence of\nthe powerful abbeys. These religious foundations joined all the riches\nand the power of feudal lords with the mild and beneficent influence of\nreligious authority.\n\nHow much does not Germany owe to the monks! Did they not bring her\nlands into cultivation, make her agriculture flourish, and cover her\nwith a numerous population? How much are not France, Spain, and England\nindebted to them! It is certain that this latter country would never\nhave reached the high degree of civilization of which she now boasts,\nif the apostolic labors of the missionaries who penetrated thither\nin the sixth century had not drawn her out of the darkness of gross\nidolatry. And who were these missionaries? Was not the chief of them\nAugustine, a monk full of zeal, sent by a Pope who had also been a\nmonk, St. Gregory the Great? Where do you find, amid the confusion of\nthe middle ages, the great writers of knowledge and virtue, except\nin those solitary abodes whence issue St. Isidore, the Archbishop of\nSeville; the holy abbot St. Columbanus; St. Aurelian, Bishop of Arles;\nSt. Augustine, the Apostle of England; that of Germany, St. Boniface;\nBede, Cuthbert, Auperth, Paul, monks of Monte Cassino; Hincmar of\nRheims, brought up at the monastery of St. Denis; St. Peter Damiens,\nSt. Ives, Lanfranc, and so many others, who form a generation of\ndistinguished men, resembling in no respect the other men of their time.\n\nBesides the service rendered to society by the monks in religion and\nmorals, they conferred inestimable benefits on letters and science.\nIt has already been observed more than once, that letters took refuge\nin the cloisters, and that the monks, by preserving and copying the\nancient manuscripts, prepared the materials which were one day to\nassist in the restoration of human learning. But we must not limit\ntheir merit to that of mere copyists. Many of them advanced far in\nscience, many ages in advance of the times in which they lived. Not\ncontent with the laborious task of preserving and putting into order\nthe ancient manuscripts, they rendered the most eminent service\nto history by compiling chronicles. Thereby, while continuing the\ntradition of the most important branches of study, they collected\nthe contemporary history, which, perhaps, without their labor would\nhave been lost. Adon, Archbishop of Vienne, brought up in the Abbey\nof Ferri\u00e8re, writes a universal history, from the beginning of the\nworld to his own time; Abbon, monk of St. Germain-des-Pr\u00e9s, composes\na Latin poem, in which he relates the siege of Paris by the Normans;\nAymon of Aquitaine writes the history of the French in four books;\nSt. Ives publishes a chronicle of their kings; the German monk Witmar\nleaves us the chronicle of Henry I., of the Kings Otho and Henry II.,\nwhich is much esteemed for its candor, and has been published many\ntimes; Leibnitz has used it to throw light on the history of Brunswick.\nAdhemar is the author of a chronicle, which embraces the whole time\nfrom 829 to 1029. Glaber, monk of Cluny, has composed a much-esteemed\nhistory of the events which happened in France from 980 to his own\ntime; Herman, a chronicle which embraces the six ages of the world\ndown to the year 1054. In fine, we should never finish if we were to\nmention the historical labors of Sigebert, Guibert, Hugh, Prior of St.\nVictor, and so many other illustrious men, who, rising above their\ntimes, applied themselves to labors of this kind; of which we cannot\neasily appreciate the difficulty and the high degree of merit, we who\nlive in an age when the means of knowledge are become so easy, when\nthe accumulated riches of so many ages are inherited, and when we\nfind on all sides wide and well-beaten paths. Without the existence\nof religious institutions, without the asylum of the cloisters, these\neminent men would never have been formed. Not only had the sciences\nand letters been lost sight of, but ignorance was so great, that\nseculars who knew how to read and write were very rare. Surely such\ncircumstances were not well adapted to form men of merit enough to do\nhonor to advanced ages. Who has not often paused to contemplate the\ndistinguished triumvirate, Peter the Venerable, St. Bernard, and the\nAbbot Suger? May it not be said that the twelfth century is elevated\nabove its rank in history, by producing a writer like Peter the\nVenerable, an orator like St. Bernard, and a statesman like Suger?\n\nThese ages show us another celebrated monk, whose influence on the\nprogress of knowledge has not been rated at its just value by many\ncritics who love only to point out defects: I mean Gratian. Those who\nhave declaimed against him, eager to look for his mistakes, should\nhave placed themselves in the position of a compiler in the thirteenth\ncentury, at a time when all resources were wanting, when the lights of\ncriticism were yet to be created; they would then have seen whether\nthe bold enterprise of the monk was not attended with more success\nthan there was reason to hope for. The profit which was drawn from the\ncollection of Gratian is incalculable. By giving in a small compass\na great part of what was most precious in antiquity with respect to\ncivil and canon law; by making an abundant collection of texts from the\nholy fathers, applied to all kinds of subjects, he awakened a taste\nfor that species of research; he created the study of them; he made an\nimmense step towards satisfying one of the first necessities of modern\nnations, the formation of civil and ecclesiastical codes. It will be\nsaid that the errors of Gratian were contagious, and that it would have\nbeen better to have recourse directly to the originals; but to read\nthe originals it was necessary to know them; it was necessary to be\ninformed of their existence, to be excited by the desire of explaining\na proposed difficulty, to have acquired a taste for researches of that\nkind; all this was wanting before Gratian; all this was brought out by\nhis enterprise. The general favor with which his labors were received\nis the most convincing proof of their merit; and if it be objected that\nthis favor was owing to the ignorance of the time, I will reply, that\nwe owe a tribute of gratitude to any one who throws a ray of light on\nthe darkness, however feeble and wavering this ray may be.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLII.\n\nOF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS DURING THE SECOND HALF OF THE MIDDLE\nAGES.--THE MILITARY ORDERS.\n\n\nThe rapid view which we have just taken of religious institutions from\nthe irruption of the barbarians to the twelfth century, has shown\nus that the monastic foundations, during that time, were a powerful\nsupport for that remaining portion of society which was ready to\nfall to pieces in the universal ruin; an asylum for misfortune, for\nvirtue, and for knowledge; a storehouse for the precious monuments\nof antiquity, and in some measure an assemblage of civilizing\nassociations, which labored in silence at the reconstruction of the\nsocial edifice, by neutralizing the force of the dissolving principles\nwhich had ruined its basis; they were, besides, a nursery for forming\nthe men who were required for the elevated posts in Church and State.\nIn the twelfth and the following centuries, these institutions take\na new form, and assume a character very different from that which we\nhave just pointed out. Their aim remains not less highly religious and\nsocial; but the times are changed, and we must remember the words of\nthe Apostle, _omnia omnibus_. Let us examine the causes and the results\nof these novelties.\n\nBefore going further, I will say a few words on the religious military\norders, the name of which sufficiently indicates their double character\nof monk and soldier. The union of the monastic state with war: what\na monstrous mixture! will be the cry. In spite of the supposed\nmonstrosity, this union was in conformity with the natural and regular\norder of things; it was a strong remedy applied to very great evils;\na rampart against imminent dangers; in a word, the expression of a\ngreat European necessity. This is not the place to relate the annals of\nthe military orders, annals which, like the most illustrious history,\nafford wonderful and interesting pictures, with that mixture of heroism\nand religious inspiration which assimilates history with poetry. It is\nenough to pronounce the names of the knights of the Temple, of St. John\nof Jerusalem, of the Teutonic order, of St. Raymond, of the Abbot of\nFitero, of Calatrava, instantly to remind the reader of a long series\nof marvellous events, forming one of the noblest pages in the history\nof that time. Let us omit these narrations, which do not regard us; but\nlet us pause for a moment to examine the origin and spirit of these\nfamous institutions.\n\nThe Cross and the Crescent were enemies irreconcilable by nature, and\nurged to the greatest fury by a long and bloody struggle. Both had\ngreat power and vast designs; both were supported by brave nations,\nfull of enthusiasm and ready to throw themselves on each other; both\nhad great hopes of success founded on former achievements; on which\nside will the victory remain? What course ought the Christians to\npursue in order to avoid the dangers which threaten them? Is it better\nquietly to await the attack of the Mussulmen in Europe, or make a levy\n_en masse_ to invade Asia and seek the enemy in his own country, where\nhe believes himself to be invincible? The problem was solved in the\nlatter way; the Crusades took place, and centuries have given their\nsuffrage as to the wisdom of that resolution. What avails a little\ndeclamation affecting to favor the cause of justice and humanity? Let\nno one allow himself to be dazzled; the philosophy of history taught\nby the lessons of experience, enriched with a more abundant treasure\nof knowledge, the fruit of a more attentive study of the facts, has\ngiven a decisive judgment in this case; in this, as in other cases,\nreligion has retired in triumph from the tribunal of philosophy.\nThe Crusades, far from being considered as an act of barbarism and\nrashness, are justly regarded as a _chef-d'\u0153uvre_ of policy, which,\nafter having secured the independence of Europe, gave to the Christian\nnations a decided preponderance over the Mussulmen. The military\nspirit was thereby increased and strengthened among European nations;\nthey all received a feeling of fraternity, which transformed them into\none people; the human mind was developed in many ways; the state of\nfeudal vassals was improved, and feudality was urged towards its entire\nruin; navies were created, commerce and manufactures were encouraged;\nthus society received from the Crusades a most powerful impulse in\nthe career of civilization. We do not mean to say, that the men who\nconceived them, the Popes who excited, the nations who undertook, the\nprinces and lords who promoted them with their power, were aware of the\nwhole extent of their own works, or even had a glimpse of the immensity\nof their results; it is enough that they settled the existing question\nin the way the most favorable to the independence and prosperity of\nEurope; this, I repeat, is enough. I would observe, moreover, that\nwe should attribute so much the more importance to things as human\nforesight has had little share in the events; now these things are\nnothing less than the principles and feelings of religion in connection\nwith the preservation and happiness of society, Catholicity covering\nwith her \u00e6gis and animating with her breath the civilization of Europe.\n\nSuch were the Crusades. Now, remember that this idea, so great and\ngenerous, was conceived with a degree of vagueness, and executed with\nthat precipitation which is the fruit of the impatience of ardent\nzeal; remember that this idea--the offspring of Catholicity, which\nalways converts its ideas into institutions--was to be realized in\nan institution, which faithfully represented it, and served, as it\nwere, as its organ, in order that it might render itself felt, and\ngain strength and fruitfulness for its support. After this, you will\nlook for some means of uniting religion and arms; and you will be\nfilled with joy when, under a cuirass of steel, you shall find hearts\nzealous for the religion of Jesus Christ--when you shall see this new\nkind of men, who devote themselves without reserve to the defence of\nreligion, while they renounce all that the world can offer--gentler\nthan lambs, bolder than lions, in the words of St. Bernard. Sometimes\nthey assembled in community, to raise their voices to Heaven in fervent\nprayer; sometimes they boldly marched to battle, brandishing their\nformidable lances, the terror of the Saracens. No; there does not exist\nin the annals of history an event so colossal as the Crusades, and\nyou might search there in vain for an institution more generous than\nthe military orders. In the Crusades we see numberless nations arise,\nmarch across deserts, bury themselves in countries with which they are\nunacquainted, and expose themselves to all the rigors of climates and\nseasons; and for what purpose? To deliver a tomb! Grand and immortal\nmovement, where hundreds of nations advance to certain death--not in\npursuit of a miserable self-interest--not to find an abode in milder\nand more fertile countries--not from an ardent desire to obtain for\nthemselves earthly advantages--but inspired only by a religious idea,\nby a jealous desire to possess the tomb of Him who expired on the cross\nfor the salvation of the human race! When compared with this, what\nbecomes of the lofty deeds of the Greeks, chanted by Homer? Greece\narises to avenge an injured husband; Europe to redeem the sepulchre of\na God.\n\nWhen, after the disasters and the triumphs of the Crusades, we see the\nmilitary orders appear, sometimes fighting in the oriental regions,\nsometimes in the islands of the Mediterranean, sustaining and repelling\nthe rude assaults of Islamism, which, emboldened by its victories,\nagain longs to throw itself on Europe, we imagine that we behold those\nbrave men, who, on the day of a great battle, remain alone upon the\nfield, one against a hundred, securing by their heroism, and at the\nhazard of their lives, the safety of their companions in arms who\nretire behind them. Honor and glory to the religion which has been\ncapable of inspiring such lofty thoughts, and has been able to realize\nsuch great and generous enterprises!\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLIII.\n\nCONTINUATION OF THE SAME SUBJECT--EUROPE IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.\n\n\nPerhaps they who are the most opposed to religious communities may be\nreconciled to the solitaries of the East, when they perceive in them a\nclass of men who, by practising the most sublime and austere counsels\nof religion, have communicated a generous impulse to humanity, have\nraised it from the dust where Paganism had held it, and made it wing\nits flight towards purer regions. To accustom man to grave and strict\nmorality; to bring back the soul within itself; to give a lively\nfeeling of the dignity of his nature, of the loftiness of his origin\nand his destiny; to inspire him, by means of extraordinary examples,\nwith confidence that the mind, aided by divine grace, can triumph over\nthe animal passions, and make man lead an angelic life upon earth:\nthese are benefits so signal, that a noble heart must show itself\ngrateful and full of lively interest for the men who have given them\nto the world. As to the monasteries of the West, the benefits of their\ncivilizing influence are so visible, that no man who loves humanity can\nregard them with animadversion; in fine, the military orders present\nus with an idea so noble, so poetical, and realize in so admirable a\nmanner one of those golden dreams which cross the human mind in moments\nof enthusiasm, that they must certainly find respectful homage in every\nheart which beats at a noble and sublime spectacle.\n\nThere yet remains a more difficult task, that of presenting at the\ntribunal of philosophy--that philosophy so indifferent in religious\nmatters--the other religious communities which are not comprised in\nthe sketch which I have just made. Judgments of great severity have\nbeen passed upon those institutions which I have now to speak of; but\nin such things justice cannot be prescriptive. Neither the applause\nof irreligious men, nor the revolutions which upset all that stand in\ntheir way, can prevent the truth being placed in its true light, and\nfolly and crime being stigmatized with disgrace.\n\nThe thirteenth century has just commenced; there appears a new kind of\nmen, who, under different titles, denominations, and forms, profess a\nsingular and extraordinary way of life. Some put on clothing of coarse\ncloth; they renounce all wealth and property; they condemn themselves\nto perpetual mendicity, spreading themselves over the country and\nthe towns for the sake of gaining souls for Jesus Christ. Others\nbear on their dress the distinctive mark of the redemption of man,\nand undertake the mission of releasing from servitude the numberless\ncaptives who, from the misfortune of the times, have fallen into\nthe hands of the Mussulmen. Some erect the cross in the midst of a\npeople who eagerly follow them, and they institute a new devotion--a\nconstant hymn of praise to Jesus and to Mary; at the same time they\nindefatigably preach the faith of the Crucified. Others go in search\nof all the miseries of man, bury themselves in hospitals, in all the\nasylums of misfortune, to succour and console. They all bear new\nstandards; all show equal contempt for the world; they all form a\nportion separate from the rest of mankind; but they resemble neither\nthe solitaries of the East, nor the sons of St. Bennet. The new monks\narise not in the desert, but in the midst of society: their object is\nnot to live shut up in monasteries, but to spread themselves over the\nfields and hamlets, to penetrate to the heart of the great masses of\nthe population, and to make their voices heard both in the cottage of\nthe shepherd and in the palace of the monarch. They increase on all\nsides in a prodigious manner. Italy, Germany, France, Spain, England,\nreceive them; numerous convents arise as if by enchantment in the\nvillages and towns; the Popes protect them and enrich them with many\nprivileges; kings grant them the highest favors, and support them in\ntheir enterprises; the people regard them with veneration, and listen\nto them with respectful docility. A religious movement appears on all\nsides; religious institutions, more or less resembling each other,\narise like the branches from the same trunk. The observer, when he sees\nthis immense and astonishing picture, asks himself, What are the causes\nof so extraordinary a phenomenon? whence this singular movement? what\nis its tendency? what will be its effects on society?\n\nWhen a fact of such high importance is realized all at once in many\ndifferent countries, and lasts for centuries, it is a proof that there\nexisted very powerful means to produce it. It is vain to be entirely\nforgetful of the views of Providence: no one can deny that such a fact\nmust have had its root in the essence of things; consequently it is\nuseless to declaim against the men and the institutions. Acknowledging\nthis, the true philosopher will not lose his time in anathematizing the\nfact, but he will examine and analyze it. No declamation or invectives\nagainst the monks can efface their history; they have existed for many\ncenturies, and centuries do not retrace their steps.\n\nWe will not inquire if there was here some extraordinary design of\nProvidence, and we will lay aside the reflections which religion\nsuggests to every true Catholic; we will confine ourselves to\nconsidering the religious institutions of modern times in a purely\nphilosophical point of view; we can show that they were not only very\nconformable to the well-being of society, but also perfectly adapted to\nthe situation in which it was placed; we can show that they displayed\nneither cunning, malice, nor vile self-interest; that their object was\nhighly advantageous, and that they were at the same time the expression\nand the fulfilment of great social necessities.\n\nThe question of its own accord assumes the position in which we have\njust regarded it; and it is strange that men have not acknowledged all\nthe importance of the magnificent points of view which here present\nthemselves.\n\nIn order the better to clear up this important matter, I will enter\nupon an examination of the social condition of Europe at the time of\nwhich we speak. As soon as we take the first glance at this epoch, we\nobserve that, in spite of the intellectual rudeness which one would\nimagine must have kept nations in abject silence, there was at the\nbottom of men's minds an anxiety which deeply moved and agitated them.\nThese times are ignorant; but it is an ignorance which is conscious\nof itself and which longs for knowledge. There is felt a want of\nharmony in the relations and institutions of society; but that want is\neverywhere felt and acknowledged, and a continual agitation indicates\nthat this harmony is anxiously desired and ardently sought for. I know\nnot what singular character is stamped upon the nations of Europe,\nbut we do not find there the symptoms of death; they are barbarous,\nignorant, corrupt, any thing you please; but, as if they constantly\nheard a voice calling them to light, to civilization, to a new life,\nthey incessantly labor to leave the fatal condition into which unhappy\ncircumstances have plunged them. They never sleep in tranquillity amid\nthe darkness; they never live without remorse amid the corruption of\nmanners. The echo of virtue continually resounds in their ears; flashes\nof light appear in the darkness; a thousand efforts are made to advance\na step in the career of civilization; a thousand times they are vain;\nbut they are renewed as often as they are repulsed; the generous\nattempt is never abandoned; they fail a thousand times; but they never\nlose courage. Courage and ardour are never wanting. There is this\nremarkable difference between the nations of Europe, and those nations\namong whom the Christian religion has not yet penetrated, or from whose\nbosom it has been banished. Ancient Greece falls, never to rise again;\nthe Republics of the shore of Asia disappear, and do not rise out of\ntheir ruins. The ancient civilization of Egypt is broken to pieces by\nthe conquerors, and posterity has scarcely preserved a remembrance of\nthem. Certainly none of the nations on the coast of Africa can show us\nsigns which reveal the ancient country of St. Cyprian, of Tertullian\nand St. Augustine. Still more; a considerable portion of Asia has\npreserved Christianity, but a Christianity separated from Rome; and\nthis has been unable to establish or regenerate any thing. Political\npower has aided and protected it, but the nation remains feeble; it\ncannot stand erect; it is a dead body, incapable of advancing; it is\nnot like Lazarus, who has just heard the all-powerful voice: \"Lazarus,\ncome forth; _Lazare veni foras_.\"\n\nThis anxiety, this agitation, this extreme eagerness towards a\ngreater and happier future, this desire for reformation in manners,\nfor enlargement and correction in ideas, for amelioration in\ninstitutions--the distinctive characteristics of modern nations--made\nthemselves felt in a fearful manner at the time to which we allude. I\nwill say nothing of the military history of those times, which would\nfurnish us with abundant proofs of our assertion; I will confine\nmyself to facts which, owing to their religious and social character,\nhave the greatest analogy with the subject which now occupies us. A\nformidable energy of mind, a great fund of activity, a simultaneous\ndevelopment of the most ardent passions, an enterprising spirit, a\nlively desire of independence, a decided inclination to employ violent\nmeans, an extraordinary zeal for proselytism, ignorance combined with\na thirst for knowledge, even combined with enthusiasm and fanaticism\nfor all that bears the name of science; a high esteem for the titles\nof nobility, and of illustrious blood, united with the spirit of\ndemocracy, and a profound respect for merit, wherever it may be found;\na childlike candor, an excessive credulity, and, at the same time, the\nmost obstinate indocility; a tenacious spirit of resistance, fearful\nstubbornness, corruption, and licentiousness of manners, allied with\nadmiration for virtue; a taste for the most austere practices, combined\nwith an inclination for the most extravagant habits and manners; such\nare the traits which history exhibits among these nations.\n\nSo singular a mixture appears strange at first sight; and yet nothing\nwas more natural. Things could not be otherwise: societies are formed\nunder the influence of certain principles, and of certain particular\ncircumstances, which impart to them their genius, character, and\ncountenance. It is the same with society as with individuals;\neducation, instruction, temperament, and a thousand other physical\nand moral circumstances, concur in forming a collection of influences\nwhich produce qualities the most different, and sometimes the most\ncontradictory. This concurrence of different causes was shown in a\nsingular and extraordinary manner among the nations of Europe; it\nis on this account that we observe there the most extravagant and\ndiscordant effects. Let us recollect the history of those nations since\nthe fall of the Roman empire to the end of the Crusades; never did an\nassemblage of nations present a combination of more varied elements,\nand a spectacle of greater events. The moral principles which preside\nover the development of these nations were in direct opposition to\ntheir genius and situation. These principles were essentially pure,\nunchangeable as the God who had established them; radiant with light,\nbecause they emanated from the source of all light and life: the\nnations, on the contrary, were ignorant, rude, fluctuating, like\nthe waves of the sea, and corrupted, as was to be expected of every\nthing which was the result of an impure mixture. Wherefore a terrible\nstruggle took place between principles and facts; wherefore there were\nwitnessed the most extraordinary contradictions, according as good and\nevil alternately preponderated. Never was the struggle between elements\nwhich could not remain at peace, more clearly seen; the genii of good\nand of evil seemed to descend into the arena, and to fight hand to hand.\n\nThe nations of Europe were not in their infancy, for they were\nsurrounded by old institutions. Full of the recollections of ancient\ncivilization, they preserved various remains of it. They were\nthemselves produced by the mixture of a hundred nations, differing in\nlaws, customs, and manners. They were not yet adult nations; as this\ndenomination cannot be applied either to individuals or to society\nbefore they have reached a certain development, from which the nations\nof Europe were still far removed. It is very difficult to find a word\nto express this social state; it was neither a state of civilization,\nnor that of barbarism; for a number of laws and institutions existed\nthere, which certainly did not deserve the epithet of barbarous. If we\ncall these nations semi-barbarous, perhaps we shall approach the truth.\nWords are of little importance, if we have a clear idea of the things.\n\nIt cannot be denied that the European nations, owing to a long series\nof revolutions, and the extraordinary mixture of races, of ideas, and\nmanners, of the conquerors with each other, and of the conquerors\nwith the nations conquered, had a large portion of barbarism, and a\nfruitful germ of agitation and disorder. But the malignant influence\nof these elements was combated by the action of Christianity, which\nhad obtained a decided preponderance over minds, and which, besides,\nwas supported by powerful institutions. Christianity, to accomplish\nthis difficult work, had the assistance of great material force. The\nChristian doctrines, which penetrated on all sides, tended, like a\nsweetening liquid, to soften and improve every thing; but, at every\nstep, the mind comes into collision with the senses, morality with\nthe passions, order with anarchy, charity with ferocity, and law\nwith fact. Thence a struggle, which, although general to a certain\nextent in all times and countries, since it is founded on the nature\nof man, was then more rude, violent, and clamorous. The two most\nopposite principles, barbarism and Christianity, were then face to\nface in the same arena, with no one between them. Observe these\nnations with attention, read their history with reflection, and you\nwill see that those two principles are constantly struggling, and\nconstantly contending for influence and preponderance; thence the\nmost strange situations, and the most singular contrasts. Study the\ncharacter of the wars of that time, and you will hear the holiest\nmaxims constantly proclaimed; legitimacy, law, reason, and justice\nare invoked; the tribunal of God is incessantly appealed to: this is\nthe influence of Christianity. But, at the same time, you will be\nafflicted at the sight of numberless acts of violence, of cruelties,\natrocities, pillages, rapines, murders, fires, and disasters without\nend: this is barbarism. If you look at the Crusades, you will observe\nthat grand ideas, vast plans, noble inspirations, social and political\nviews of the highest importance, fermented in men's heads; that all\nhearts overflowed with noble and generous feelings, and that a holy\nenthusiasm, transporting men out of themselves, rendered them capable\nof heroic actions: this is the influence of Christianity. But, if you\nexamine the execution, you will see disorder, improvidence, want of\ndiscipline in the armies, injuries, and acts of violence; you will\nseek in vain for concert and harmony among those who take part in the\ngigantic and perilous enterprise: there is barbarism. Youths, thirsting\nfor knowledge, crowd to the lectures of the famous masters, from the\nmost distant countries; Italians, Germans, English, Spanish, and\nFrench are mingled and confounded around the chairs of Abelard, Peter\nLombard, Albertus Magnus, and St. Thomas of Aquin; a powerful voice\nresounds in their ears, calling them to leave the shades of ignorance\nand raise themselves to the regions of science; the love of knowledge\nanimates them; the longest journeys cannot stop them; the enthusiasm\nfor illustrious masters is carried to an indescribable extent: behold\nthe influence of Christianity; behold her constantly stirring and\nilluminating the mind of man, never allowing him to repose tranquilly\nin obscurity, and continually exciting him to new intellectual labors\nand researches after truth! But behold these same youths, who exhibit\nsuch noble dispositions, and inspire such legitimate and consoling\nhopes; are they not also those licentious, restless, and turbulent\nyoung men, giving way to the most deplorable acts of violence,\ncontinually fighting in the streets, and forming in the midst of great\ncities a small republic, an unruly democracy, where there is much\ndifficulty in maintaining law and good order? Behold here barbarism!\n\nIt is good, it is perfectly conformable to the spirit of religion, that\nthe guilty man who raises a repentant and humiliated heart to God,\nshould manifest his feeling and the affliction of his soul by external\nacts; that he should labor to fortify his mind, and restrain his evil\ninclinations, by employing the rigors of gospel austerity against his\nflesh: all this is sovereignly reasonable, just, holy, and conformable\nto the maxims of the Christian religion, which thus ordains for the\njustification and sanctification of the sinner, to repair the injury\ndone to the souls of others by the scandal of a bad life. But that\npenitents, half naked, should wander about loaded with chains, carrying\nhorror and alarm everywhere, as happened at this time, when we see\necclesiastical authority compelled to repress the abuse: this marks the\nspirit of rudeness and ferocity which always accompany the state of\nbarbarism. Nothing is more true, noble, and salutary for society, than\nto imagine God always ready to defend innocence, to protect it against\ninjustice and calumny, and to raise it above humiliation and disgrace,\nby restoring to it, sooner or later, the purity and lustre of which\nthey have attempted to deprive it. This supposition is an effect of\nfaith in Providence--that faith emanating from Christian ideas, which\nrepresent to us God as embracing the whole world in his view, reaching\nwith his penetrating eye the deepest recesses of the heart, and not\neven excluding the meanest of his creatures from his paternal love. But\nwho does not perceive the infinite distance which separates this pure\nfaith from the trials by fire, water, and single combat? Who does not\nhere discover rudeness confounding all things--the spirit of violence\nlaboring to subject every thing to a rigorous law--attempting, in some\nmeasure, to oblige God himself to comply with our wants and caprices,\nin order to interpose the testimony of his solemn miracles, whenever it\nsuits our pleasure or convenience to find out the truth?\n\nI introduce these contrasts here in order to awaken the recollections\nof those who have read history, and to enable me to establish, in a few\nwords, the simple and general formula which sums up all those periods:\n\"Barbarism tempered by religion; religion disfigured by barbarism.\"\n\nIn the study of history we constantly encounter a serious obstacle,\nwhich renders it always difficult, and sometimes impossible, to\nunderstand it perfectly. We make the mistake of referring every thing\nto ourselves, and to the objects which surround us--a mistake which\nis excusable, no doubt, since it has its root in our own nature,\nbut against which we must be carefully on our guard, if we wish to\navoid deplorable errors. We imagine the men of other times to be\nlike ourselves; without thinking of it, we communicate to them our\nown ideas, manners, inclinations, and even temperaments; and, after\nhaving fashioned men who exist only in our own imaginations, we desire\nand demand that the real men should act in the same manner as these\nimaginary men; and at the slightest discord between the historical\nfacts and our unreasonable suppositions, we cry out that it is strange\nand monstrous, taxing with being strange and monstrous what was\nperfectly regular and ordinary according to the epoch.\n\nIt is the same with respect to laws and institutions: when we do not\nfind them according to the types which we have under our eyes, we\ndeclaim against the ignorance, iniquity, and cruelty of the men who\nhave conceived and established them. If we wish to form an exact idea\nof an epoch, it is necessary to transport ourselves there--to make an\neffort of imagination, in order, as it were, to live and converse with\nits men; it is not enough to hear the recital of the events, it is\nnecessary to witness them, to become one of the spectators, one of the\nactors, if possible; it is necessary to call forth generations from\nthe tomb, and make them act under our eyes. I shall be told that this\nis very difficult. I grant it; but it is necessary, if we wish that\nour knowledge of history should be something more than a mere notion\nof names and dates. It is quite sure that we do not know an individual\nwell, unless acquainted with his ideas, character, and conduct. It is\nthe same with a society: if we are ignorant by what doctrines it was\nguided, what was its manner of considering and feeling things, we shall\nsee the events only superficially--we shall know the words of the law,\nbut we shall not penetrate its spirit or genius; when contemplating\nan institution, we shall see only the external frame-work, without\nreaching the mechanism, or guessing the moving machinery. If we attempt\nto avoid these defects, it is certain that the study of history becomes\nthe most difficult of all; but this knowledge has been wanting for a\nlong time. The secrets of man and the mysteries of society are, at the\nsame time, the most important subject which can be proposed to the\nhuman mind, and the most arduous, the most difficult, and the least\naccessible to the generality of intellects.\n\nThe individual in the times to which we allude was not the individual\nof to-day; his ideas were very different, his manner of seeing and\nfeeling was not ours, his soul was of quite another temper from our\nown; what is inconceivable to us, was perfectly natural to men of those\ntimes; they took pleasure in what is now repugnant to us.\n\nAt the beginning of the thirteenth century, Europe had already\nexperienced the powerful shock of the Crusades; the sciences began\nto germinate; the spirit of commerce was in some degree developed;\nthe taste for industry made itself felt; and the inclination of men\nto enter into communication with other men, and of nations to mingle\nwith other nations, was every day extended and increased. The feudal\nsystem, already shaken, was about to fall to pieces; the power of the\ncommonalty rapidly increased; the spirit of enfranchisement showed\nitself everywhere; in fine, owing to the almost complete abolition of\nslavery, and to the change effected by the Crusades in the condition\nof vassals and serfs, Europe was covered with a numerous population\nwho knew not slavery, and who bore with difficulty the feudal yoke.\nYet this population was still far from possessing all that is\nnecessary to rise to the rank of free citizens. Modern democracy\nalready offered itself to the view, with its great advantages, its\nnumerous difficulties, its immense problems, which still embarrass\nand disconcert us, after so many centuries of trial and experience.\nThe lords preserved in great measure their habits of barbarism and\nferocity, by which they had been unfortunately distinguished at\nformer periods; the royal power was far from having acquired that\nforce and _prestige_ necessary for ruling such opposite elements,\nand to raise itself in the midst of society as a symbol of respect\nfor all interests--a centre of reunion for all forces, and a sublime\npersonification of reason and justice.\n\nIn the same century, wars began to assume a character more popular,\nand consequently more vast and important; the agitations of the people\nbegan to wear the aspect of political commotions. Already we discover\nsomething more than the ambition of emperors attempting to impose their\nyoke on Italy; we have no longer petty kings who contend for a crown\nor a province, or counts or barons who, followed by their serfs, fight\nwith each other or with the neighboring municipalities, covering the\nland with blood and rapine. We observe in the movements of that period\nsomething more important and alarming. Numerous nations arise and crowd\naround a banner on which, instead of the ensigns of a baron or of a\nmonarch, appears the name of a system of doctrines. No doubt, the lords\ntake part in the struggle, and their power raises them still far above\nthe crowd which surrounds and follows them; but the cause in question\nis not that of these men; they are accounted something in the problems\nof the times; but mankind looks beyond the horizon of castles. This\nagitation and movement, produced by the appearance of new religious and\nsocial doctrines, is the announcement and the beginning of that chain\nof revolutions which Europe has to undergo.\n\nThe evil did not consist in the disposition of nations to carry out\ntheir ideas, and refuse to take as their only guide the interests and\ndoctrines of a few tyrants. On the contrary, this was a great step\ngained in the path of civilization; men thus showed that they felt and\nunderstood their own dignity better, that they took a more extended\nview, and had a better understanding of their own situation and\ninterests. This progress was the natural result of the higher flight\nwhich was every day taken by the faculties of the mind. The Crusades\nhad greatly contributed to this new movement; from that great epoch\nthe different nations of Europe were accustomed no longer to fight for\nthe possession of a small territory, or to gratify private ambition or\nrevenge. The nations fought in support of a principle by laboring to\navenge the outrage offered to the true religion; in a word, they became\naccustomed to be moved, to contend, to die, for an idea which, far from\nbeing limited to a small territory, embraced heaven and earth. Thus,\nwe will observe in passing, that the popular movement, the movement in\nideas, began in Spain much sooner than in the rest of Europe, because\nthe war against the Moors had advanced the period of the Crusades for\nthat country. The evil, I repeat it, was not in the interest which\nthe people took in ideas, but in the imminent danger of seeing those\nnations, on account of their rudeness and ignorance, allow themselves\nto be abused and deceived by the first fanatic who came. At a moment\nwhen the movement was so vast, the fate of Europe depended on the\ndirection which was about to be given to the universal activity: unless\nI am deceived, the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were the critical\nepochs, when, in the face of great probabilities on both sides, there\nwas decided the great question of knowing whether Europe, in its\ntwofold social and political relations, was to take advantage of the\nbenefits of Christianity, or permit all the promise of a better future\nto be lost and annihilated.\n\nWhen we fix our eyes on this period, we find, in different parts of\nEurope, a certain germ and index of the greatest disasters; the most\nhorrible doctrines arise among the masses who begin to be agitated; the\nmost fearful disorders signalize the first step of these nations in the\ncareer of life. Before this, we have discovered only kings and lords,\nbut now the people appear on the scene. Thus we see that some rays of\nlight and heat have penetrated this shapeless mass. At this sight the\nheart is dilated and encouraged, presaging the new future which is\nreserved for humanity. But, at the same time, the observer is alarmed,\nfor he is aware that this heat may produce excessive fermentation,\nengender corruption, and multiply impure insects in the field which\npromises soon to become an enchanting garden.\n\nThe extravagances of the human mind at this time appear under so\nalarming an aspect, and with a turbulence of character so fearful, that\napprehensions apparently the most exaggerated are supported by facts,\nand become terrible probabilities. Let me recall some of those facts\nwhich so vividly paint the condition of minds at that time; facts which\nbesides are connected with the principal point which we are examining.\nAt the beginning of the twelfth century, we find the famous Tanch\u00e8me,\nor Tanquelin, teaching the maddest theories and committing the greatest\ncrimes; yet at Antwerp, in Zealand, in the country of Utrecht, and in\nmany other towns in the same countries, he draws after him a numerous\ncrowd. This wretched man advanced that he was more worthy of supreme\nworship than Jesus Christ himself, \"for,\" said he, \"if Jesus Christ\nhad received the Holy Spirit, he (Tanch\u00e8me) had received the plenitude\nof that Holy Spirit.\" He added that the whole Church was comprised in\nhis own person and in his disciples. The pontificate, episcopate, and\npriesthood were, according to him, mere chimeras. His instructions\nand discourses were particularly addressed to women; the result of\nhis doctrines and proceedings was the most revolting corruption. Yet\nthe fanaticism which was excited by this abominable man went so\nfar that the sick eagerly drank the water in which he had bathed,\nbelieving it to be the most salutary remedy for body and soul. Women\nthought themselves happy to have obtained the favors of the monster;\nmothers considered it an honor for their daughters to be selected as\nthe victims of his profligacy, and husbands were offended when their\nwives were not stained with this disgrace. Tanch\u00e8me, knowing all the\nascendency which he was able to exert over minds, was not backward in\nmaking use of the fanaticism of his followers; one of the principal\nvirtues with which he labored to inspire them was liberality in favor\nof his own interest.\n\nOne day when he was surrounded with a large concourse of people, he\nhad a picture of the Virgin brought to him; touching it with his\nsacrilegious hand, he said that he took the Virgin as his wife. Then,\nturning toward the spectators, he added, that as he had contracted\nmarriage with the Queen of Heaven, as they had just seen, it was their\nduty to make the wedding presents. He immediately placed two boxes, one\non the right and the other on the left of the picture, to receive on\none side the offerings of the men, and on the other those of the women;\nfor the purpose of learning, as he said, which of the two sexes had the\ngreater affection for him. This artifice, as low and gross as it was\nsacrilegious, seemed only calculated to excite the indignation of those\nwho were present; yet the results corresponded with the expectations\nof the artful impostor. The women, always jealous of the affection of\nTanch\u00e8me, surpassed in liberality; in a perfect frenzy, they stripped\nthemselves of their necklaces, golden rings, and most precious jewels.\n\nWhen he felt himself strong enough, Tanch\u00e8me did not content himself\nwith preaching; he was desirous of surrounding himself with an armed\ntroop, in order to give him in the eyes of the world a far different\nappearance from that of an apostle. Three thousand men accompanied\nhim everywhere. Surrounded by this respectable escort, clothed in\nmagnificent apparel, and preceded by his standard, he moved with all\nthe pomp of a king. When he stopped to preach, the three thousand\nsatellites stood armed around him with drawn swords. It is evident,\nthe aggressive character of the heretical sects of succeeding ages was\nalready traced out.\n\nEvery one knows how numerous were the partisans of Eon. This unhappy\nman was excited by hearing the frequent repetition of the words: \"Per\neum qui judicaturus est vivos et mortuos:\" and he became persuaded\nand he asserted, that he himself was the judge who was to judge the\nliving and the dead. We are also aware of the troubles excited by the\nseditious speeches of Arnauld of Brescia, the iconoclastic fanaticism\nof Pierre de Bruis and Henri. If I did not fear to fatigue the\nattention of my readers, it would be easy for me to relate here the\nmost revolting scenes which represent to the life the spirit of the\nsects of those times, and the unfortunate predisposition which led\nmen's minds to novelty, to extravagant spectacles, and I know not what\nfatal giddiness, whereby they were precipitated into the most strange\nerrors and the most deplorable excesses. At all events, I must say a\nfew words of the Cathari, Vaudois, Paterins of Arras, Albigenses, and\npoor men of Lyons. These sects, besides the influence which they had\non the times of which we speak and on the later events of European\nhistory, will be of great use in making us fathom more deeply the\nquestion now before us. From the first ages of the Church, the sect\nof the Manichees was remarkable for errors and extravagances. Under\ndifferent names, with more or less of followers, and with doctrines\nmore or less various, it continued from age to age until the eleventh\ncentury, when it excited disturbances in France. From that time,\nHeribert and Lisoy acquired an unhappy celebrity by their obstinacy and\nfanaticism. In the time of St. Bernard, the sects called apostolical\nwere distinguished by their dislike to marriage; while, on the other\nhand, they gave themselves up to the basest and most unbridled\nlicentiousness. Nevertheless, all these irregularities were favorably\nreceived by the ignorance or the corruption of the people. This is\nproved by the rapidity with which they gained the masses and spread\nlike a pestilence wherever they appeared. Besides the hypocrisy, which\nis common to all the sects, that of the Manichees imagined an artifice\nthe most apt to seduce rude and ignorant people: they appeared with\nthe most rigid austerity and the most miserable clothes. Before the\nyear 1181, we see the Manichees bold enough to venture out of their\nconventicles and openly teach their doctrines in the light of day. They\nassociated with the celebrated bandits called _Cottereaux_, and feared\nnot to commit all sorts of excesses, as they had seduced some knights\nand had secured the protection of some seigneurs of the country of\nToulouse; they succeeded in exciting a formidable insurrection, which\ncould be repressed only by force of arms. An eye-witness, Stephen,\nAbbot of St. Genevieve, at that time sent to Toulouse by the king,\ndescribes to us in a few words the acts of violence committed by these\nsectaries: \"I have seen on all sides,\" he says, \"churches burnt and\nruined to their foundations: I have seen the dwellings of men changed\ninto the dens of beasts.\"\n\nAbout the same time, the Vaudois, or poor men of Lyons, became famous.\nThis last name was given to them on account of their extreme poverty,\ntheir contempt for all riches, and the rags with which they were\ncovered. Their shoes also gave them the name of Sabatathes. They\nwere perverse imitators of another kind of poor, celebrated at that\ntime, and who were distinguished by their virtues, and particularly\nby their spirit of humility and disinterestedness. These latter, who\nformed a kind of association, comprising priests and laymen, attracted\nthe respect and esteem of real Christians, and obtained the Pope's\npermission to teach publicly. The disciples showed a profound contempt\nfor Church authority; they afterwards entertained monstrous errors, and\nin the end became a sect in opposition to religion, injurious to good\nmorals, and incompatible with public tranquillity.\n\nThese errors, which were the germs of so many calamities and troubles,\ncould not be extirpated; with time they became more and more rooted in\nvarious countries, and the progress of things was so fatal, that at the\nbeginning of the thirteenth century the period of short-lived seditions\nand isolated troubles was already long gone by, the errors had already\nspread on a large scale, and appeared with formidable resources for the\ncontest. Already the south of France, agitated by civil discord, and\nprecipitated into a fearful war, was in a state of terrible conflict.\nIn the political organization of that time, the throne had not strength\nenough to exercise a controlling power, the lords had still the means\nof resisting kings and doing violence to the people. When a spirit of\ndisobedience, agitation, and movement is spread throughout the masses,\nthere is only one means of restraining them, that of religion; and this\nvery ascendency of religious ideas was taken advantage of by the wicked\nand the fanatical; and to mislead the multitude they availed themselves\nof violent declamation, where religion and politics formed a confused\nmixture, and where the spirit of austerity and disinterestedness was\nthe subject of hypocritical affectation. The new errors were no longer\nconfined to subtile attacks on particular dogmas, they assailed the\nfundamental ideas of religion, penetrated to the sanctuary of the\nfamily, on the one side condemning marriage, and on the other promoting\ninfamous abominations: in fine, the evil was not limited to countries\nwhich by a tardy and incomplete initiation into the doctrines of\nChristianity, or for any other reason, had not fully participated in\nthe European movement. The arena principally chosen was the south; that\nis, the country where the human mind was developed in the most prompt\nand lively manner.\n\nIn the midst of such a concourse of unfortunate circumstances, all\nattested and placed beyond a doubt by history, was not the future of\nEurope very dark and tempestuous? Ideas and manners were in imminent\ndanger of taking a wrong direction; the bands of authority, the ties of\nfamily, seemed ready to break asunder; the nations might be led away\nby fanaticism or superstition; Europe was in danger of being replunged\ninto the chaos whence it had emerged with so much difficulty. At that\ntime the Crescent shone in Spain, it reigned in Africa, it triumphed\nin Asia. Was Europe at such a moment to lose her religious unity, and\nsee new errors penetrate everywhere, sowing schism in all countries,\nand with it discord and war? Were all the elements of civilization and\nrefinement created by Christianity to be dispersed and stricken with\nsterility for ever? Were the great nations formed under the influence\nof Catholicity, the laws and institutions impregnated with that divine\nreligion, to be corrupted, falsified, and destroyed by changes in the\nancient faith? In fine, was the course of European civilization to be\nviolently diverted, and were the nations who were already advancing\ntowards a peaceful, prosperous, and glorious future, to be condemned to\nsee their most flattering hopes dissipated in a moment, and miserably\nto retrograde towards barbarism? Such was then the vast problem placed\nbefore society; and I fear not to assert that the religious movement\nwhich at that time displayed itself in so extraordinary a manner, and\nthe new religious institutions, so inconsiderately accused of folly\nand extravagance, were a powerful means employed by Providence to\nsave religion and society. If the illustrious Spaniard, St. Dominic\nde Guzman, and the wonderful man of Assisi, did not occupy a place\non our altars, there to receive the veneration of the faithful for\ntheir eminent sanctity, they would deserve to have statues raised\nto them by the gratitude of society and humanity. But what! are our\nwords an object of scandal to you, who have only read and considered\nhistory through the deceitful medium of Protestant and philosophical\nprejudices? Tell us, then, what you find reprehensible in these men,\nwhose establishments have been the subject of your endless diatribes,\nas if they had been the greatest calamities of the human race? Their\ndoctrines are those of the Gospel; they are the same doctrines, to the\nloftiness and sanctity whereof you have been compelled to render solemn\nhomage, and their lives are pure, holy, heroic, and conformable in\nevery thing to their teachings. Ask them what is the object they have\nin view; that of preaching the Catholic truth to all men, they will\ntell you; of making every effort, of exerting every energy to destroy\nerror and reform morals; of inspiring nations with the respect which is\ndue to all legitimate authorities, civil and ecclesiastical. That is to\nsay, you will find among them a firm resolution to devote their lives\nto remedy the evils of Church and State.\n\nThey do not content themselves with barren wishes; they are not\nsatisfied with a few discourses and transitory efforts; they do not\nconfine their plans to their mere personal sphere, but, extending\ntheir views to all countries and future times, they found institutions\nwhereof the members may spread themselves over the whole surface of\nthe world, and transmit to future generations the apostolical spirit\nwhich has inspired them with their grand ideas. The poverty to which\nthey condemn themselves is extreme; the dress they wear is rude and\nmiserable; but do you not see the profound reasons for this conduct?\nRemember that they propose to renew the gospel spirit, so much\nforgotten in their time; that they frequently happen to meet face to\nface the emissaries of the corrupt sects, who, endeavoring to imitate\nChristian humility, and affecting an absolute disinterestedness, make\na parade of presenting themselves in public in the garb of beggars;\nremember, in fine, that they go to preach to semi-barbarous nations,\nand that to preserve them from the giddiness of error which has\nbegun to take possession of their heads, words are not enough, even\naccompanied by a regular and uniform conduct; extraordinary examples,\na mode of life which bears with it the most powerful edification, and\nsanctity clothed with an exterior adapted to make a lively impression\non the imagination, are required.\n\nThe number of the new religious is very considerable; they increase\nwithout measure in all the countries where they are established;\nthey are found, not only in the country and in the hamlets, but they\npenetrate into the midst of the most populous cities. Observe, that\nEurope is no longer composed of a collection of small towns and\nwretched cottages erected round feudal castles, and humbly obedient\nto the authority or the influence of a proud baron; Europe no longer\nconsists of villages grouped round rich abbeys, listening with docility\nto the instructions of the monks, and receiving with gratitude the\nbenefits conferred on them. A great number of vassals have already\nthrown off the yoke of their lords; powerful municipalities arise\non all sides, and in their presence the feudal system is frequently\ncompelled to humble itself in alarm. Towns become every day more\npopulous--every day, from the effects of the emancipation which takes\nplace in the country, they receive new families. Reviving industry\nand commerce display new means of subsistence, and excite an increase\nof population. It results from all this that religion and morality\nmust act upon the nations of Europe on a larger scale; more general\nmeans, issuing from a common centre, and freed from ordinary fetters,\nare necessary to satisfy the new necessities of the time. Such are\nthe religious institutions of the time of which we speak; this is the\nexplanation of their astonishing number, of their numerous privileges,\nand of that remarkable regulation which places them under the immediate\ncontrol of the Pope.\n\nEven the character which marked these institutions--a character in\nsome degree democratic, not only because men of all classes are\nthere united, but also because of the special organization of their\ngovernment--was eminently calculated to give efficacy to their\ninfluence over a democracy, fierce, turbulent, and proud of its recent\nliberty, and consequently little disposed to sympathize with any thing\nwhich might have been presented to it under aristocratic or exclusive\nforms. This democracy found in these new religious institutions a\ncertain analogy with its own existence and origin. These men come from\nthe people, they live in constant communication with them, and, like\nthem, they are poor and meanly clad; and as the people have their\nassemblies where they choose their municipal officers and bailiffs,\nso do the religious hold their chapters, where they name their priors\nand provincials. They are not anchorites living in remote deserts, nor\nmonks sheltered in rich abbeys, nor clergy whose functions and duties\nare confined to any particular country. They are men without fixed\nabodes, and who are found sometimes in populous cities and sometimes in\nmiserable hamlets--to-day in the midst of the old continent, to-morrow\non a vessel which bears them to perilous missions in the remotest\ncountries of the globe; sometimes they are seen in the palaces of\nkings, enlightening their councils, and taking part in the highest\naffairs of state; sometimes in the dwellings of obscure families,\nconsoling them in misfortune, making up their quarrels, and giving them\nadvice on their domestic affairs. These same men, who are covered with\nglory in the chairs of the universities, teach catechism to children\nin the humblest boroughs; illustrious orators who have preached in\ncourts, before kings and great men, go to explain the Gospel in obscure\nvillages. The people find them everywhere, meet them at every step, in\njoy and in sorrow; these men are constantly ready to take part in the\nhappy festivities of a baptism which fills the house with joy, or to\nlament a misfortune which has just covered it with mourning.\n\nWe can imagine without difficulty the force and ascendency of such\ninstitutions. This influence on the minds of nations must have been\nincalculable; the new sects which tended to mislead the multitude\nby their pestilential doctrines, found themselves face to face with\nan adversary who completely conquered them. They wished to seduce\nthe simple by the ostentation of great austerity and wonderful\ndisinterestedness; they desired to deceive the imagination, by striking\nit with the sight of exterior mortification, of poor and mean clothing.\nThe new institutions united these qualities in an extraordinary\nmanner. Thus the true doctrine had the same attributes which error\nhad assumed. From among the classes of the people there come forth\nviolent declaimers, who captivate the attention and take possession of\nthe minds of the multitude by fiery eloquence. In all parts of Europe\nwe meet with burning orators, pleading the cause of truth, who, well\nversed in the passions, ideas, and tastes of the multitude, know how to\ninterest, move, and direct them, making use, in defence of religion, of\nwhat others attempt to avail themselves of in attacking her. They are\nfound wheresoever they are wanted to combat the efforts of sects. Free\nfrom all worldly ties, and belonging to no particular church, province,\nor kingdom, they have all the means of passing rapidly from one place\nto another, and are found at the proper time wherever their presence is\nurgently required.\n\nThe strength of association, known to the sectaries, and used by them\nwith so much success, is found in a remarkable degree in these new\nreligious institutions. The individual has no will of his own: a vow\nof perpetual obedience has placed him at the disposal of another's\nwill; and this latter is in his turn subject to a third; thus there is\nformed a chain, whereof the first link is in the hands of the Pope;\nthe strength of association, and that of unity, are thus united in\nauthority. There is all the motion, all the warmth of a democracy; all\nthe vigor, all the promptitude of monarchy.\n\nIt has been said that these institutions were a powerful support to\nthe authority of the Popes; this is certain: we may even add, that if\nthese institutions had not existed, the fatal schism of Luther would\nperhaps have taken place centuries earlier. But, on the other hand,\nwe must allow that the establishment of them was not due to projects\nof the papacy; the Sovereign Pontiffs did not conceive the idea of\nthem; isolated individuals, guided by superior inspiration, formed the\ndesign, traced out the plan, and submitting that plan to the judgment\nof the Holy See, asked for authority to realize their enterprise.\nCivil institutions, intended to consolidate and aggrandize the power\nof kings, emanate sometimes from monarchs themselves, sometimes from\nsome of their ministers, who, identifying themselves with their views\nand interests, have formed and executed the idea of the throne. It is\nnot thus with the power of the Popes; the support of new institutions\ncontributes to sustain that power against the attacks of dissenting\nsects; but the idea of founding the institutions themselves comes\nneither from the Popes nor their ministers. Unknown men suddenly arise\namong the people; nothing which has taken place affords reason to\nsuspect them of having any previous understanding with Rome; their\nentire lives attest that they have acted by virtue of inspiration,\ncommunicated to themselves, an inspiration which does not allow them\nany repose, until they have executed what was prescribed to them. There\nare not, there cannot be, any private designs of Rome; ambition has\nno share. From this, all sensible men should draw one of these two\nconsequences: either the appearance of these new institutions was the\nwork of God, who was desirous of saving His Church by sustaining her\nagainst new attacks, and protecting the authority of the Roman Pontiff;\nor, Catholicity herself contained within her breast a saving instinct\nwhich led her to create these institutions, which were required to\nenable her to come triumphant out of the fearful crisis in which she\nwas engaged. To Catholics, these two propositions are identical: in\nboth we see only the fulfilment of the promise, \"_On this rock I will\nbuild my Church, and the gates of hell shall never prevail against\nher._\" Philosophers who do not regard things by the light of faith,\nin order to explain this phenomenon, may make use of what terms they\nplease; but they will be compelled to acknowledge that wonderful wisdom\nand the highest degree of foresight appear at the bottom of these\nfacts. If they persist in not acknowledging the finger of God, and in\nseeing in the course of events only the fruit of well-concerted plans,\nor the result of organization combined with art, at least they cannot\nrefuse a sort of homage to these plans and that organization. Indeed,\nas they confess that the power of the Roman Pontiff, considered in\nrelations merely philosophical, is the most wonderful of all the powers\nwhich have appeared on earth, is it not evident that the society called\nthe Catholic Church shows in her conduct, in the spirit of life which\nanimates her, and in the instinct which makes her resist her greatest\nenemies, the most incomprehensible combination of phenomena which have\never been witnessed in society? It is of little importance to the\ntruth, whether you call this instinct, mystery, spirit, or whatever\nname you please. Catholicity defies all societies, all sects, and all\nschools, to realize what she has realized, to triumph over what she\nhas triumphed over, and to pass through, without perishing, the crises\nthrough which she has passed. A few examples, where the work of God was\nmore or less imitated, may be alleged against us; but the magicians\nof Egypt, placed in the presence of Moses, came to an end of their\nartifices; the envoy of God performed wonders which they could not; and\nthey were compelled to exclaim, \"_The finger of God is here--the finger\nof God is here!_\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLIV.\n\nTHE RELIGIOUS ORDERS FOR THE REDEMPTION OF CAPTIVES.\n\n\nWhen viewing the religious institutions produced by the Church during\nthe thirteenth century, we did not pause to consider one among them,\nwhich, to the merit of participating in the glory of the others, adds a\npeculiar character of beauty and sublimity, and which is inexpressibly\nworthy of our attention: I speak of that institution, the object of\nwhich was to redeem captives from the hands of the Infidels. If I\nmake use of this general designation, it is because I do not intend\nto enter into a particular examination of the various branches which\ncompose it. I consider the unity of the object, and, on account of that\nunity, I attribute unity to the institution itself. Thanks to the happy\nchange which has taken place in the circumstances which occasioned\nits foundation, we can now scarcely estimate the institution at its\njust value, and appreciate in a proper manner the beneficent influence\nand the holy enthusiasm which it must have produced in all Christian\ncountries.\n\nIn consequence of the long wars with the Infidels, a very great number\nof the faithful groaned in fetters, deprived of their liberty and\ncountry, and often in danger of apostatizing from the faith of their\nfathers. The Moors still occupied a considerable part of Spain; they\nreigned exclusively on the coasts of Africa, and proudly triumphed in\nthe East, where the Crusaders had been vanquished. The Infidels thus\nheld the south of Europe closely confined, and were constantly able to\nseize favorable moments, and procure multitudes of Christian slaves.\nThe revolutions and disorders of those times continually offered\nfavorable opportunities; both hatred and cupidity urged them to gratify\ntheir revenge on the Christians taken unawares. We may be sure that\nthis was one of the severest scourges which the human race had to\nendure at that time in Europe. If the word charity was to be any thing\nmore than a mere name, if the nations of Europe were not to allow their\nbonds of fraternity and the ties which connected their common interests\nto be destroyed, there was an urgent necessity for them to come to an\nunderstanding, in order to remedy this evil. The veteran who, instead\nof a reward for his long services to religion and his country, had\nfound slavery in the depths of a dungeon; the merchant who, ploughing\nthe seas to carry provisions to the Christian armies, had fallen\ninto the power of an implacable enemy, and paid by heavy chains for\nthe boldness of his enterprise; the timid virgin who, playing upon\nthe sea-shore, had been perfidiously carried away by the merciless\npirates, like a dove borne away by a hawk:--all these unfortunate\nbeings had undoubtedly some right to be looked at with compassion by\ntheir brethren in Europe, and to have an effort made to restore them to\nliberty.\n\nHow shall this charitable end be attained? Can means be employed to\naccomplish an enterprise which cannot be confided either to force or\nstratagem? Nothing is more fertile in resources than Catholicity.\nWhatever may be the necessity which presents itself, she immediately\nfinds proper means of succor and remedy, if allowed to act with\nfreedom. The remonstrances and negotiations of Christian princes\ncould obtain nothing in favor of the captives; new wars undertaken\nfor this purpose only served to increase the public calamities--they\ndeteriorated the lot of those who groaned in slavery, and perhaps\nincreased their number, by sending them fresh companions in misfortune;\npecuniary means, without a central point of action and direction,\nproduced but little fruit, and were lost in the hands of agents. What\nresource, then, does there remain? The powerful resource which is\nalways found in the hands of the Catholic religion--the secret whereby\nshe accomplishes her greatest enterprises, viz. _charity_.\n\nBut how ought this charity to act? In the same way as all the virtues\nof Catholicity. This divine religion, which has come down from the\nloftiest regions, and constantly raises the human mind to sublime\nmeditations, presents at the same time a singular characteristic,\nwhereby she is distinguished from all the schools and sects who have\nattempted to imitate her. In spite of the spirit of abstraction, if I\nmay so speak, which holds her continually detached from earthly things,\nshe has nothing vague, unsubstantial, or merely theoretical. With her,\nall is speculative and practical, sublime and simple; she adapts and\naccommodates herself to all that is compatible with the truth of her\ndogmas and the severity of her maxims. While her eyes are fixed on\nheaven, she forgets not that she is on earth, and that she has to deal\nwith mortal men, subject to miseries and calamities. With one hand she\nshows them eternity, with the other she succors their misfortunes,\nsolaces their pains, and dries up their tears. She does not content\nherself with barren words; the love of our neighbor is to her nothing,\nif that love does not manifest itself in giving bread to him who is\nhungry, drink to him who is thirsty; in clothing the naked, consoling\nthe afflicted, visiting the sick, solacing the prisoner, and redeeming\nthe captive. To make use of an expression of this age, I will say that\nreligion is eminently _positive_. Wherefore she labors to realize\nher ideas by means of beneficent and fruitful institutions, thereby\ndistinguishing herself from human philosophy, the pompous language\nand gigantic projects of which form so miserable a contrast with the\nlittleness and nothingness of its works. Religion speaks little, but\nshe meditates and executes as the worthy daughter of that infinite\nBeing who, although absorbed in the contemplation of an ocean of light,\nHis own essence and His impenetrable nature, has not the less created\nthe universe the object of our admiration, and ceases not to preserve\nit with ineffable goodness, while governing it with incomprehensible\nwisdom.\n\nIt was necessary to go to the succor of the unhappy captives;\nassuredly, therefore, we should applaud the idea of a vast association,\nwhich, extending over all the countries of Europe, and placing itself\nin connection with all the Christians who would give alms in favor\nof so holy a work, would have in its service a certain number of\nindividuals always ready to traverse the seas, and resolved to brave\nslavery and death for the redemption of their brethren. Numerous means\nwould be thus combined, and the good employment of the funds would be\nsecured. There was a certainty that the negotiations for the redemption\nof captives would be conducted by men of zeal and experience; in a\nword, such an association would completely fulfil its object; and when\nit was established, the Christians might hope for the most prompt and\nefficacious succor. Now, this was precisely the idea realized in the\nfoundation of the religious orders for the redemption of captives.\n\nThe religious who embraced these orders bound themselves by vow to the\naccomplishment of this work of charity. Free from the embarrassments of\nfamily relations and worldly interests, they could devote themselves to\ntheir task with all the ardor of their zeal. Long voyages, the perils\nof the sea, the danger of unhealthy climates, or the ferocity of the\nInfidels--nothing stopped them. In their dress, in the prayers of\ntheir institution, they found a constant remembrance of the vow which\nthey had taken in the Divine presence. Neither repose, comfort, nor\neven their very lives, any longer belong to them; all are become the\nproperty of the unhappy captives, who groan in the dungeons or wear\nheavy chains in presence of their masters, on the other side of the\nMediterranean. The families of the unhappy victims, fixing their eyes\non the religious, required of him the accomplishment of his promise;\ntheir groans and lamentations continually urge him to find means, and\nto expose his life, if necessary, to restore the father to the son, the\nson to the father, the husband to the wife, the innocent young girl to\nher desolate mother.\n\nFrom the earliest ages of Christianity we see great zeal displayed\nfor the redemption of captives, which has always been preserved,\nand the inspiration of which from that time has called forth the\ngreatest sacrifices. The seventeenth chapter of this work, and the\nnotes attached to it, have incontestably proved this truth; and it\nis not necessary that I should stay to confirm it here. Yet I will\nnot lose the opportunity of observing that the Church, in the present\ncase, as in all circumstances, has adopted her constant rule, viz.\nto realize her ideas by means of institutions. If you observe her\nconduct attentively, you will find that she begins by teaching and\nhighly extolling a virtue; then she mildly persuades men to put it\nin practice; the practice extends and gains strength, and what was\nmerely a good work becomes for some a work of obligation; what was\na simple wise act is converted into a strict duty for some select\nmen. At all times has the Church been engaged in the redemption of\ncaptives; at all times some Christians of heroic charity have stripped\nthemselves of their property, of their liberty, to accomplish this\nwork of mercy; but this care was still left to the discretion of the\nfaithful, and no bodies of men existed to represent this charitable\nidea. New necessities arise; the ordinary means do not suffice; it is\nnecessary that aid should be collected with promptitude, and employed\nwith discernment; charity, as it were, requires an arm always ready\nto execute her orders; a permanent institution becomes necessary; the\ninstitution appears, and the want is satisfied.\n\nWe are so accustomed to see the beautiful and the sublime in the work\nof religion, that we scarcely observe the greatest prodigies there,\nin the same way as, while profiting by the benefits of nature, we\nlook upon her most wonderful works and productions with an eye of\nindifference. The different religious institutions which, under various\nforms, have appeared since the beginning of Christianity, are worthy\nof exciting in the highest degree the astonishment of the philosopher\nand the Christian; but I doubt whether it be possible to find in\nthe whole history of these institutions any thing more beautiful,\ninteresting, and touching, than the picture of the orders for the\nredemption of captives. Does there exist a more admirable symbol of\nreligion protecting the unfortunate? Which is the most sublime emblem\nof the redemption consummated on Calvary and extending itself to\nearthly captivity? Is it not the celebrated vision which preceded the\nestablishment of the holy institutes of Mercy and the Trinity? Some\nwill say that these apparitions were only chimeras and mere illusions!\nHappy are those illusions, we will reply, which produce the consolation\nof the human race! However this may be, we will here recall these\nvisions, braving, if necessary, the smiles of the incredulous. If they\nhave preserved in their hearts any generous feelings, they will be\ncompelled to allow that if these visions appear to them devoid of all\nhistorical truth, there is at least in the sublime sacrifice which is\nmade by the man who devotes himself to slavery for the ransom of his\nbrethren, a lofty poetry, a sincere love of the human race, an ardent\ndesire to succor them, and an heroic disinterestedness.\n\nA doctor of the University of Paris, known by his virtues and his\nwisdom, had just been raised to the priesthood, and celebrated for\nthe first time the holy sacrifice of the altar. In consideration of\nthese exalted favors of the Most High, he redoubles his ardor, he\nexcites his faith, and endeavors to offer to the Lamb without spot,\nwith all the recollection, purity, and fervor of which he is capable,\nhis heart inundated with favors and inflamed by charity. He knows\nnot how to manifest to God his profound gratitude for so great a\nbenefit; his lively desire is to be able to prove to Him in some way\nhis gratitude and his love. He who had said, \"What you have done to\none of my little children you have done to myself,\" immediately showed\nhim a way to exhibit the fire of his charity. The vision begins: the\npriest sees an angel whose dress is white as snow and as brilliant\nas light; the angel wears on his breast a red and blue cross; at his\nsides are two captives, the one a Christian, the other a Moor; he\nplaces his hands over the heads of each. At this sight, the priest,\nravished into ecstasy, understands that God calls him to the holy\nwork of the redemption of captives; but before going any further, he\nretires into solitude, and devotes himself for three years to prayer\nand penance, humbly begging of the Lord that He would make known to him\nHis sovereign will. In the desert he met with a pious hermit; the two\nsolitaries aid each other by their prayers and examples. One day, when\nthey were absorbed in pious communication by the side of a fountain, a\nstag suddenly appears to them bearing on his horns the mysterious cross\nof two colors. The priest relates to his astonished companion the first\nvision which he has had; both redouble their prayers and penances; both\nreceive the celestial admonition for the third time. Then, unwilling\nany longer to defer the accomplishment of the Divine pleasure, they\nhasten to Rome, and ask of the Sovereign Pontiff his counsels and\npermission. The Pope, who at the same time had had a similar vision,\njoyfully accedes to the request of the two pious solitaries; the\norder of the Most Holy Trinity for the Redemption of Captives is thus\nestablished. The priest was called John of Matha; the hermit, Felix of\nValois. They apply with ardent zeal to their work of charity; after\nhaving dried up the tears of numbers of unhappy beings, they now\nreceive in heaven the reward of their labors. The Church, wishing to\ncelebrate their memories, has placed them on her altars.\n\nThe foundation of the order of Mercy had a similar origin. St. Peter\nNolasco, having spent all he possessed in the redemption of captives,\nhad sought in vain for new resources to continue his pious undertaking.\nHe had set himself to pray, in order to strengthen himself in his holy\nresolution of selling his own liberty, or remaining himself a captive\nin the place of some of his brethren. During his prayer the Blessed\nVirgin appeared to him; she gave him to understand how pleasing the\nfoundation of an order for the redemption of captives would be to\nherself and her Divine Son. The saint, after consulting the King of\nAragon and St. Raymond of Penafort, proceeded to the establishment\nof the order. He converted into a vow, not only for himself but for\nall those who embraced the institute, the holy desire which he had\npreviously had to devote himself to slavery for the ransom of his\nbrethren.\n\nI repeat what I have already said: in whatever manner you judge\nof these apparitions, and if even you attempt to lay them aside\naltogether as mere illusions, it is not the less proved that the\nCatholic religion has labored with immense power to relieve a great\nmisfortune, and that no one can call in question the utility of the\nholy institution in which the heroism of charity is so wonderfully\npersonified. Indeed, supposing that the founder, the dupe of illusions,\ntook for a revelation from heaven what was only the inspiration of\nardent zeal, do not the benefits lavished on the unhappy captives\nremain the same? We hear much of illusions; but certain it is that\nthese illusions produced a reality. When St. Peter Armengol, wanting\nall resources to deliver some unfortunates, remained as a hostage in\ntheir place, and when the day of ransom had expired, resigned himself\nto be hung because the money had not arrived from Europe, the illusions\ncertainly did not remain sterile. What reality could produce greater\nprodigies of zeal and heroism? Long ago have the things of religion\nbeen condemned as illusions and madness; from the earliest times of\nChristianity the mystery of the cross was treated as folly; but we do\nnot see that this prevented the pretended folly from changing the face\nof the world.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLV.\n\nTHE UNIVERSAL PROGRESS OF CIVILIZATION IMPEDED BY PROTESTANTISM.\n\n\nIn the rapid sketch which I have just given, my intention has not been\nto write the history of the religious orders; this did not form part\nof my design. I am satisfied with having offered a series of remarks\nwhich, by showing the importance of these institutions, were calculated\nto vindicate Catholicity from the accusations made against her on\naccount of the protection which she has at all times afforded them. How\ncould a comparison be made between Catholicity and Protestantism in\ntheir relations with the civilization of Europe, without devoting a few\npages to the examination of the influence which these institutions have\nexercised on civilization? Now, if it is once shown that this influence\nwas salutary, Protestantism, which has persecuted and calumniated\nthese religious institutions with so much hatred and rancor, remains\nconvicted of having done violence to the history of our civilization,\nof having mistaken its spirit, and still more of having aimed a blow at\nthe legitimate development of that civilization itself.\n\nThese reflections naturally lead me to point out another fault\nwhich Protestantism has committed. When breaking the unity of\nEuropean civilization, it introduced discord into the bosom of that\ncivilization, and weakened the physical and moral action which it\nexercised on the rest of the world. Europe was apparently destined to\ncivilize the whole world. The superiority of her intelligence, the\npreponderance of her strength, the superabundance of her population,\nher enterprising and valiant character, her transports of generosity\nand heroism, her communicating and propagating spirit, seemed to call\nher to diffuse her ideas, feelings, laws, manners, and institutions to\nthe four quarters of the universe. How does it happen that she has not\nrealized this destiny? How does it happen that barbarism is still found\nat her gates, and that Islamism still maintains itself in one of the\nfinest climates and countries of Europe? Asia, with her want of moving\npower, weakness, despotism, and degradation of women; Asia, with all\nthe disgraces of humanity, lies under our eyes; and scarcely have we\ndone any thing which gives reason to hope that she will emerge from her\ndegraded state. Asia Minor, the coasts of Palestine, Egypt, and the\nwhole of Africa, are before us in a deplorable condition--a degradation\nwhich excites pity, and forms a melancholy contrast with the great\nrecollections of history. America, after four centuries of incessant\ncommunication with us, is still so much behindhand that a great part\nof her intellectual powers and the resources with which nature has\nfurnished her, remain until this day to be improved. How does it happen\nthat Europe, full of life, rich in means of all kinds, overflowing\nwith vigor and energy, has remained within the narrow limits in which\nshe still is? If we pay deep attention to this melancholy phenomenon,\na phenomenon with which it is very strange that the philosophy of\nhistory has not occupied itself, we shall find the cause. The entire\ncause thereof is the want of unity; her external action has been\nwithout concert, and consequently without efficacy. Men constantly\nvaunt the utility of association; they point out how necessary it\nis to obtain grand results, and they do not dream that because this\nprinciple applies to nations as well as to individuals, nations, like\nindividuals, cannot accomplish great works, without conforming to\nthis general law. When an assemblage of nations of the same origin,\nand subject for many ages to the same influence, have reached the\ndevelopment of their civilization under the guidance and control of a\ncommon idea, among them association becomes a real necessity; they form\na family of brothers; now, among brothers, division and discord have\nworse results than among strangers.\n\nI do not pretend to say that the nations of Europe could have\nattained to so perfect a concord, that perpetual peace would have\nbeen established among them, and that perfect harmony would have\neventually presided over all their undertakings with respect to the\nother countries of the globe; but without giving way to beautiful\nillusions, the reality whereof is beyond the bounds of possibility, we\nmay nevertheless, and without hazard of contradiction, say, that, in\nspite of particular differences between nation and nation, in spite of\nthe greater or less degree of opposition between external and internal\ninterests, Europe could have kept and perpetuated in her own breast\na civilizing idea which, raising itself above all the misery and\nlittleness of human passions, would have placed her in a condition to\nacquire a greater ascendency and a stronger and more useful influence\nover the other nations of the world. Amid the interminable series of\nwars and calamities which afflicted Europe during the fluctuations\nof the barbarous nations, this unity of thought existed; and it was\nowing to it that order in the end came out of confusion, and that\nlight conquered darkness. In the long struggle of Christianity against\nIslamism, whether in Europe, Asia, or Africa, this same unity of\nthought enabled Christian civilization to triumph, in spite of the\nrivalries of kings and the excesses of the people. While this unity\nexisted, Europe preserved a transforming power which made all that it\ntouched become European sooner or later.\n\nThe heart is grieved at the sight of the disastrous event which broke\nthis precious unity, by diverting the course of our civilization and\ndestroying its fertilizing power. One can hardly observe without pain,\nnot to say without anger, that the appearance of Protestantism was\nexactly coincident with the critical moment when the nations of Europe,\nabout at length to reap the fruits of long ages of continued labor\nand unheard-of efforts, appeared to the world full of vigor, energy,\nand splendor. Putting forth gigantic strength, they discovered new\nworlds, and placed one hand on the East and the other on the West.\nVasco de Gama had doubled the Cape of Good Hope, he had showed the way\nto the East Indies, and opened communication with unknown nations.\nChristopher Columbus, with the fleet of Isabella, ploughed the Western\nseas, discovered a new world, and planted the standard of Castile in\nunheard-of lands. Ferdinand Cortez, at the head of a handful of brave\nmen, penetrated to the heart of the new continent, and took possession\nof its capital; his arms, which the natives had not yet seen, made him\nappear like a God launching his lightnings. Europe everywhere displayed\nextreme activity; a spirit of enterprise was developed in all hearts;\nthe hour had come when the nations of Europe were about to see open\nbefore them a new horizon of power and grandeur, the limits whereof\nwere invisible to the eye. Magellan discovered the strait which united\nthe east and west; and Sebastian d'Elcano, returning to the Spanish\ncoasts, after having made the tour of the world, seemed to be the\nsublime personification of European civilization taking possession of\nthe universe. At one extremity of Europe, the crescent still shows\nitself powerful and threatening, like a dark figure appearing in the\ncorner of a splendid picture: but fear nothing; its armies have been\ndriven from Granada, the Christian host is encamped on the coast of\nAfrica, the standard of Castile floats on the walls of Oran, and in\nthe heart of Spain grows up in silence the wonderful child, who, when\nhe has but just laid aside the playthings of his age, will frustrate\nthe last efforts of the Moors of that country by the triumphs of\nAlpujarres, and shortly after will break the Mussulman power for ever\non the waves of Lepanto.\n\nThe development of mind kept pace with the increase of power. Erasmus\nexamined all the sources of knowledge, astonished the world by his\ntalents and his learning, and spread his fame in triumph from one\nend of Europe to the other. The distinguished Spaniard, Louis Vives,\nrivalled the _savant_ of Rotterdam, and undertook nothing less than to\nregenerate the sciences, and give a new direction to the human mind. In\nItaly, the schools of philosophy were in a state of fermentation, and\nthey seized with avidity the new lights brought from Constantinople.\nIn the same country, the genius of Dante and Petrarch was continued\nin their illustrious successors; the land of Tasso resounded with his\naccents like the nightingale announcing the coming of the dawn; while\nSpain, intoxicated with her triumphs, and transported with pride at\nthe sight of her conquests, sang like a soldier who, after victory,\nreposes on a heap of trophies. What could resist such superiority, such\nbrilliant display, such great power? Europe, already secure against all\nher enemies, enjoying a prosperity which must every day increase, put\nin possession of laws and institutions better than any which had before\nbeen seen, and whereof the completion and perfection could not fail to\ncome with the slow progress of time: Europe, we say, in a condition so\nprosperous, replete with noble hopes, was about to commence the work\nof civilizing the world. Even the discoveries which were every day\nmade, indicated that the happy moment had arrived. Fleets transported,\ntogether with warriors, apostolic missionaries, whose hands were\nabout to scatter in the new countries the precious seed, whence, in\nthe progress of time, was to grow up the tree under whose shadow new\nnations were to find shelter. Thus was the noble work begun, which,\nfavored by Providence, was about to civilize America, Africa, and Asia.\n\nBut the voice of the apostate who was about to cast discord into the\nbosoms of fraternal nations already resounded in the heart of Germany.\nThe dispute begins, minds are excited, the irritation reaches its\nheight, an appeal is made to arms, blood flows in torrents, and the man\nwho had been commissioned by hell to scatter this cloud of calamities\nover the earth, contemplating before his death the dreadful fruit of\nhis labors, can insult the sorrows of the human race with a cruel and\nimpudent smile. Such do we figure to ourselves the genius of evil\nleaving his dark abode and his throne in the midst of horrors. He\nsuddenly appears on the face of the globe, his hand sheds desolation\nand tears on all sides; he casts a look over the devastation which he\nhas made, and then buries himself in eternal darkness.\n\nBy extending itself over Europe, the schism of Luther weakened in a\ndeplorable manner the action of Europeans on the other nations of the\nworld; the flattering hopes which had been conceived were dissipated\nin a moment, and became no more than a golden dream. Henceforth, the\nlargest part of our intellectual, moral, and physical powers was\ncondemned to be employed and sadly wasted in a struggle which armed\nbrethren against brethren. The nations which had preserved Catholicity\nwere compelled to concentrate all their resources, power, and energy,\nin order to make head against the impious attacks which the new\nsectaries made upon them by the press or by force of arms. The nations\namong whom the contagion of the new errors had been propagated were\nthrown into a sort of giddiness; they had no other enemies but the\nCatholics, and they considered only one enterprise worthy of their\nefforts--the degradation and destruction of the Roman See. Their\nthoughts no longer tended towards the invention of means for improving\nthe lot of the human race; the immense field which had been thrown\nopen to noble ambition by the recent discoveries, no longer merited\nattention; for them there was only one holy work--that of destroying\nthe authority of the Roman Pontiff.\n\nThis condition of men's minds struck with sterility the ascendency over\nnations recently discovered or conquered, which naturally belonged to\nEuropeans. When the nations of Europe simultaneously approached new\nregions, they no longer met as brothers or generous rivals, stimulated\nby noble ambition; they were exasperated and implacable enemies, men\nwho differed in religion, and who fought battles against each other\nas bloody as those which had formerly been witnessed between the\nChristians and the Moors. The name of the Christian religion, which had\nbeen the symbol of peace for so many ages--a name which on the eve of\nbattle was able to compel adversaries to lay aside their hatred, and\nembrace like brothers, instead of tearing each other in pieces like\nlions; a name which had served as an ensign to secure their triumph\nover Mohammedan legions: this name, now disfigured by sacrilegious\nhands, became a type of discord; and after Europe had been covered\nwith blood and mourning, the scandal was transported to the nations of\nthe New World. These simple and confiding nations were stricken with\nstupefaction on seeing the miseries, the spirit of division, hatred,\nand revenge which reigned among the same men upon whom they had just\nlooked as demigods.\n\nFrom that time forward, the forces of Europe were not united in any of\nthose great enterprises which had shed so much glory on previous ages.\nThe Catholic missionary, watering the Indian or American forests with\nhis sweat and blood, could reckon on the assistance of the nation to\nwhich he belonged, if that nation remained Catholic; but he could not\nhope that all Europe, uniting in the work of God, would come to sustain\nthe distant missions with her resources; he knew, on the contrary, that\na great many Europeans would calumniate and insult him, and use all\nimaginable means to prevent the seed of the gospel from taking root on\nthe new soil, and increasing the power of the Popes, by adding to the\nrenown of the Catholic Church.\n\nThere was a time when the profanations of the Mussulmen in Jerusalem,\nand the injuries inflicted on the pilgrims who visited the Holy\nSepulchre, were sufficient to arouse the indignation of all Christian\nnations. They all uttered the cry, _To arms!_ and in crowds they\nfollowed the monk who led them to avenge the outrages against religion\nand the pious pilgrims. After the heresy of Luther, all was changed:\nthe death of a missionary sacrificed in a foreign land, his torments\nand martyrdom, sublime scenes in which the zeal and charity of the\nfirst ages of the Church reappeared with all their energy: all this\nwas devoted to contempt and ridicule by men who called themselves\nChristians--the unworthy posterity of the heroes whose blood had flowed\nunder the walls of Jerusalem.\n\nIn order to conceive in its full extent the evil caused by\nProtestantism in this respect, let us imagine for a moment that\nProtestantism had not appeared; and in this hypothesis, let us make a\nfew reflections on the probable course of events. In the first place,\nall the strength, genius, and resources which Spain employed to make\nhead in the religious wars excited on the continent, would have been\nable to exert themselves in the New World. The same would have been\nthe case with France, the Low Countries, and England. These nations,\nalthough divided, have been able to furnish brilliant and glorious\npages in history; if their action on the new countries had been united\nand concentrated, would they not have exerted a vigor and energy which\nwould have been irresistible? Imagine all the ports from the Baltic\nto the Adriatic sending their missionaries to the East and to the\nWest, as did France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy; imagine all the great\ncities of Europe as so many centres where means for this great object\nare collected; imagine all the missionaries guided by the same views,\nunder the influence of the same thought, and burning with the same zeal\nfor the propagation of the same faith; wherever they meet, they meet\nas brothers, and co-operate in the common cause; all are under the\nsame authority: do you not imagine that you see the Christian religion\nexerting herself on an immense scale, and everywhere gaining the most\nsignal triumphs? The vessel which bears the apostolic men to distant\nregions may fearlessly unfurl her sails; when she discovers the flag of\nanother country on the horizon, she is under no apprehension of meeting\nwith enemies; she is sure of finding friends and brothers wherever\nthere are Europeans.\n\nThe Catholic missions, in spite of the obstacles which have been\nopposed to them by the turbulent spirit of Protestantism, have\naccomplished the most difficult enterprises, and realized prodigies\nwhich form a brilliant page in modern history; but how much nobler\nwould have been their results, if Italy, Spain, Portugal, and France\nhad been supported by the whole of Germany, the United Provinces,\nEngland, and other northern nations? This association was natural, and\nmust have been realized, had not the schism of Luther destroyed it. It\nmay be observed, moreover, that this fatal event not only placed an\nobstacle in the way of universal association, but hindered the Catholic\nnations themselves from devoting the greatest part of their resources\nto the great work of converting and regenerating the world: they were\ncompelled to remain continually under arms, on account of religious\nwars and civil discords. At this epoch the religious orders were\napparently called to be the arm of religion; by their means religion,\nconsolidated in Europe and satisfied with the social regeneration which\nshe had just worked, would have extended her action to the infidel\nnations.\n\nWhen we glance over the course of events during the earliest ages of\nthe Church, and compare them with those of modern times, we clearly\nsee that some powerful cause must have interfered in modern times to\noppose the propagation of the faith. Christianity appears, and she\nextends herself immediately with rapidity, without any aid on the part\nof men, and in spite of all the efforts of princes, sages, priests, the\npassions, and of all the stratagems of hell. She is but of yesterday,\nand already she is powerful, and prevails in all parts of the empire;\nnations differing in language and manners, nations of various degrees\nof civilization, abandon the worship of their false gods, and embrace\nthe religion of Jesus Christ. The barbarians themselves, as intractable\nand indomitable as wild horses, listen to the missionaries who are sent\nto them, and bow their heads; in the midst of conquest and victory,\nthey are seen to embrace the religion of those whom they have just\nconquered. Christianity in modern times has been in possession of the\nexclusive empire of Europe; and yet she has not been able to succeed\nin introducing herself again on the coasts of Africa and Asia, which\nlie under her eye. It is true, that the greatest part of America is\nbecome Christian; but observe, that the nations of those countries\nhave been conquered; there the conquering nations have established\nthose governments which have lasted for ages; the European nations have\ninundated the New World with their soldiers and colonies, so that a\nconsiderable portion of America is a kind of importation from Europe;\nconsequently, the religious transformation of that country does not\nresemble that which took place in the early ages of the Church. Turn\ntowards the West, where European arms have not obtained a decided\npreponderance; see what takes place there: the nations are still\nunder the yoke of false religions. Christianity has not been able\nto enlighten them; although the Catholic missions have obtained the\nmeans of founding a few establishments more or less considerable, the\nprecious seed has not been able to take sufficient root in the soil,\nin order to bear the fruits which ardent charity hoped for, and heroic\nzeal labored to produce. From time to time, the rays of divine light\nhave penetrated to the heart of the great empires of Japan and China;\nat certain moments flattering hopes might be conceived; but these hopes\nhave been dissipated, these rays of light have disappeared like a\nbrilliant meteor amidst the darkness of midnight.\n\nWhat is the cause of this impotence? whence comes it that the\nfertilizing power, after having been so great in the first ages, had\nproved so vain in the last? Let us not examine the profound secrets of\nProvidence, or seek to inquire into the incomprehensible mysteries of\nthe Divine ways; but as far as it is given to a feeble spirit to learn\nthe truth by the evidences contained in the history of the Church, as\nfar as it is allowed us to carry our conjectures on the designs of the\nMost High, according to the indications which the Lord himself has been\npleased to communicate to us, let us hazard an opinion on the facts:\nalthough dependent on a superior order, they yet have an ordinary\ncourse, which is regulated by God himself. The apostle St. Paul says\nthat faith comes from hearing. He asks, how it is possible to hear,\nif there is no one who preaches, and how can there be preaching, if\nthere is no one who sends? Hence, we must conclude that missions are\nnecessary for the conversion of nations, since God has not thought fit\nby constant miracles to send legions of angels from heaven to teach the\nnations who are deprived of the light of the earth.\n\nHaving laid down this principle, I will say that what was required\nfor the conversion of infidel nations was the organization of\nmissions on a large scale. There were required missions which, by\nthe abundance of their resources and the number of their laborers,\nmight be in proportion to the greatness of the object. Observe that\nthe distances are immense, that the nations to whom the divine word\nis to be announced are dispersed in many countries, and live under\nthe influence of laws, prejudices, and climates the most opposite\nto the spirit of the Gospel. To make head against such vast wants,\nand surmount such great difficulties, there was required a perfect\ninundation of missionaries; without whom the result would remain\ndoubtful, the existence of religious establishments very precarious,\nand the conversion of great nations little probable, unless Providence\ninterfered by one of those prodigies which change the face of the world\nin an instant. Now Providence does not renew these prodigies every\nmoment; sometimes he does not even accord them to the most ardent\nsupplications of the Saints.\n\nIn order to form a complete idea of what took place in the latter\nages, let us pay attention to what exists. What is wanting to infidel\nnations? What is the incessant cry of the zealous men who devote\nthemselves to the propagation of the Gospel? Do we not constantly\nhear lamentations on the small number of laborers, and on the scanty\nresources which are devoted to the subsistence of the missionaries? Is\nnot this penury of resources the cause of the associations now formed\namong the Catholics of Europe?\n\nThe organization of missions on a large scale would have been realized\nif Protestantism had not come to prevent it. The nations of Europe,\nthe privileged children of Providence, had the obligation and showed\na decided will to procure for the other nations of the world, by all\nthe means in their power, a participation in the benefits of the\nfaith. Unhappily this faith was weakened in Europe, it was given up to\nthe caprices of human reason, and henceforth what had before been of\neasy execution became impossible. Providence, which had permitted the\ndeplorable disaster of the schism, permits also to be deferred to a\nmore remote period the happy day when the benighted nations shall enter\nin great numbers into the fold of the Church.\n\nBut perhaps I shall be told that the zeal of modern Catholicity is not\nthat of the early ages of Christianity, and this is one of the reasons\nwhich have prevented the conversion of infidel nations. I will not make\na long comparison on this point; I will not say all that might be said;\nI will content myself with making an observation which will remove the\ndifficulty at once. Our Divine Saviour, in order to send His disciples\nto preach the Gospel, wished that they should abandon all they had\nand follow Him. The same Saviour, revealing to us the infallible sign\nof true charity, tells us that there is nothing greater than to give\none's life for one's brethren. The Catholic missionaries of the three\nlast centuries have renounced all, have abandoned their country, their\nfamilies, all the comforts of life, all that can engage the heart\nof man on earth; they have gone to seek the infidels amid the most\nimminent dangers, and they have sealed with their blood, in all parts\nof the world, their ardor for the conversion of their brethren, and for\nthe salvation of souls. I believe that such missionaries are worthy of\nsucceeding to those of the first ages of the Church; all declamations\nand calumnies are impotent before the triumphant evidence of facts. The\nChurch of the early ages would be honored, like that of our times, by a\nSt. Francis Xavier and the martyrs of Japan.\n\nWe have spoken, also, of the abundance of the missionaries. The\nChurch had a wonderful fecundity for the conversion of the ancient\nand barbarian world. At her first appearance, the fiery tongues of\nthe Cenacle and the multitude of prodigies made up for numbers, and\nmultiplied the servants of God. Nations of different languages,\nlistening to the same discourse, heard it at the same time each one in\nhis own tongue; but after this first impulse, by which the Almighty was\npleased to confound the powers of hell, things followed the ordinary\ncourse, and a greater number of missionaries was required for a\ngreater number of conversions. The great centres of faith and charity,\nthe numerous churches of the East and West, furnished in abundance\nthe apostolic men necessary for the propagation of the faith; and\nthis sacred army had a powerful reserve at hand ready to make up its\ndeficiencies when sickness, fatigues, and martyrdom had thinned its\nranks. Rome was the centre of this great movement; but Rome, in order\nto give the impulse, had no need either of fleets ready to transport\nthe holy colonies to many thousand places, or of great treasures\nto support missionaries in desert regions and countries altogether\nunknown. When the missionary, prostrate at the feet of the Sovereign\nPontiff, asked his apostolical benediction, the holy father could send\nhim in peace with his pastoral staff alone; he knew that the Gospel\nenvoy was about to traverse Christian countries, and that even in\nidolatrous lands he would not be far from princes already converted,\nfrom bishops, priests, and faithful nations; none of whom would refuse\nsuccor to him who went to sow the divine word in the neighboring\ncountries.\n\nI leave the reflections which I have just made, on the injury done to\nthe influence of Europe by the schism of Protestantism, with confidence\nto the judgment of thinking men. I am deeply convinced that this\ninfluence thereby received a terrible blow. Without the fatal event of\nthe sixteenth century, the condition of the world would now be very\ndifferent from what it is. I may, no doubt, delude myself in some\ndegree on this point; but I will appeal to simple good sense whether\nit is not true, that unity of action, of principles, and of views, the\ncombination of resources, and the association of agents, are not in\nall things the secret of success, and the surest guarantee for a happy\nresult. I will then ask whether Protestantism did not break this unity,\nrender this combination impossible, and this association impracticable?\nAre not these facts indisputable, as clear as the light of day? These\nfacts are recent--they are of yesterday; what is their consequence?\nwhat deduction should be drawn from them? Let impartiality, good sense,\nand mere common sense, answer me, if they be only accompanied by good\nfaith.\n\nTo every thinking man, it is evident that Europe is not what she would\nhave been without the appearance of Protestantism; and certainly it\nis not less evident, that the results of its civilizing influence\non the world have not answered the promises of the early years of\nthe sixteenth century. Let Protestants boast of having given a new\ndirection to European civilization; let them vaunt of having enfeebled\nthe spiritual power of the Popes, by removing millions of souls from\nthe sacred fold; let them glory in having destroyed the religious\norders in countries subject to their dominion--of having broken in\npieces the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and thrown the Bible in the midst\nof ignorant crowds, with the assurance that, to understand the sacred\nvolume, private inspiration or the judgment of natural reason was\nenough; yet it is not the less certain that the unity of the Christian\nreligion has disappeared among them, that they want a centre whence\ngreat efforts may proceed, that they are without a guide, wandering\nlike a flock without a shepherd, blown about by every wind of doctrine,\nand unable to bring forth the least of those great works which\nCatholicity has produced, and still produces, in such abundance; it is\nnot the less certain that, by their eternal disputes, their calumnies,\ntheir attacks upon the dogmas and the discipline of the Church, they\nhave compelled the latter to hold herself in an attitude of defence--to\ncontend for three centuries, depriving her of the precious time and\nmeans which she would have used to complete the great projects intended\nby her, and already so happily begun. Is it a merit to divide men,\nto provoke discord, to excite wars, to change brother nations into\nenemies, to convert the great family-party of nations into an arena for\nrancorous strife? Is it a merit to throw discredit on the missionaries\nwho go to preach the Gospel to infidel nations--to place all imaginable\nobstacles in their way--to employ every means to render their zeal\nuseless, and their charity without result? If, indeed, all this be a\nmerit, then I acknowledge that this merit belongs to Protestantism;\nbut if all this be disastrous, and injurious to humanity, it is\nProtestantism which must be responsible for it.\n\nWhen Luther said that he was charged with a high mission, he spoke\nthe truth, but a fearful and alarming truth, and one which he did\nnot understand. The sins of nations sometimes fill up the measure of\nthe patience of the Most High. The sound of human offences mounts to\nheaven, and calls for vengeance; the Eternal, in His fearful anger,\nsends down a look of fire upon the earth; then strikes the fatal hour\nin His secret and infinite resolves, and the son of perdition, who\nis to cover the world with mourning and desolation, appears. As the\ncataracts of heaven were formerly opened to sweep the human race from\nthe face of the earth, so are the calamities which the God of vengeance\nholds in reserve for the day of His anger, poured forth from their urn\nand scattered over the world. The son of perdition raises his voice;\nthat moment is marked by the beginning of the catastrophe. The spirit\nof evil moves over the whole face of the globe, bearing on his sable\npinions the echo of that ominous voice. An incomprehensible giddiness\ntakes possession of men's heads; the nations have eyes, and see not;\nthey have ears, and hear not; in their delirium, the most frightful\nprecipices appear to them smooth, peaceful, and flowery paths; they\ncall good evil, and evil good; they drink with feverish eagerness\nof the poisoned cup; forgetfulness of all the past, ingratitude for\nall benefits, seize all minds; the work of the genius of evil is\nconsummated; the prince of the rebellious spirits may again bury\nhimself in his empire of darkness; and the human race has learned, by\na terrible lesson, that the indignation of the Most High is not to be\nprovoked with impunity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLVI.\n\nTHE JESUITS.\n\n\nAs I am treating of religious institutions, I must not pass over\nin silence that celebrated order, which, from the first years of\nits existence, assumed the stature of a colossus, and employed all\na giant's strength; that order which perished without having felt\ndecay; which did not follow the common course of others, either in its\nfoundation, in its development, or even in its fall; that order of\nwhich it is truly and correctly said, that it had neither infancy nor\nold age. It is clear that I speak of the society of Jesus, the Jesuits.\nThe name alone will be enough to alarm a certain class of readers; and,\ntherefore, in order to tranquillize them, I will say that I do not\nhere undertake to write an apology for the Jesuits; this task does not\nbelong to the character of my work; moreover, others have undertaken\nit, and it is not necessary for me to repeat what is well known. But\nit is impossible to call to mind the religious institutions, the\nreligious, political, and literary history of Europe, during the last\nthree centuries, without meeting the Jesuits at every step: we cannot\ntravel in the most distant countries, traverse unknown seas, visit the\nmost remote lands, or penetrate the most frightful deserts, without\nfinding everywhere under our feet some memorials of the Jesuits. On\nthe other hand, we cannot look at our libraries without immediately\nremarking the writings of some Jesuits. Since this is the case, even\nthose among our readers who have the greatest horror of them, ought\nto pardon us for fixing our attention for a moment on this institute\nwhich has filled the world with its name. Even if we were to attach\nno importance to their modern revival, and to regard their present\nexistence and their probable future as unworthy of examination, it\nwould still be altogether inexcusable not to speak of them, at least as\na historical fact. To pass them over in silence, would be to imitate\nthose ignorant and heartless travellers, who, with stupid indifference,\ntread under foot the most interesting ruins and the most valuable\nremains.\n\nWhen we study the history of the Jesuits, this very extraordinary\ncircumstance is apparent: they have existed only for a few years, if\ncompared with the duration of other religious bodies, and yet there is\nno religious order which has been the object of such keen animosity.\nFrom their origin, they have had numerous enemies; never have they been\nfree from them, either in their prosperity and greatness, or in their\nfall, or even after it; never has their persecution ceased; we should\nrather say, never has the animosity with which they have been pursued\nceased. Since their reappearance, men have constantly fixed their eyes\nupon them; they tremble lest they should resume their ancient power;\nthe splendor which is reflected on them by the recollections of their\nbrilliant history renders them visible everywhere, and augments the\nfears of their enemies. How many men among us are more alarmed at the\nfoundation of a Jesuits' college than at an irruption of Cossacks!\nThere is, therefore, something very singular and extraordinary in this\ninstitute, since it excites the public attention in so high a degree,\nand its mere name disconcerts its enemies. Men do not despise the\nJesuits, but they fear them; sometimes they attempt to throw ridicule\non them; but when that weapon is employed against them, it is felt\nthat he who wields it is not sufficiently calm to use it with success.\nIn vain does he attempt to affect contempt; through the affectation\nevery one can perceive disquietude and anxiety. It is immediately seen\nthat he who attacks does not believe himself opposed to insignificant\nadversaries. His bile is excited, his sallies become checked, his\nwords, steeped in a fearful bitterness, fall from his mouth like drops\nfrom a poisoned cup; it is clear that he takes the affair to heart,\nand does not look upon it as a mere joke. We fancy we hear him say to\nhimself, \"Every thing affecting the Jesuits is extremely grave; there\nis no playing with these men--no regard, no indulgence, no moderation\nof any kind; it is necessary always to treat them with rigor,\nharshness, and detestation; with them, the least negligence may become\nfatal.\"\n\nUnless I am much deceived, this is the best demonstration that can be\ngiven of the eminent merit of the Jesuits. It must be the same with\nclasses and corporations as with individuals--very extraordinary merit\nnecessarily excites numerous enemies, for the simple reason that such\nmerit is always envied, and very often dreaded. In order to know the\nreal cause of this implacable hatred against them, it is enough to\nconsider who are their principal enemies. We know that Protestants and\ninfidels figure there in the first rank; in the second, we remark the\nmen who, with more or less clearness and resolution, show themselves\nbut little attached to the authority of the Roman Church. Both, in\ntheir hatred against the Jesuits, are guided by a very rare instinct,\nfor truly they have never met with a more redoubtable adversary. This\nreflection is worthy of the attention of sincere Catholics, who, for\none cause or another, entertain unjust prejudices. When we have to form\na judgment on the merit and conduct of a man, it is very often a sure\nmeans of deciding between contrary opinions to inquire who are his\nenemies.\n\nWhen we fix our attention on the institute of the Jesuits, on the time\nof its foundation, on the rapidity and greatness of its progress, we\nfind the important truth which I have before pointed out more and more\nconfirmed, viz., that the Catholic Church, with wonderful fruitfulness,\nalways furnishes an idea worthy of her to meet all the necessities\nwhich arise. Protestantism opposed the Catholic doctrines with the pomp\nand parade of knowledge and learning; the _\u00e9clat_ of human literature,\nthe knowledge of languages, the taste for the models of antiquity, were\nall employed against religion with a constancy and ardour worthy of a\nbetter cause. Incredible efforts were made to destroy the pontifical\nauthority; when they could not destroy it, they attempted at least to\nweaken and discredit it. The evil spread with fearful rapidity; the\nmortal poison already circulated in the veins of a considerable portion\nof the European nations: the contagion began to be propagated even in\ncountries which had remained faithful to the truth. To complete the\nmisfortune, schism and heresy, traversing the seas, corrupted the faith\nof the simple neophytes of the New World. What was to be done in such\na crisis? Could such great evils be remedied by ordinary means? Was\nit possible to make head against such great and imminent perils by\nemploying common arms? Was it not proper to make some on purpose for\nsuch a struggle, to temper the cuirass and shield, to fit them for this\nnew kind of warfare, in order that the cause of truth might not appear\nin the new arena under fatal disadvantages? Who can doubt that the\nappearance of the Jesuits was the answer to these questions, that their\ninstitute was the solution of the problem?\n\nThe spirit of the coming ages was essentially one of scientific and\nliterary progress. The Jesuits were aware of this truth; they perfectly\nunderstood it.\n\nIt was necessary to advance with rapidity and never to remain behind:\nthis the new institute does; it takes the lead in all sciences; it\nallows none to anticipate it. Men study the oriental languages;\nthey produce great works on the Bible; they search the books of the\nancient Fathers, the monuments of tradition and of ecclesiastical\ndecisions: in the midst of this great activity, the Jesuits are at\ntheir posts; many supereminent works issue from their colleges. The\ntaste for dogmatical controversy is spread over all Europe: many\nschools preserve and love the scholastic discussions: immortal works\nof controversy come from the hands of the Jesuits, at the same time\nthat they yield to none in skill and penetration in the schools. The\nmathematics, astronomy, all the natural sciences, make great progress;\nlearned societies are formed in the capitals of Europe to cultivate\nand encourage them: in these societies the Jesuits figure in the first\nrank. The spirit of time is naturally dissolvent: the institute of\nthe Jesuits is interiorly armed against dissolution; in spite of the\nrapidity of its course, it advances in a compact order, like the mass\nof a powerful army. The errors, the eternal disputes, the multitude of\nthe new opinions, even the progress of the sciences, by exciting men's\nminds, give a fatal inconstancy to the human intellect--an impetuous\nwhirlwind, agitating and stirring up all things, carries them away.\nThe order of the Jesuits appears in the midst of this whirlwind, but\nit partakes neither of its inconstancy nor of its variability; it\npursues its career without losing itself; and while only irregularity\nand vacillation are seen among its adversaries, it advances with a\nsure step, tending towards its object, like a planet which performs\nits orbit according to fixed laws. The authority of the Pope, assailed\nwith animosity by Protestants, was indirectly attacked by others with\nstratagem and dissimulation; the Jesuits showed themselves faithfully\nattached to that authority; they defend it wherever it is threatened;\nlike vigilant sentinels, they constantly watch over the preservation\nof Catholic unity. Their knowledge, influence, and riches never affect\ntheir profound submission to the authority of the Popes--a submission\nwhich was ever their distinctive characteristic. In consequence of\nthe discovery of the new countries in the east and west, a taste for\ntravelling, for observing distant countries, for the knowledge of the\nlanguage, manners, and customs of the recently discovered nations, was\ndeveloped in Europe. The Jesuits, spread over the face of the globe,\nwhile preaching the Gospel to the nations, do not forget the study of\nthe thousand things which may interest cultivated Europe; and at their\nreturn from their gigantic expeditions, they are seen adding their\nvaluable treasures to the common fund of modern science.\n\nHow, then, can we be surprised that Protestants have been so violent\nagainst an institute in which they found so terrible an enemy; and, on\nthe other hand, was there any thing more natural than to see all the\nother enemies of religion, enemies some of whom were wholly unmasked\nand some partially disguised, make common cause with Protestants on\nthis point? The Jesuits were a wall of brass against the assaults\nupon the Catholic faith; it was resolved to undermine and overturn\nthis rampart; which in the end was accomplished. Very few years had\nelapsed since the suppression of the Jesuits, and already the memory\nof the great crimes which were imputed to them was effaced by the\nravages of an unexampled revolution. Men of good faith, whose excessive\nconfidence had believed perfidious calumnies, could convince themselves\nthat the riches, knowledge, influence, and the pretended ambition of\nthe Jesuits, would never have been as fatal as the triumph of their\nenemies; these religious men would never have upset a throne or cut off\nthe head of a king on the scaffold.\n\nM. Guizot, in glancing at European civilization, necessarily\nencountered the Jesuits; and it must be acknowledged that he has not\ndone them the justice to which they are entitled. After having lamented\nthe inconsistency of the Protestant Reformation, and the narrow spirit\nwhich guided it, after having confessed that Catholics knew very well\nwhat they did and what they wished, and that they acted up to the\nprinciples of their conduct and avowed all their consequences, M.\nGuizot declares that there never was a more consistent government than\nthat of Rome, and that the court of Rome, always having a fixed idea,\nhas known how to pursue a consistent and regular line of conduct; he\nextols the strength which results from a full knowledge of what one\ndoes and what one wishes; he shows the advantage of a settled design,\nand of the complete and absolute adoption of a principle and system;\nthat is to say, he makes a brilliant panegyric on, and a powerful\napology for, the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, M. Guizot finds the\nJesuits in his way, and unworthy as it is of such a mind as his, which,\nin order to require just renown, has no need of burning incense before\nvulgar prejudices or mean passions, he attempts, in passing, to throw\na reproach upon them. \"Every one knows,\" says M. Guizot, \"that the\nprincipal power instituted to contend against the religious revolution,\nwas the order of the Jesuits. Throw a glance over their history; they\nhave failed everywhere; wherever they have interfered to any extent,\nthey have brought misfortune to the cause in which they have engaged.\nIn England they have destroyed kings, in Spain nations.\" M. Guizot had\njust told us of the superiority which is obtained over an adversary by\nregular and consistent conduct, by the complete and absolute adoption\nof a system, and by a fixed idea; as a proof of all this he showed us\nthe Jesuits, he exhibited to us in them the expression of the system\nof the Church; and behold, without any explanation, if not without a\nmotive, the writer suddenly changes his course; the advantages of the\nsystem which he has just praised disappear from his eyes; for those who\nfollow this system, that is the Jesuits themselves, fail everywhere,\nand everywhere bring misfortunes on the cause which they embrace. How\ncan such assertions be reconciled? The credit, influence, and sagacity\nof the Jesuits have passed into a proverb. The reproach against them\nwas, of having extended their views too far, of having conceived\nambitious plans, and obtained by their skill a decided ascendency in\nall the places where they succeeded in gaining entrance; Protestants\nthemselves have openly confessed that the Jesuits were their most\nredoubtable adversaries; it was always thought that the foundation of\nthe order had an immense result, and now we learn from M. Guizot, that\nthe Jesuits have everywhere failed; that their support, far from being\na great succour, always brought fatality and misfortune to the cause\nof which they declared themselves the advocates. If they were such\nfatal servants, why were their services sought with so much eagerness?\nIf they always conducted affairs so ill, why have the most important\nones in the end fallen into their hands? Adversaries so foolish or so\nunfortunate certainly ought not to have excited in the enemies' camp so\nmuch clamor as was raised at their approach.\n\n\"In England the Jesuits have destroyed kings, in Spain nations.\"\nNothing is easier than these bold strokes of the pen; the whole of a\ngreat history is traced in a single line, and an infinity of facts,\ngrouped and confounded, are made to pass under the eye of the reader\nwith the rapidity of lightning; the eye has not even time to look at\nthem, still less to analyze them as would be necessary. M. Guizot\nshould have devoted some sentences to prove his assertion; he should\nhave stated the facts and pointed out the reasons on which he builds,\nwhen he affirms that the influence of the Jesuits has had so fatal an\neffect. With respect to the kings of England here so boldly sacrificed,\nI cannot enter into an examination of the religious and political\nrevolutions which agitated and desolated the three kingdoms for two\ncenturies after the schism of Henry VIII. These revolutions, in their\nimmense circle, have presented very different phases; disfigured and\nperverted by the Protestants, who have success in their favor, that\ndecisive, if not convincing argument, they have made some men of\nlittle reflection believe that the disasters of England were in great\npart due to the imprudence of the Catholics, and, as an indispensable\ncorollary, to the pretended intrigues of the Jesuits. In spite of this,\nthe Catholic movement which England has witnessed for half a century,\nand the great works which every day carry on the restoration of\nCatholicity, will at last disperse the calumnies by which our faith has\nbeen stigmatized. Before long, the history of the last three centuries\nwill be restored as it ought, and the truth will appear in its proper\nlight. This observation relieves me from the necessity of entering into\ndetails on the subject of the first assertion of M. Guizot; but I must\nnot leave without reply what he so gratuitously affirms on the subject\nof Spain.\n\n\"The Jesuits have destroyed nations in Spain,\" says M. Guizot; I wish\nthat the publicist had explained to us to what great disaster he\nalluded. To what period does he refer? I have examined our history,\nand I do not find this destruction which was caused by the Jesuits; I\ncannot imagine whereon the historian fixed his eyes when he pronounced\nthese words. Nevertheless, the antithesis between Spain and England,\nbetween nations and kings, leads us to suspect that M. Guizot alluded\nto the shipwreck of political liberty; we are not aware that there is\nany other better-founded or more legitimate interpretation. But then a\nnew difficulty presents itself: how can we believe that a man so versed\nin the knowledge of history, composing a course of lectures which is\nparticularly devoted to the general history of European civilization,\nshould fall into a palpable error,--should commit an unpardonable\nanachronism? Indeed, whatever may be the judgments of publicists on\nthe causes which have produced the loss of liberty in Spain, and\non the important events of the days of the Catholic sovereigns, of\nPhilippe le Beau, of Jeanne-la-Folle, and the regency of Cisneros, all\nare unanimous in saying that the war of the Commons was the critical\nmoment, decisive of the liberty of Spain; all are agreed that the two\nparties played their last stake at that time, and that the battle of\nVillalar and the punishment of Padilla, by confirming and increasing\nthe royal power, destroyed the last hopes of the partisans of the\nancient liberties. Well, the battle of Villalar was fought in 1521; at\nthat time the Jesuits did not exist, and St. Ignatius, their founder,\nwas still a brilliant knight, battling like a hero under the walls of\nPampeluna. To this there is no reply; all philosophy and eloquence are\nunable to efface these dates.\n\nDuring the sixteenth century, the Cortes met more or less often, and\nwith more or less influence, above all in the kingdom of Aragon; but\nit is as clear as daylight that the royal power had every thing under\nits domination, that nothing could resist it, and the unfortunate\nattempt of the Aragonese, at the time of the affair of Don Antonio\nPerez, sufficiently shows that there existed then no remains of ancient\nliberty which could oppose the will of kings. Some years after the\nwar of the Commons, Charles V. gave the _coup de grace_ to the Cortes\nof Castile, by excluding from it the clergy and the nobles, to leave\nonly the _Estamento de Procuradores_, a feeble rampart against the\nexigencies, against the all-powerful attempts of a monarch on whose\ndominions the sun never set. This exclusion took place in 1538, at the\ntime when St. Ignatius was still occupied with the foundation of his\norder; the Jesuits, therefore, could have had no influence therein.\n\nStill more, the Jesuits, after their establishment in Spain, never\nemployed their influence against the liberty of the people. From\ntheir pulpits they did not teach doctrines favorable to despotism; if\nthey reminded the people of their duties, they also reminded kings\nof theirs; if they wished the rights of monarchs to be respected,\nthey would not allow those of the people to be trodden under foot.\nTo prove the truth of this, I appeal to the testimony of those who\nhave read the writings of the Jesuits of that time on questions of\npublic law. \"The Jesuits,\" says M. Guizot, \"were called to contend\nagainst the general course of events, against the development of modern\ncivilization, against the liberty of the human mind.\" If the general\ncourse of events is nothing but the course of Protestantism, if the\ndevelopment of Protestantism is the development of modern civilization,\nif the liberty of the human mind consists only in the fatal pride, in\nthe mad independence which the pretended reformers communicated to\nit, then nothing is more true than the assertion of the publicist;\nbut if the preservation of Catholicity is a fact of any weight in the\nhistory of Europe, if her influence during the last three centuries has\namounted to any thing, if the reigns of Charles V., Philip II., Louis\nXIV., do not deserve to be effaced from modern history, and if regard\nought to be had to that immense counterpoise to which was owing the\nequilibrium of the two religions; in fine, if the faith of Descartes,\nMalebranche, Bossuet, and F\u00e9n\u00e9lon, can make a dignified appearance in\nthe picture of modern civilization, it is impossible to understand how\nthe Jesuits, when intrepidly defending Catholicity, could be struggling\nagainst the general course of events, against the development of modern\ncivilization, and against the freedom of human thought.\n\nAfter having made this first false step, M. Guizot continues to slip in\na deplorable manner. I particularly call the attention of my readers\nto the following evident contradictions: \"With the Jesuits, there is\nno _\u00e9clat_, no grandeur. They have performed no brilliant exploits.\"\nThe publicist entirely forgets what he has just advanced, or rather\nhe directly retracts it, when he adds, a few lines further, \"and yet,\nnothing is more certain than that they have had grandeur; a grand idea\nbelongs to their names, to their influence, and to their history.\nIt is because they knew what they did, and what they wished; it is\nbecause they had a clear and full knowledge of the principles on which\nthey acted, and of the end towards which they tended; that is to say,\nbecause they have had grandeur of thought and of will.\" Is genius\nin its vastest enterprises, in the realization of its most gigantic\nprojects, any thing more than a grand idea and a grand intention?\nThe mind conceives, the will executes; this fashions the model, that\nmakes the application; if there be grandeur in the model and in the\napplication, how can the whole work fail to be grand?\n\nPursuing the task of lowering the Jesuits, M. Guizot makes a parallel\nbetween them and the Protestants; he confounds ideas in such a way, and\nso far forgets the nature of things, that one would hardly believe it,\nif the words themselves did not prove it beyond a doubt. Forgetting\nthat it is necessary for the terms of a comparison not to be of a\ntotally different kind, which renders all comparison impossible, M.\nGuizot compares a religious institute with whole nations; he goes\nso far as to reproach the Jesuits with not having raised the people\n_en masse_, and with not having changed the form and condition of\nstates. Here is the passage: \"They have acted in subterraneous, dark,\nand inferior ways; in ways which were not at all apt to strike the\nimagination, or to conciliate for them that public interest which\nattaches itself to great things, whatever may be their principle and\nend. The party against which they contended, on the contrary, not\nonly conquered, but conquered with _\u00e9clat_; it has done great things\nand by great means; it has aroused nations; it has filled Europe with\ngreat men; it has changed the form and the lot of nations in the face\nof day. In a word, all has been against the Jesuits, both fortune and\nappearances.\" Without intending to offend M. Guizot, let us avow,\nthat for the honor of his logic, one would desire to efface from his\nwritings such phrases as we have just read. What! ought the Jesuits\nto have put the nations in motion, made them arise _en masse_, and\nchanged the form and condition of states? Would they not have been\nextraordinary religious men, if they had been allowed to do such\nthings? It was said of the Jesuits that they had unbounded ambition,\nand that they attempted to rule the world; and now they are compared\nwith their adversaries in order to throw it in their faces that the\nlatter have overturned the world; a distinguished merit, which must\nhave been a disgrace to the Jesuits themselves. Indeed, the Jesuits\nhave never attempted to imitate their adversaries on this point; with\nrespect to the spirit of confusion and perturbation, they joyfully\nyield the palm to those to whom it rightly belongs.\n\nAs far as great men are concerned, if the question be with respect to\nthe greatness of the enterprises which are becoming in a minister of\nthe God of peace, then have the Jesuits had this kind of grandeur in\nan eminent degree. Whether it be in the most arduous affairs, or in\nthe vastest projects in science and literature, whether it be in the\nmost distant missions, or in the most redoubtable perils, the Jesuits\nhave never remained behind; on the contrary, they have been seen to\ndisplay a spirit so bold and enterprising, that they have thereby\nobtained the most distinguished renown. If the great men of whom M.\nGuizot speaks are restless tribunes, who, putting themselves at the\nhead of an ungovernable people, violated the public peace, if they are\nthe Protestant warriors whose names have shone in the wars of Germany,\nFrance, and England, the comparison is foolish, and has no meaning;\nfor priests and warriors, religious and tribunes, are so distinct, so\ndifferent in actions and character, that to compare them is impossible.\n\nJustice required that in such a parallel, where the Jesuits are taken\nas one of the terms of the comparison, Protestants should not be placed\non the other, unless by them the reformed ministers are meant. Even in\nthis later case the comparison would not have been absolutely exact,\nsince, in the midst of the great differences between the two religions,\nthe Jesuits are not found alone in defending Catholicity. The Church,\nduring the last three centuries, has had great prelates, holy priests,\neminent _savants_, and writers of the first order, who did not belong\nto the company of Jesus; the Jesuits were reckoned among the principal\nchampions, but they were not the only ones. Had it been wished fairly\nto compare Protestantism with Catholicity, it would have been requisite\nto oppose Protestant to Catholic nations, to compare priests with\npriests, _savants_ with savants, politicians with politicians, warriors\nwith warriors; to do otherwise is monstrously to confound names and\nthings, and to reckon too much on the limited understandings and\nexcessive simplicity of hearers and readers. It is certain that if\nthe method we have pointed out were adopted, Protestantism would not\nappear so brilliant and superior as the publicist has exhibited it to\nus. Catholics, as M. Guizot well knows, do not yield to Protestants in\nletters, in war, or in political ability. History is there; let it be\nconsulted.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLVII.\n\nTHE FUTURE OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.--THEIR PRESENT NECESSITY.\n\n\nWhen, after having fixed our eyes on the vast and interesting picture\nwhich religious communities present to us, after having called to\nmind their origin, their varied forms, their vicissitudes of poverty\nand riches, of depression and prosperity, of coldness and of fervor,\nof relaxation and strict reform, we see them still subsist and arise\nanew on all sides, in spite of the efforts of their enemies, we\nnaturally ask what will be their future? their past is full of glory;\nwhat influence have they not exerted in society, under a thousand\ndifferent aspects, and in the thousand phases of society itself? Yet\nwhat spectacle do they show us in modern times? On one hand they have\nbeen weakened, like an old wall which we see ruined by the effect\nof time; on the other we have seen them suddenly disappear, like\nweak trees overthrown by the whirlwind. Moreover, they seemed to be\ncondemned by the spirit of the age without appeal. Matter having become\nsupreme, extended its empire on all sides, scarcely allowing the\nmind a moment for reflection and meditation; industry and commerce,\ncarrying their turmoil to the remotest parts of the earth, confirmed\nthe judgment of an irreligious philosophy against a class of men\ndevoted to prayer, silence, and solitude. Nevertheless, facts every day\nbelie their conjectures; the hearts of Christians still preserve the\nmost flattering hopes, and these hopes are strengthened and animated\nmore and more. The hand of God, who carries out His high designs and\nlaughs at the vain thoughts of man, shows it more and more wonderful.\nPhilosophy sees a wide field for meditation open before it; it\nanticipates the probable future of religious communities; it may make\nconjectures on the influence which is reserved for them in society for\nthe future.\n\nWe have already seen what is the real origin of religious institutions;\nwe have found that origin in the spirit of the Catholic religion, and\nhistory has told us that they have arisen wherever she is established.\nThey have varied in form, in rule, in object, but the fact has been\nalways the same. Thence we have inferred that wherever the Catholic\nfaith shall be maintained, religious institutions will appear anew\nunder some form or other. This prognostic may be made with complete\ncertainty; we do not fear that time will belie it. We live in an\nage steeped in voluptuous materialism; interests which are called\npositive, or, in plainer terms, gold and pleasure, have acquired such\nan ascendency that we might apparently fear to see some societies\nlamentably retrograde towards the manners of paganism, towards that\nperiod of disgrace when religion might be summed up in the deification\nof matter. But in the midst of this afflicting picture, when the mind,\nfull of anguish, feels itself on the point of swooning away, the\nobserver sees that the soul of man is not yet dead, and that lofty\nideas, noble and dignified feelings, are not entirely banished from the\nearth. The human mind feels itself too great to be limited to wretched\nobjects; it comprehends that it is given it to rise higher than an\nair-balloon.\n\nObserve what happens with respect to industrial progress. Those\nsteam-vessels which leave our ports with the rapidity of an arrow to\ntraverse the immensity of ocean, those burning vehicles which skim\nalong our plains, and penetrate into the heart of mountains, realizing\nunder our eyes what would have seemed a dream to our fathers; those\nother machines which give movement to gigantic workshops, and as if by\nmagic set in motion innumerable instruments, and elaborate with the\nmost wonderful precision the most delicate productions: all this is\ngreat and wonderful. But however great, however wonderful it may be, it\nno longer astonishes; these wonders no longer captivate our attention\nin a more lively manner than the generality of the objects which\nsurround us. Man feels that he is still greater than these machines\nand masterpieces of art; his heart is an abyss which nothing can fill;\ngive him the whole world, and the void will be the same. The depth\nis immeasurable; the soul, created in the image and likeness of God,\ncannot be satisfied without the possession of Him.\n\nThe Catholic religion constantly revives these lofty thoughts, and\npoints out this immense void. In barbarous times she placed herself\namong rude and ignorant nations to lead them to civilization; she now\nremains among civilized nations to provide against the dissolution\nwhich threatens them. She disregards the coldness and neglect with\nwhich indifference and ingratitude reply to her; she cries out without\nceasing, addresses her warnings to the faithful with indefatigable\nconstancy, makes her voice resound in the ears of the incredulous,\nand remains intact and immovable in the midst of the agitation and\ninstability of human things. Thus do those wonderful temples which\nhave been left to us by the remotest antiquity, remain entire amid the\naction of time, of revolutions, and of convulsions; around them arise\nand disappear the habitations of men, the palaces of the great and the\ncottages of the poor, but the time-stained edifice stands like a solemn\nand mysterious object in the midst of the smiling fields and showy\nstructures which surround it; its vast cupola annihilates all that is\nnear; its summit boldly rises towards the heavens.\n\nThe labors of religion do not remain without fruit; penetrating\nminds acknowledge her truths; even those who refuse their submission\nto the faith confess the beauty, utility, and necessity of this\ndivine religion; they regard it as an historical fact of the highest\nimportance, and agree that the good order and prosperity of families\nand states depend upon it. But God, who watches over the safety of\nthe church, is not content with these avowals of philosophy; torrents\nof all-powerful grace descend from on high, and the Divine Spirit\nis diffused and renewed on the face of the earth. Even from the\nwhirlwind of the world, corrupt and indifferent as it is, privileged\nmen frequently come forth, whose foreheads have been touched with the\nflame of inspiration, and whose hearts are on fire with heavenly love.\nIn retreat, in solitude, in meditation on the eternal truths, they\nhave acquired that disposition of mind which is necessary to perform\narduous tasks; in spite of raillery and ingratitude, they devote\nthemselves to console the unfortunate, to educate the young, and to\nconvert idolatrous nations. The Catholic religion will last till the\nend of time, and so long will there be these privileged men separated\nby God from the rest, to be called to extraordinary sanctity, or to\nconsole their brethren in their misfortunes. Now these men will seek\neach other, will unite to pray, will associate to aid each other in\ntheir enterprise, will ask for the apostolical benediction of the Vicar\nof Jesus Christ, and will found religious institutions. Whether they\nbe old orders only modified, or entirely new ones; whatever be their\nforms, rules of life or dress, all this is of little importance; the\norigin, the nature, and the object will be the same. It is vain for men\nto oppose the miracles of grace.\n\nEven the present condition of society will require the existence of\nreligious institutions. When the organization of modern nations shall\nhave been more profoundly examined, when time by its bitter lessons and\nterrible experience shall have thrown more light on the real state of\nthings, it will be evident that errors greater than men have imagined,\nhave been committed in the social as well as in the political order.\nSad experience has corrected ideas to a great extent, but this does not\nsuffice.\n\nIt is evident that present societies want the necessary means to\nsupply the necessities which press upon them. Property is divided\nand subdivided more and more; every day it becomes more feeble and\ninconstant, industry multiplies productions in an alarming manner,\ncommerce extends itself indefinitely; that is to say, society,\napproaching the term of pretended social perfection, is on the point\nof attaining the wishes of that materialistic school, in whose eyes\nmen are only machines, and which has not imagined that society\ncan undertake any grander or more useful object than the immense\ndevelopment of material interests. Misery has increased in proportion\nto the augmentation of production; to the eyes of all provident\nmen it is as clear as the light of day that things are pursuing a\nwrong course, and that if a remedy cannot be applied in time, the\n_d\u00e9nouement_ will be fatal; the vessel which we see advancing so\nrapidly, with all her sails set and a favorable wind, is about to\nstrike upon a rock. The accumulation of riches, brought about by the\nrapidity of the industrial and commercial movement, tends towards the\nestablishment of a system which would devote the sweat and the lives of\nall to the profit of the few; but this tendency finds its counterpoise\nin levelling ideas which agitate very many heads, and which, moulded\ninto different theories, more or less openly attack property, the\npresent organization of labor, and the distribution of productions.\nImmense multitudes, overwhelmed with misery and in want of moral\ninstruction and education, are disposed to promote the realization\nof projects not less criminal than foolish, whenever an unhappy\nconcurrence of circumstances shall render the attempt possible. It is\nsuperfluous to support the melancholy assertions which we have just\nmade with facts; the experience of every day confirms them but too much.\n\nSuch being the case, may we be allowed to inquire of society, what\nmeans there are, either of improving the state of the masses, or of\nguiding and restraining them? It is clear that, for the first of these,\nneither the inspirations of private interests, nor the instinct of\npreservation which animates the favored classes, are sufficient. These\nclasses, properly speaking, as they exist, have not the character\nwhich constitutes a class: they are only a collection of families just\nemerged from poverty and obscurity, and who rapidly advance towards the\nabyss whence they came, leaving their place to other families who will\nrun the same course. We find nothing fixed or stable about them. They\nlive from day to day, without thinking of the morrow: far different\nfrom the old nobility, whose origin was lost in the obscurity of the\nremotest antiquity, and whose strength and organization promised long\ncenturies of existence. These men could and did follow a system;\nfor what existed to-day was sure of existence to-morrow; now all\nis changeable and inconstant. Individuals, like families, labor to\naccumulate, to lay by riches, not in order to sustain for ages the\npower and splendor of an illustrious house, but to enjoy to-day what\nhas been but just acquired. The presentiment of the short duration\nwhich things must have, augments still more the giddiness and frenzy\nof dissipation. The times are past when opulent families were desirous\nof founding some enduring establishment to evince their generosity and\nperpetuate the splendor of their names: hospitals, and other houses of\nbeneficence, do not come from the coffers of the bankers, as they did\nfrom those of the old castles. We must acknowledge, however painful may\nbe the avowal, that the opulent classes of society do not fulfil the\nduty which belongs to them: the poor should respect the property of the\nrich; but the rich should, in their turn, respect the condition of the\npoor: such is the will of God.\n\nIt follows from what I have stated, that the resource of beneficence\nis wanting in the social organization; and observe well, that\nadministration does not constitute society. Administration supposes\nsociety to be already existing and entirely formed; when we expect\nthe salvation of society from means purely administrative, we attempt\na thing which is out of the laws of nature. In vain shall we imagine\nnew expedients; in vain shall we form ingenious plans, and make new\nexperiments; society has need of a more powerful agent. It is essential\nthat the world should submit to the law of love or that of force,\nto charity or servitude. All the nations who have not had charity,\nhave found no other means of solving the social problem, than that\nof subjecting the greatest number to slavery. Reason teaches, and\nhistory proves, that neither public order, property, nor even society\nitself, can exist, unless one of these is chosen; modern society\nwill not be exempted from the general law; the symptoms which now\npresent themselves to our eyes clearly indicate the events whereof the\ngenerations which are to succeed us will be the witnesses.\n\nHappily, the fire of charity still burns on the earth; but the\nindifference and prejudices of the wicked compel it to remain under\nthe embers. They are alarmed at the least spark of it which escapes,\nas if it would enkindle a fatal conflagration. If the development\nof institutions which are exclusively based upon the principle of\ncharity was favored, their salutary results and the superiority which\nthey possess over all that are founded on other principles would\nsoon be evident. It is impossible to supply the wants which I have\njust pointed out, without organizing, on a vast scale, systems of\nbeneficence directed by charity: now this organization cannot be made\nwithout religious institutions. It cannot be denied that Christians\nwho live in the world may form associations by which this object\nwill be accomplished more or less completely; but there are always a\nmultitude of cases which absolutely require the co-operation of men\nexclusively devoted to them. It is necessary, moreover, to have a\nnucleus to serve as the centre of all efforts, which presents, by its\nown nature, a guarantee for preservation, and which provides against\nthe interruptions and oscillations which are inevitable in a large\nconcourse of agents, who are not bound together by any tie strong\nenough to preserve them from differences, from separation, and even\nfrom intestine contests.\n\nThis vast system which we speak of ought to extend not only to\nbeneficence, but also to the education and instruction of the many.\nThe establishment of schools will remain sterile, if not mischievous,\nas long as they are not founded upon religion; and they will be thus\nfounded only in appearance and name, while the direction of these\nschools does not belong to the ministers of religion. The secular\nclergy may fulfil a portion of this charge, but they are not enough\nfor the task; on the one hand, their limited number, and on the other,\ntheir other duties, prevent their acting on a scale sufficiently large\nto supply all the necessities of the times: hence it follows, that\nthe propagation of religious institutions in our days has a social\nimportance, which cannot be mistaken without shutting one's eyes to the\nevidence of facts.\n\nIf you reflect on the organization of European nations, you will\nunderstand that their real advance has been prevented by some fatal\ncause. Indeed, their situation is so singular, that it cannot be the\nresult of the principles whence these nations have drawn their origin,\nand which have given them their increase. It is evident that the\ncountless multitude which one sees in society, making use of all its\nfaculties with complete liberty, could not, in the state in which it\nnow is, have been comprised in the primitive design--in the plan of\ntrue civilization. When we create forces, we should know what we shall\ndo with them, by what means we shall move and direct them; without\nthis we only prepare violent shocks, endless agitation, disorder, and\ndestruction. The mechanician who cannot introduce a force into his\nmachine without breaking the harmony of the other movers, takes care\nnot to introduce it; and he sacrifices acceleration of movement and\nthe greatest strength of impulse to the fundamental necessity of the\npreservation of the machine and the order and utility of its functions.\nIn the present state of society, we observe that power which is not in\nharmony with the others; and the men who are charged with directing\nthe machine pay but little attention to gaining the required harmony.\nNothing acts upon the mass of the people but the ardent desire of\nameliorating their condition, of placing themselves in comfort, and of\nobtaining the enjoyments of which the rich are in possession; nothing\nto induce them to be resigned to the rigors of their lot; nothing to\nconsole them in their misfortunes; nothing to render the present evils\nmore supportable by the hopes of a better future; nothing to inspire\nthem with respect for property, obedience to the laws, submission to\ngovernment; nothing to produce in their minds gratitude towards the\npowerful classes; nothing to temper their hatreds, diminish their envy,\nand mollify their anger; nothing to raise their ideas above earthly\nthings, their desires from sensual pleasures; nothing to form in their\nhearts a solid morality capable of restraining them from vice and crime.\n\nIf we pay attention, we shall see that the men of this age have only\nthree means of restraining the masses, and they regard these as enough;\nbut reason and experience show that these expedients are not only not\nefficacious, but even dangerous; they are these,--private interests\nwell understood, public force well employed, and enervation of body,\nfollowed by feebleness of mind, which restrains the populace from\nviolent means.\n\n\"Let us make the poor man understand,\" says the philosopher, \"that he\nhas an interest in respecting the property of the rich; that his powers\nand his labor are also real property, which require to be respected\nin their turn; let us maintain an imposing public force, always\nready to act on the menaced point, in order to stifle any attempts\nat disorder at their birth; let us organize a police, extending over\nsociety like an immense net, and allowing nothing to escape its sight;\nlet us satisfy the people with cheap enjoyments of all kinds; let us\nfurnish them with the means of imitating, in their grosser orgies, the\nrefined pleasures of our saloons and theatres, thereby their manners\nwill be softened--that is to say, they will be enervated; the people\nwill become impotent to make great revolutions, their arms being weak,\nand their hearts cowardly.\" This is the system of those who attempt\nto govern society and control disturbing passions without the aid of\nreligion.\n\nLet us pause for a moment to examine these means. It is, no doubt, easy\nto say, in fine language, that the poor man is interested in respecting\nthe property of the rich; and that from this consideration alone he\nought to submit to the established order of things; and this without\neven saying a word of the principles of morality, and leaving out all\nthat is removed from mere material interests. It is easy to write\nbooks to explain such doctrines; but the difficulty consists in making\nthem understood in the same way by the wretched father of a family,\nwho, confined all the day to hard labor, plunged into an unwholesome\natmosphere, or buried in the bowels of the earth to work in a\ncoal-mine, can scarcely earn the subsistence of himself and his family;\nand who, returning in the evening to his squalid abode, instead of\nrepose and consolation, finds only the complaints of his wife and the\ntears of his children, asking him for a mouthful of bread. In truth,\nis it strange that such a doctrine should not be graciously received\nby those wretched beings, whose minds cannot perfectly understand the\nparity between the poor and the rich with respect to the interests of\nall, and the respect due to property? We will say plainly, that if you\nbanish from the world the moral principles, and desire to found the\nrespect due to property exclusively on private interest, the words here\naddressed to the poor man are only a solemn imposture: it is false that\nhis private interest is in accordance with the interests of the rich.\n\nLet us suppose the most fearful revolution, let us imagine that the\nestablished order is radically upset, that authority gives way, that\nall institutions are swallowed up, that laws disappear, that properties\nare divided, or remain abandoned to the first who shall seize them,\nthere is no doubt that the rich man loses; let us see what can happen\nto the poor. Will he be robbed of his wretched possessions? no one will\ndream of doing so; misery tempts not cupidity. You will tell me that he\nwill find no work, and that hunger will therefore be his lot. That is\ntrue; but do you not see that in this case the poor man is a gambler\nat a high stake, for whom the chance of loss, arising from the want\nof work, is compensated by the probabilities of obtaining a share of\nthe rich booty? You add that he will not be allowed to keep that part;\nbut observe that, if his poverty becomes changed into riches, he will\nsoon imagine a new order of things, a new arrangement, a government\nwhich will guarantee acquired rights, and prevent the destruction of\nestablished things. Will he be without an example to follow in such\ncircumstances? Have recent examples been so easily forgotten? The poor\nman sees clearly that a great number of his fellows will suffer evils\nwithout end or compensation; he is not ignorant that he himself may,\nperhaps, be of the number of the unfortunate; but, supposing that he\nhas no other guide than interest, supposing that new misfortunes, in\nthe last excess, can bring him only hunger and nakedness--things to\nwhich he is so well accustomed, whether owing to the small return\nfor his labor, or to the frequent interruptions of work and the\nvicissitudes of industry--you cannot charge with rashness the boldness\nwith which he comes forward, at the risk of increasing his privations\nin some degree, and with the hope of being delivered from them, perhaps\nfor ever. This is a matter of calculation; and when private interest is\nin question, we cannot grant to philosophy the right of regulating the\ncalculations of the poor.\n\nThe public power, and the vigilance of the police, are the two\nresources in which the best hopes are founded; and certainly not\nwithout reason; for, at the present time, if the world is not\nrevolutionized, it is owing to them. We no longer see, as in ancient\ntimes, troops of slaves bound together with chains, but we see whole\narmies, with arms in their hands, guarding capitals. If you observe\nclosely, after so many discussions, so many trials, so many reforms,\nso many changes, questions of government and public order have, in the\nend, resolved themselves into questions of force. The rich class is\narmed against the poor; and above both, there are armies to maintain\ntranquillity with cannon, if necessary. Assuredly, the picture which\nis exhibited to us in this respect, among modern nations, is worthy\nof our attention. Since the fall of Napoleon, the great powers have\nenjoyed an Augustan peace; for it is not worth while to speak of the\nsmall events which, from time to time, have disturbed this universal\npeace; neither the occupation of Ancona, nor the siege of Antwerp, nor\nthe war in Poland, can be considered as European wars; as to Spain,\nlimited, as she is by nature, to a narrow theatre, she can neither\ntraverse the seas, nor pass the Pyrenean mountains. Well, in spite of\nthis, the statistics of Europe show us enormous armies; the budgets\nwhich are necessary to support them exhaust and overwhelm the nations.\nWhat is the use of this military preparation? Do you believe that such\ngigantic forces are kept on foot only that governments may not be taken\nunawares by a general war; that war, which always threatens and never\nbreaks out; that war, which is feared neither by the government nor by\nthe people? No! they have another object: these armies are intended to\ncompensate for the moral means, the want of which is deplorably felt\non all sides, and nowhere more keenly than where the words justice and\nliberty have been proclaimed with the most ostentation.\n\nThe enervation of the numerous classes, by means of monotonous,\neffortless labor, and a complete abandonment to pleasure, may be\nconsidered by some as an element of order; as their power of striking\nis thereby taken away, or at least diminished. We allow that the\nworkmen of our age are not capable of displaying the terrible energy\nof ancient champions of the Commons; of those men who, throwing off\nthe yoke of the feudal lords, struggled hand to hand with formidable\nwarriors, whose names were immortalized on the plains of Palestine.\nThe new revolutionists want, also, that courage and that enthusiasm\nwhich are communicated to the soul by great and generous ideas. The man\nwho fights only to procure enjoyments will never be capable of making\nheroic sacrifices. Sacrifices demand self-denial; they are incompatible\nwith egotism: now the thirst for pleasure is egotism, carried to the\nlast degree of refinement. Nevertheless, it must be observed that a\nmode of life purely material, and deprived of the stimulus of the moral\nprinciples, ends by extinguishing the feelings, and plunges the soul\ninto a sort of stupidity, into a forgetfulness of self, which may, in\ncertain cases, supply the place of valor. The soldier who marches with\ntranquillity to death, when leaving a brutal _orgy_, and the man who\ncommits suicide with imperturbable calmness, without anxiety for the\nfuture, are precisely in the same position. The boldness of the one,\nand the firmness of the other, show contempt of life. So, if we suppose\ntheir passions to be excited by the trouble of the times, the numerous\nclass may display an energy of which they are supposed to be incapable;\nthe sight of their numbers may raise their courage; bold and cunning\nleaders, putting themselves at their head, may succeed in rendering\nthem terrible.\n\nHowever this may be, it is at least certain that society cannot\ncontinue its career without the aid and influence of moral means;\nthese means cannot suffice, shut up within the narrow circle in which\nthey are confined; consequently, it is indispensable to encourage the\ndevelopment of institutions adapted to exercise moral influence in a\npractical and efficacious manner. Books are not enough; the extension\nof instruction is but an inefficient means, which may even become\nfatal, unless based upon solid religious ideas. The propagation of\na vague religious feeling, undefined, without rules, without dogmas\nor worship, will only serve to propagate gross superstitions among\nthe masses, and to form a religion of poetry and romance among the\ncultivated classes; they are vain remedies, which do not stop the\nprogress of the disease; but, by augmenting the delirium of the\npatient, precipitate his death.\n\nThe education, the instruction, the improvement of the moral condition\nof the people, these words, which are in the mouth of everybody, prove\nhow keenly and generally the wound in the social body is felt, and\nhow urgent is the necessity of the timely application of a remedy, in\norder to prevent incalculable evils. This is the reason why projects\nof beneficence ferment in so many minds; why it is attempted, under so\nmany different forms, to establish schools for children and adults, and\nother similar institutions; but all will be useless, unless the work be\nconfided to Christian charity. Let us profit by the knowledge acquired\nby experience in this matter; let us take advantage of administrative\nimprovements, the better to attain our end; let the establishments\nbe accommodated to present wants and exigences; let charity never\nembarrass the action of power, and power, on its side, never oppose the\naction of charity: all this will be well; but nothing of all this is\ninconsistent with a system, in which the Catholic religion will recover\nthe influence which belongs to her; of her it may be said, with perfect\ntruth, _that she makes herself all to all, to gain the whole world_.\n\nThe little minds which do not carry their views beyond a limited\nhorizon; bad hearts, which nourish only hatred, and delight only in\nexciting rancor and in calling forth the evil passions; the fanatics of\na mechanical civilization, who see no other agent than steam, no other\npower than gold and silver, no other object than production, no other\nend than pleasure; all these men, assuredly, will attach but little\nimportance to the observations which I have made; for them, the moral\ndevelopment of individuals and society is of little importance; they do\nnot even perceive what passes under their eyes; for them, history is\nmute, experience barren, and the future a mere nothing. Happily there\nis a great number of men who believe that their minds are nobler than\nmetal, more powerful than steam, and too grand and too sublime to be\nsatisfied with momentary pleasure.\n\nMan, in their eyes, is not a being who lives by chance, given up to the\ncurrent of time and the mercy of circumstances, who is not called upon\nto think of the destinies which attend him, or to prepare for them,\nby making a worthy use of the moral and intellectual qualifications\nwherewith the Author of nature has favored him. If the physical world\nis subject to the laws of the Creator, the moral world is not less\nso; if matter can be used in a thousand ways for the profit of man,\nthe mind, created to the image and likeness of God, is also endowed\nwith valuable powers; a vast sphere opens before him; he feels himself\ncalled to work for the good of humanity, without confining himself\nto combinations and modifications of matter, like an instrument or a\nslave of the material element, whereof the empire and control have been\ngranted to him by God. Let faith in another life, and charity, which\nhave come down from God, fertilize these noble feelings, and enlighten\nand direct these sublime thoughts; you will then clearly see that\nmatter has no claim to be the ruler of the world; and that the King of\nthe creation has not yet abdicated his rights. But if you attempt to\nbuild on any other foundation than that which has been established by\nGod, do not indulge flattering hopes, your edifice will be like the\nhouse built upon sand; the rain came, the wind blew, and the edifice\nwas overturned with violence.[27]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLVIII.\n\nRELIGION AND LIBERTY.\n\n\nIn the thirteenth chapter of this work we said, \"The heart is filled\nwith generous indignation when we hear the religion of Jesus Christ\nreproached with a tendency towards oppression. It is true, that if we\nconfound the spirit of real liberty with that of demagogues, we shall\nnot find it in Catholicity. But if we abstain from a monstrous abuse of\nthe name, if we give to the word liberty its reasonable, just, useful,\nand pleasant meaning, then the Catholic religion may fearlessly claim\nthe gratitude of the human race, for she has civilized the nations who\nhave professed her, and civilization is true liberty.\" From what we\nhave already shown, the reader may judge whether Catholicity has been\nfavorable, or otherwise, to European civilization, and, consequently,\nwhether she has done any injury to real liberty. On the various points\non which we have compared her with Protestantism, we have seen the\ninjurious tendencies of the one and the advantages of the other; the\njudgment of clear and enlightened reason cannot be doubtful.\n\nAs the real liberty of nations does not consist in appearances, but\nresides in their intimate organization, in the same way as the life\ndoes in the heart, I might dispense with entering into a comparison\nof the two religions with respect to civil liberty; but I do not wish\nto be accused of having avoided a delicate question, from a fear that\nCatholicity would not come out of it with honor, or to allow it to be\nsuspected that my faith has any difficulty in sustaining a parallel as\nadvantageously on this ground as on others.\n\nIn order to clear up this question completely, it is necessary to\nexamine thoroughly the vague accusations which have been made on this\nmatter against Catholicity, and the eulogiums lavished on the pretended\nReformation. It is necessary to show that only gratuitous calumny has\nbeen able to reproach the Catholic religion with favoring servitude and\noppression; it is necessary to dissipate, by the light of philosophy\nand history, that deceitful prejudice, by the aid of which freethinkers\nand Protestants have labored to persuade the people that Catholicity\nis favorable to servitude, that the Church is the bulwark of tyrants,\nthat the name of Pope is synonymous with that of friend and natural\nprotector of whoever desires to debase men and reduce them to servitude.\n\nThere are two ways in which this question may be decided; by doctrines\nand by facts.\n\nThose who have said that the human race had lost its rights, and that\nthey were revived by Rousseau, certainly have not given themselves much\ntrouble in examining what are the real rights of the human race, and\nwhat are the apocryphal rights advanced by the philosopher of Geneva\nin his _Contrat Social_. Indeed, it may be said with more truth, that\nthe human race had very valuable rights, acknowledged as such, and\nwhich Rousseau lost sight of. He undertook to examine thoroughly the\norigin of the civil power, and his wild notions, instead of explaining\nthe matter, have only served to confuse it. I believe that on this\nimportant point men have never had ideas less clear and distinct\nthan now. Revolutions have upset every thing in theory and in fact;\ngovernments have been sometimes revolutionary, sometimes reactionary;\nand sometimes revolution, and sometimes reaction, has been predominant.\nIt is extremely difficult to obtain from modern books a clear,\naccurate, and exact knowledge of the nature of the civil power, of its\norigin, and of its relations with subjects; in some of these you will\nfind the doctrines of Rousseau, in others those of Bonald: Rousseau is\na miner who saps in order to overturn; Bonald is the hero who saves\nin his arms the tutelary deities of the city delivered to the flames;\nbut in his fear of profanation, he carries them covered with a veil.\nHowever, it would not be just to attribute to Rousseau the melancholy\nhonor of having begun the confusion of ideas on this point; at various\ntimes there have been found misguided men, who have labored to disturb\nsociety by anarchical doctrines; but the embodiment of these doctrines,\nand the forming of them into seductive theories, dates chiefly from the\nbirth of Protestantism. Luther, in his book _De Libertate Christiana_,\nsowed the seeds of endless troubles by the extravagant doctrine, that\na Christian is subject to no one. In vain did he have recourse to the\nevasive declaration, that he did not speak of magistrates or civil\nlaws; the peasants of Germany drew their own consequences; they rose\nup against their lords, and enkindled a dreadful war. The divine right\nheld by Catholics has been accused of favoring despotism; and it has\nbeen considered as so much opposed to the rights of the people, that\nthe two expressions are often antithetically employed. Divine right,\nwell understood, is not opposed to the rights, but to the excesses of\nthe people; so far from giving unlimited extent to power, it confines\nit within the limits of reason, justice, and public advantage. In his\nlectures on the general history of civilization in Europe, M. Guizot,\nspeaking of this right as proclaimed by the Church, says: \"The rights\nof liberty and political guarantees are combined with difficulty with\nthe principle of religious royalty; but that principle in itself is\nelevated, moral, and salutary.\" (Lecture ix.) When men like M. Guizot,\nwho have made these questions their special study, are so lamentably\ndeceived on this point, who can be astonished that the same thing\noccurs to the generality of writers!\n\nBefore I go further, I will make one observation, which we ought always\nto have present to our minds. On these questions we continually hear\nmention made of the schools of Bossuet and of Bonald; private names are\nput forward, sometimes in one way and sometimes in another. Much as I\nrespect the merits of these men, and of others not less illustrious\nproduced by the Catholic Church, yet I must observe that she is not\nresponsible for any doctrines but those which she herself teaches;\nthat she is not personified in any doctor in particular; and that\nbeing herself appointed by God himself to be the oracle of infallible\ntruth in faith and morality, she does not permit the faithful to defer\nblindly to the mere word of any private man, however great may be his\nmerit in science and in sanctity. If you wish to know what the Catholic\nChurch teaches, consult the decisions of her Councils and her Pontiffs;\nconsult also her doctors of distinguished and unsullied reputation; but\nbeware of confounding the opinions of an author, however respectable he\nmay be, with the doctrines of the Church and the voice of the Vicar of\nJesus Christ. By this warning I do not mean to prematurely condemn the\nopinions of any one, but simply to put those on their guard who, little\nversed in ecclesiastical studies, might, in certain cases, confound\nrevealed dogmas with what is mere human thought. Having premised this\nmuch, let us enter freely into the question.\n\nWherein does this divine right, of which we hear so much, consist? In\norder to explain this matter completely, we must state the objects over\nwhich this right extends; for these objects being widely different,\nthere will also be a great difference in the application made to them\nof the principle. A great number of questions present themselves in\nthis very important matter; but it appears to me that they may all be\nreduced to these, which embrace the rest, viz. What is the origin of\nthe civil power? How far does it extend? Is it lawful to resist it in\nany case?\n\nThe first question is, _What is the origin of the civil power? How\ndo we know that this power is from God?_ There is much confusion\nprevailing on these points; and certainly it is to be lamented, that at\na time so disturbed as the present they should be misunderstood; for\nwhatever may be said to the contrary, doctrines are never wholly laid\naside, either in revolutions or in restorations; men's interests, no\ndoubt, have great weight therein, but they are not left alone in the\narena. The best way of forming clear ideas on these points is to have\nrecourse to ancient authors, especially those whose doctrines have\nbeen respected for a long period of time, who continue to be respected\ndown to this day, and who are looked upon as safe guides in the right\ninterpretation of ecclesiastical doctrines. This way of studying the\nquestion which now occupies us ought to be acceptable to those even\nwho entertain contempt for the writers of whom we speak; for we are\nnow engaged more in seeking in what the doctrine consists, than in\nexamining into its truth. Now for this purpose we cannot find witnesses\nbetter informed, or interpreters more competent, than men who have\ndevoted their whole lives to the study of the doctrine.\n\nThis last reflection is in no way contradictory to what we have said\nabove, on the care which we ought to take not to confound the mere\nopinions of men with the doctrines of the Church; it only tends to\nremind us of the necessity which exists of perusing a certain class of\nauthors, who are certainly not worthy of the ungrateful neglect with\nwhich they are treated; indeed, it is impossible that their important\nlabors, conscientiously pursued for so long a time, should produce no\nfruit. In order to understand the better the opinion of these writers\non the matter which now occupies us, we ought to observe the difference\nwhich they make in the application of the general principle of divine\nright to the origin of the civil or to that of the ecclesiastical\npower. From this comparison there arises a bright light, which\nresolves and clears up all difficulties. Open the works of the most\ndistinguished theologians, consult their treatises on the origin of the\npower of the Pope, and you will see that in establishing this power\non divine right, they mean that it emanates from God, not only in a\ngeneral sense, that is, inasmuch as all being comes from God; not only\nin a social sense, that is, inasmuch as the Church being a society, God\nhas willed the existence of a power to govern it; but in a most special\nmanner that God has Himself instituted this power, that He has Himself\nestablished its form, that He has Himself pointed out the person, and\nthat consequently the successor to the chair of St. Peter is of divine\nright the supreme pastor of the universal Church, having over the whole\nof this Church supreme honor and jurisdiction.\n\nWith respect to the civil power, these authors speak thus. In the first\nplace, all power comes from God; for power exists, and all existence\ncomes from God; power is sovereignty, and God is the lord, the supreme\nmaster of all things; power is a right, and in God is found the source\nof all right; power is a moral movement, and God is the universal cause\nof all sorts of movements; power tends towards an exalted end, and God\nis the end of all creatures; His Providence ordains and directs all\nthings with mercy and efficacy. Thus we see that St. Thomas, in his\nwork _De Regimine Principum_, affirms that all power comes from God as\nsupreme master, as may be shown in three ways: as it is a being, as it\nis a mover, and as it is an end. (Lib. 3, cap. 1.)\n\nAs I am treating of this method of explaining the origin of power, I\nmust pause for a moment to refute Rousseau, who, in the allusion which\nhe made to this doctrine, showed that he did not understand it. He\nsays, \"All power comes from God, I allow; but all diseases also come\nfrom Him. Are we, therefore, to say that it is forbidden to call in a\nphysician?\" (_Contrat Social_, liv. i. c. 3.) It is true that one of\nthe senses in which the divine origin of power is affirmed is, that all\nfinite beings emanate from an infinite being; but this sense is not\nthe only one. Indeed, theologians knew very well that this idea, by\nitself, did not imply its legitimacy, and that it extended as well to\nphysical force; for as the author of the _Contrat Social_ adds: \"the\npistol held by a robber in a wood is also a power.\" Rousseau, in this\npassage, has sacrificed the sense to show his ingenuity; the love of\nmaking a brilliant sally has seduced him into removing the question\nfrom its proper ground. It was easy, indeed, to see that, with respect\nto the civil power, men do not speak of a physical, but of a moral, a\nlegitimate power; in any other way it would be in vain to seek for its\norigin: as well might they seek the source of riches, health, strength,\ncourage, subtilty, or the other qualities which contribute to form the\nmaterial force of all power. The question is with regard to the moral\nbeing which is called power; and in the moral order, illegitimate\npower is not power, it is not a being, it is nothing. Consequently,\nthere is no need of seeking its origin in God, or in any thing else.\nTherefore, power emanates from God as the source of all right, justice,\nand legitimacy; and in considering power, not as a mere physical, but\nas a moral being, it is affirmed that it can come from God alone,\nwho is the plenitude of all being. Not only is this doctrine, taken\ngenerally, above all difficulty, but it must be admitted by all who do\nnot profess themselves atheists; they alone can call it in question.\nLet us now descend to particulars, and see whether Catholic doctors\nteach any thing which is not perfectly reasonable even in the eyes of\nphilosophers.\n\nMan, they say, was not created to live alone; his existence supposes a\nfamily; his inclinations urge him to form an alliance, without which\nthe human race could not be perpetuated. Families are connected with\neach other by intimate and indestructible ties; they have common wants;\nnone can insure happiness, or even preservation, without the aid of\nothers. Therefore they are bound to enter into society. Society cannot\nexist without order, or order without justice; and both require a\nguardian, an interpreter, an executor. This is the civil power. God,\nwho created man, and willed also his preservation, consequently willed\nthe existence of society, and the power which it requires. Now the\nexistence of the civil power is as conformable to the will of God as\nthe existence of the paternal; if families have need of the paternal,\nsociety has no less need of the civil power. Our Lord has condescended\nto secure us from mistakes on this important point by telling us in\nthe Scriptures, that all power emanates from Him, that we are obliged\nto obey it, that whoever resists it resists the Divine command. I\nseek in vain for an objection to this way of explaining the origin of\nsociety, and of the power which governs it. This doctrine preserves\nnatural, human, and divine right; all these rights are connected, and\nsupport each other. The sublimity of the theory rivals its simplicity;\nrevelation sanctions what was shown by the light of reason, and grace\nfortifies nature. Such, then, is the famous divine right, presented\nas a bugbear to the ignorant and unsuspecting, in order to make them\nbelieve that the Catholic Church, when she teaches the obligation of\nobeying the legitimate power, and founds this obligation on the law of\nGod, proposes a dogma injurious to true human liberty.\n\nTo hear some men ridicule the divine right of kings, one would say\nthat we Catholics believed that certain individuals and families have\nreceived bulls of institution from Heaven, and that we are grossly\nignorant of the history of the changes of the civil power. If they had\nexamined the matter more deeply, they would have found that, far from\nbeing liable to the reproach of such folly, we have only established\na principle the necessity of which was acknowledged by all the\nlegislators of antiquity, and that our belief is quite reconcilable\nwith true philosophical doctrines and the events recorded by history.\nIn support of what I have said, see with what admirable clearness St.\nChrysostom explains this point in his 23d homily on the Epistle to\nthe Romans: \"There is no power that does not come from God.\" What do\nyou say? Is every prince, then, appointed by God? I do not say that;\nfor I do not speak of any prince in particular, but of the thing\nitself, that is, of the power itself: I affirm that the existence of\nprincipalities is the work of the divine wisdom, and that to it it is\nowing that all things are not given up to blind chance. Therefore it is\nthat the Apostle does not say, \"That there is no prince who does not\ncome from God;\" but he says, speaking of the thing in itself, \"There\nis no power which does not come from God.\" \"Non est potestas, nisi a\nDeo. Quid dicis? Ergo omnis princeps a Deo constitutus? Istud non dico.\nNon enim de quovis principe mihi sermo est, sed de re ipsa, id est de\nipsa potestate. Quod enim principatus sint, quodque non simpliciter\net temere cuncta ferantur, divin\u00e6 sapienti\u00e6 opus esse dico. Propterea\nnon dicit: non enim princeps est nisi a Deo. Sed de re ipsa disserit\ndicens: non est potestas nisi a Deo.\" (_Hom. 23, in Epist. ad Rom._)\nIt appears, from the words of St. John Chrysostom, that the meaning of\ndivine right, according to Catholics, is, that there exists a power for\nthe government of society, and that it is not abandoned to the mercy\nof passion and imagination. This doctrine, which insures public order,\nby establishing the obligation of obedience on motives of conscience,\ndoes not descend to the inferior questions, which do not affect the\nfundamental principle.\n\nIt may perhaps be objected, that if we admit the interpretation of St.\nJohn Chrysostom, it was not necessary for the sacred text to teach\nthat which reason so clearly dictated. To this our reply is twofold:\n1st, that the sacred Scripture expressly prescribes to us several\nobligations which nature imposes on us independently of all divine\nright, as to honor parents, not to kill, not to rob, and other things\nof the kind; 2d, that in the present case the Apostles had very good\nreason to recommend particularly obedience to legitimate power, and\nto sanction in a clear and conclusive manner this obligation, founded\non the natural law itself. Indeed, the same St. Chrysostom tells\nus, \"that at that time a very widely-spread opinion represented the\nApostles as seditious men and innovators, laboring by their speeches\nand acts to bring about the downfall of laws.\" \"Plurima tunc temporis\ncircumferebatur fama, traducens Apostolos veluti seditiosos rerumque\nnovatores; qui omnia ad evertendum leges communes et facerent et\ndicerent.\" (_Hom. 23, in Epist. ad Tim._)\n\nIt was no doubt to this that St. Paul alluded when, admonishing the\nfaithful of the obligation of obeying authority, he told them that\n\"such was the will of God, that by acting thus they might put to\nsilence the imprudence of foolish men.\" (Epist. i. c. 2.) We also know\nfrom St. Jerome, that in the beginning of the Church, some, hearing\nthe Gospel liberty preached, imagined that universal liberty also was\nmeant. The necessity of inculcating a duty, the fulfilment of which\nis indispensable for the preservation of society, will be clearly\nperceived if we consider with what ease an error so flattering to\nproud and rebellious minds might take root. After fourteen centuries\nhad passed away, we see the error reproduced in the time of Wickliff\nand John Huss. The Anabaptists made a dreadful application of it when\nthey inundated Germany with blood. At a later period, the fanatical\nsectaries of England raised the greatest disorders and brought about\nfearful catastrophes by a similar doctrine, condemning alike the civil\nand ecclesiastical power.\n\nThe religion of Jesus Christ, the law of peace and love, when preaching\nliberty, spoke of that liberty which draws us from the slavery of sin\nand the power of the devil, renders us co-heirs of Jesus Christ, and\nparticipators of grace and glory. But she was very far from propagating\ndoctrines which could favor disorder, or subvert law and authority. It\nwas, then, of the greatest importance to her to disprove the calumnies\nby which her enemies attempted to injure her; it was necessary for\nher to proclaim, by her words and acts, that the public interest had\nnothing to fear from her doctrines. We also see that after the Apostles\nhad inculcated this sacred obligation on several occasions, the Fathers\nof the earliest times insist again and frequently on the same point.\nSt. Polycarp, quoted by Eusebius, (lib. iv. _Hist._ cap. 15,) says,\nwhen speaking to the proconsul: \"It is ordained to render to the\nmagistrates and powers appointed by God the honor which we owe them.\"\nSt. Justin, in his _Apology for the Christians_, also recalls the\nprecept of Jesus Christ touching the payment of tributes: Tertullian,\nin his _Apology_, chapter third, reproaches the Gentiles with the\npersecution they directed against the Christians, even at the time when\nthe latter, with their hands raised to heaven, were praying for the\nsafety of the emperors. The zeal of the saints who were charged with\nthe instruction and direction of the faithful succeeded in inculcating\nthis precept so well, that the Christians were everywhere a model of\nsubmission and obedience. Thus Pliny, writing to the Emperor Trajan,\navowed that, religion excepted, he could not accuse them of being at\nall wanting in the fulfilment of the laws and imperial edicts.\n\nNature herself has pointed out the persons in whom resides the paternal\npower; the wants of the family mark the limits of this power; the\nfeelings of the heart prescribe its object and regulate its conduct. In\nsociety it is otherwise: the rights of the civil power are tossed about\nby the storms of human events; here this right resides in one person,\nthere in several; to-day it belongs to one family, to-morrow to\nanother; one day it is exercised under one form, the next under another\nvery different. The infant who weeps at his mother's bosom reminds her\nof the obligation of nourishing and watching over it; woman, weak and\nunsupported, calls unmistakably on man to protect her and her child;\nyouth, without strength to sustain or knowledge to direct itself, shows\nparents their obligation of care and guardianship. We see clearly the\nwill of God; the order of nature forcibly expresses it; the tenderest\nfeelings are its echo and interpreter; we do not require any thing\nelse to show us what is the will of God; we do not need any refinement\nto convince us that the parental power is from above. The rights and\nduties of parents and children are written in characters as distinct\nas they are beautiful. But where shall we find, with respect to the\ncivil power, an expression as unequivocal? If power comes from God,\nby what means does he communicate it? In what channel is it conveyed?\nThis leads us to other secondary questions, which all conduce to the\nexplanation and solution of the principal question.\n\nWas there ever a man who by natural right found himself invested with\ncivil power? It is clear that in this case power would have no other\norigin than paternal authority; that is to say, in that case, the civil\npower ought to be considered as an amplification of that authority, as\na transformation of domestic into civil power. We immediately see the\ndifference between the domestic and the social order, their separate\nobjects, the diversity of rules by which they must be regulated, and\nwe see how different are the means which they both use for their\ngovernment. I do not deny that the type of society is found in the\nfamily, and that society is in the most desirable condition when\nit most resembles the family in command and in obedience; but mere\nanalogies do not suffice to establish rights, and it always remains\nindubitable that those of the civil power must not be confounded with\nthose of the paternal.\n\nOn the other hand, the nature of things shows that Providence, in\nordaining the destinies of the world, did not establish the paternal\nas the source of the civil. Indeed, we do not see how such a power\ncould have been transmitted, and the legitimacy of its claims have\nbeen justified. We can easily understand the limited rule of an old\nman, governing a society, composed of two or three generations only,\nwho were descended from him; but as soon as this society increased,\nextended to several countries, and consequently was divided and\nsubdivided, the patriarchal power must have disappeared, its exercise\nmust have become impossible, and we can no longer understand how the\npretenders to the throne could come to an understanding with each other\nand the rest of the people, to justify and legitimize their rule. The\ntheory which acknowledges the paternal as the origin of the civil\npower may be as promising as you please; it may sustain itself on the\nexample of the patriarchal government, which we observe in the cradle\nof society; but there are two things against it. First, it asserts, but\ndoes not prove; second, it has no means of attaining the end for which\nit was intended, viz. the consolidation of government, for it cannot\nestablish itself by proving its legitimacy. The greatest of kings and\nthe humblest of subjects equally know that they are the sons of Noe;\nnothing more. I have not been able to find this theory either in St.\nThomas, or in any of the other principal theologians; and to go still\nhigher, I do not know that it can find any authority in the doctrines\nof the Fathers, in the tradition of the Church, or in Scripture\nitself. It is consequently a mere philosophical opinion, of which the\nexplanation and proof belong to those who advance it. Catholicity says\nnothing either for or against it.\n\nIt is then demonstrated that the civil power does not reside in any\nman of natural right, and on the other hand, we know that power comes\nfrom God. Who receives this power from God, and how does he receive\nit? It is necessary first to observe, that the Catholic Church, while\nacknowledging the divine origin of the civil power, an origin which is\nexpressly stated in Scripture, does not define any thing either as to\nthe form of this power, or the means which God employs in communicating\nit. So that after the Catholic doctrine is established, there still\nremains to be examined and discussed, who _immediately_ receives the\npower, and how it is transmitted? This is acknowledged by theologians\nwhen they have treated of this matter; this should be enough to remove\nthe prejudices of those who consider the doctrine of the Church on\nthis point as conducive to popular degradation. The Church teaches the\nobligation of obeying legitimate authority, and adds that the power\nwhich it exercises emanates from God; this doctrine is as applicable to\nrepublics as to absolute monarchies, and does not prejudge either the\nforms of government or the particular claims of legitimacy. As to these\nlatter questions they cannot be answered in general terms; they depend\nupon a variety of circumstances into which the general principles which\nare the foundation of the good order and peace of society cannot enter.\nI think it is so important to give clear ideas on this point, and to\nstate the doctrines of the most distinguished Catholic divines, that I\nconsider it necessary to devote an entire chapter to this subject.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLIX.\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF SOCIETY, ACCORDING TO CATHOLIC DIVINES.\n\n\nThere is nothing more instructive or more interesting, than the\nstudy of public law in those writers who, pretending not to pass for\nstatesmen, and entertaining no views of ambition, express themselves\nwithout flattery and without bitterness; and explain these matters\nwith as much calmness and tranquillity as they would theories of rare\napplication and limited extent. At the present time it is almost\nimpossible to open a book without immediately perceiving to which of\nthe two contending parties the author belongs; it seldom happens that\nhis ideas are not affected by passion, or adapted to serve particular\ndesigns; and it not unfrequently happens that, without conviction, he\nspeaks according to the dictates of his interest.\n\nIt is not so with the old writers, of whom we are speaking. Let\nus render them at least this justice; that their opinions are\nconscientious, their language loyal and sincere; and whatever may be\nthe judgment with respect to them, whether we consider them as real\nsages, or as ignorant men and fanatics, we cannot call in question\ntheir sincerity; that they are animated by a religious idea, that\nthey develop a philosophical system, that their pens are the faithful\ninterpreters of their thoughts.\n\nRousseau attempts to seek the origin of society, and of the civil\npower; and begins the first chapter of his work with these words: \"Man\nis born free, and he is everywhere in fetters.\" Do you not immediately\nperceive the tribune under the mantle of the philosopher? Do you not\nobserve that, instead of addressing himself to the reason, the writer\nappeals to the passions; and wounds the most susceptible of them--viz.\npride. It is in vain for the philosopher to endeavor to make us\nbelieve that he does not intend to reduce his doctrines to practice;\nhis language betrays his design. In another place, where he attempts\nnothing less than to give advice to a great nation, he has hardly begun\nwhen he holds over Europe the torch of an incendiary.\n\n\"When we read ancient history, we fancy ourselves transported to\nanother world, and among other beings. What have the French, the\nEnglish, the Russians, in common with the Greeks and Romans? Hardly any\nthing but the form. The great souls of the latter appear to the others\nas exaggerations of history. How can they, who feel themselves to be\nso little, imagine that such great men ever existed? They did exist,\nhowever; and they were human like ourselves. What hinders our being men\nlike them? Our prejudices, our low philosophy, and grovelling passions,\ncombined with the egotism of men's hearts, by absurd institutions,\ndirected by men of little minds.\" (_Considerations on the Government\nof Poland_, _&c._, Chap. 2.) Do you not observe the poison conveyed\nin these words of the publicist? And is it not palpable that he had\nsomething more in view than enlightening the mind? See with what\naddress he attempts to produce a feeling of irritation, by harsh and\nindecent reproaches.\n\nLet us take the opposite extreme of the comparison, and see in how\ndifferent a tone St. Thomas of Aquin, in his work _De Regimine\nPrincipum_, begins his explanation on the same subject, and gives\ndirections for good government.[a][A]\n\n [A] This subject is so important, so delicate, that I shall not be\n satisfied with giving a translation of the passages which I quote,\n however careful I may be to render them exact and literal, at the risk\n of irregularity of style and violation of the idiom of our language.\n I wish, therefore, to set before the reader the original texts\n themselves, desiring him to judge from them and not from my version.\n [They will be found in the Appendix.]\n\n\"If man,\" he says, \"was intended to live alone, like many animals, he\nwould not require any one to govern him; every man would be his own\nking, under the supreme command of God; inasmuch as he would govern\nhimself by the light of reason given him by the Creator. But it is\nin the nature of man to be a social and political animal, living\nin community, differently from all other animals; a thing which is\nclearly shown by the necessities of his nature. Nature has provided\nfor other animals food; skins for a covering, means of defence,--as\nteeth, horns, claws,--or, at least, speed in flight; but she has not\nendowed man with any of those qualities; and instead she has given him\nreason, by which, with the assistance of his hands, he can procure what\nhe wants. But to procure this, one man alone is not enough; for he\nis not in a condition to preserve his own life; it is, therefore, in\nman's nature to live in society. Moreover, nature has granted to other\nanimals the power of discerning what is useful or injurious to them:\nthus the sheep has a natural horror of his enemy the wolf. There are\nalso certain animals who know by nature the herbs which are medicinal\nto them, and other things which are necessary for their preservation.\nBut man has not naturally the knowledge which is requisite for the\nsupport of life, except in society; inasmuch as the aid of reason\nis capable of leading from universal principles to the knowledge of\nparticular things, which are necessary for life. Thus, then, since\nit is impossible for man alone to obtain all this knowledge, it is\nnecessary that he should live in society, one aiding another; each one\napplying to his own task; for example, some in medicine; some in one\nway, and some in another. This is shown with great clearness in that\nfaculty peculiar to man, language--which enables him to communicate\nhis thoughts to others. Indeed, brute animals mutually communicate\ntheir feelings; as the dog communicates his anger by barking, and other\nanimals their passions by various ways. But man, with respect to his\nfellows, is more communicative than any other animal; even than those\nwho are the most inclined to live in union, as cranes, ants, and bees.\nIn this sense, Solomon says, in Ecclesiastes: 'It is better, therefore,\nthat two should be together than one; for they have the advantage of\ntheir society.' Thus, if it be natural for man to live in society, it\nis necessary that some one should direct the multitude; for if many\nwere united, and each one did as he thought proper, they would fall\nto pieces, unless somebody looked after the public good, as would be\nthe case with the human body, and that of any other animal, if there\ndid not exist a power to watch over the welfare of all the members.\nThus Solomon says: 'Thus, where there is no one to govern, the people\nwill be dispersed.' In man himself the soul directs the body; and in\nthe soul, the feelings of anger and concupiscence are governed by the\nreason. Among the members of the body, there is one principal one,\nwhich directs all; as the heart or the head. There ought, then, to be\nin every multitude some governing power.\" (St. Thomas, _De Regimine\nPrincipum_, lib. i. cap. 1.)\n\nThis passage, so remarkable for profound wisdom, clearness of ideas,\nsolidity of principles, vigor and exactness of deductions, contains,\nin a few words, all that can be said with respect to the origin of\nsociety, and of power; to the rights enjoyed by the latter, and the\nobligations incumbent upon it: the matter being considered in general,\nand by the light of reason alone. In the first place, it was required\nto show, with clearness, the necessity of the existence of society;\nand this the holy doctor does by this very simple reasoning--man is\nof such a nature that he cannot live alone, and then he has need of\nbeing united to his fellows. If a proof of this fundamental truth be\nrequired, it is found in the fact that he is endowed with speech;\nthis is a sign that by nature he is destined to communicate with\nother men, and consequently to live in society. After having proved\nthis invincible necessity, it remained to demonstrate a necessity\nnot less absolute--viz. the necessity of a power to govern society.\nIn order to make this demonstration, St. Thomas does not invent\nextravagant systems, or unfounded theories; he does not appeal to\nabsurd suppositions; he is satisfied with a reason founded on the\nnature of things, dictated by common sense, and supported by daily\nexperience--viz. that in all bodies of men, there is a director\nrequisite; since, without him, disorder, and even dispersion, are\ninevitable; for in all societies there must be a chief.\n\nIt must be allowed that this clear and simple explanation enables us\nto understand the theory of the origin of society much better than all\nthe subtilties of explicit and implicit pacts; it is enough for a thing\nto be founded on nature itself, for it to be viewed as demonstrated as\na real necessity, in order that its existence may be easily conceived;\nwhy then seek, by subtilties and suppositions, what is apparent at the\nfirst view?\n\nLet us not, however, suppose that St. Thomas does not acknowledge\ndivine right, or is ignorant that the obligation of obedience to power\nmay be founded on it: far from it; this truth he establishes in many\nplaces in his works; but he does not forget the natural and the human\nlaw, which, on this point, are combined and allied with the divine,\nin such a way, that the latter is only a confirmation of, and gives\na sanction to, the others. We ought thus to interpret the passages\nin which the holy doctor attributes the civil power to human law,\nconsidering this law with that of grace. For example, when examining\nwhether infidels can have dominion or supremacy over the faithful, he\nsays:[b] \"It is necessary here to consider that dominion or supremacy\nis introduced by virtue of human law; the distinction between the\nfaithful and infidels, is by divine law. Divine law, which emanates\nfrom grace, does not take away human law, which is founded on the law\nof natural reason; therefore the distinction between the faithful and\ninfidels, considered in itself, does not take away the dominion or\nsupremacy of infidels over the faithful.\"\n\nWhen inquiring, in another place, if the prince who has apostatized\nfrom the faith by this fact loses dominion over his subjects, so that\nthey are no longer called upon to obey him, he expresses himself\nthus:[c] \"As has been said before, infidelity does not destroy dominion\nitself; for dominion was introduced by the law of nations, which is\nhuman right; while the distinction between the faithful and infidels\nis by a divine, which does not take away the human right.\" Again;\nwhen examining if man is obliged to obey another man, he says:[d]\n\"As natural actions proceed from natural powers, so human operations\nproceed from the human will. In natural things, it was necessary that\ninferior things should be brought into their respective operations by\nthe excellence of the natural virtue which God has given to superior\nthings. In the same way, also, it is necessary that in human things,\nthose which are superior should urge on the inferior, by the force of\nauthority ordained by God. To move, by means of reason and the will,\nis to command; and as, by virtue of the natural order instituted by\nGod, inferior things in nature are necessarily subject to the motion\nof superior things, so also, in human things, those which are inferior\nought, by natural and divine right, to obey those which are superior.\"\n\nOn the same question, St. Thomas examines whether obedience is a\nspecial virtue, and he answers,[e] \"That to obey a superior is a duty\nconformable to the divine order communicated to things.\" In the 6th\narticle, he states the question whether Christians are obliged to obey\nthe secular powers, and says:[f] \"The faith of Christ is the principle\nand cause of justice, according to what is said in the Epistle to the\nRomans, chap. iii. 'the justice of God by the faith of Jesus Christ.'\nThus the faith of Christ does not take away the law of justice, but\nrather confirms it. This law wills that inferiors should obey their\nsuperiors; for without that, human society could not be preserved;\nand thus the faith of Christ does not exempt the faithful from the\nobligation of obeying the secular powers.\" I have quoted at some\nlength these passages from St. Thomas, in order to show that he does\nnot understand the divine right in the sense in which the enemies of\nCatholicity have made it a reproach to us; but that, properly speaking,\nwhile he adheres to a dogma so expressly taught in the sacred text, he\nconsiders the Divine law as a confirmation and sanction of the natural\nand human law. We know that for six centuries Catholic doctors have\nregarded the authority of St. Thomas as worthy of the highest respect\nin all that concerns faith and morality.\n\nWe have just seen that this angel of the schools establishes, as\nfounded on the natural, human, and divine law, the duty of obeying\nauthority, affirming that the source of all power is found in God,\nwithout entering into the question whether God communicates this power\n_directly_ or _indirectly_ to those who exercise it, and leaving a vast\nfield where human opinions may debate without violating the purity of\nfaith. In the same way, the most eminent doctors who have succeeded him\nin the Catholic pulpits have contented themselves with establishing and\nenforcing the doctrine, without rashly making use of the authority of\nthe Church in its application. To prove this I will here insert some\npassages from distinguished theologians. Cardinal Bellarmin expresses\nhimself in these words:[g] \"It is certain that public authority comes\nfrom God, from whom alone emanate all things good and lawful, as is\nproved by St. Augustin throughout almost all the forty-five books of\nthe _City of God_. Indeed, the Wisdom of God, in the Book of Proverbs,\nchap. viii., cries out, 'It is by Me that kings reign;' and further\non, 'It is by Me that princes rule.' The prophet Daniel, in the second\nchapter, 'The God of heaven has given thee the kingdom and the empire;'\nand the same prophet, in the fourth chapter, 'Thy dwelling shall be\nwith cattle and with wild beasts, and thou shalt eat grass as an ox,\nand shalt be wet with the dew of heaven, and seven years shall pass\nover thee, till thou know that the Most High ruleth over the kingdom\nof men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will.'\" After having proved,\nby the authority of the Holy Scriptures, this dogma, via. that the\ncivil power comes from God, the illustrious writer explains the\nsense in which it ought to be understood:[h] \"But,\" he says, \"it is\nnecessary to make some observations here. In the first place, political\npower, considered in general, and without descending in particular to\nmonarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, emanates immediately from God\nalone; for being necessarily annexed to the nature of man, it proceeds\nfrom Him who has made that nature. Besides, that power is by natural\nlaw, since it does not depend upon men's consent, since they must have\na government whether they wish it or not, under pain of desiring the\ndestruction of the human race, which is against the inclination of\nnature. It is thus that the law of nature is divine law, and government\nis introduced by divine law; and it is particularly this which the\nApostle seems to have had in view when he says to the Romans, chap.\nxiii., 'He who resists authority, resists the ordinance of God.'\"\n\nThis doctrine destroys all the theory of Rousseau, who makes the\nexistence of society and the right of the civil power depend on human\nconventions; it also overturns the absurd systems of some Protestants,\nand other heretics, their predecessors, who, in the name of Christian\nliberty, pretended to condemn all authority. No! the existence of\nsociety does not depend on the consent of man; society is not his work;\nit satisfies an imperious necessity, which, if it were not satisfied,\nwould entail the destruction of the human race. God, when he created\nman, did not deliver him to the mercy of chance; He has given him the\nright of fulfilling his necessities, and has imposed on him the care of\nhis own preservation as a duty; therefore the existence of the human\nrace includes also the existence of government, and the obligations of\nobedience. There is no theory so clear, simple, and solid. Shall it be\ncalled the enemy and oppressor of human freedom? Is it any disgrace\nto man to acknowledge himself the creature of God? to confess that he\nhas received from Him what is necessary for his preservation? Is the\nintervention of God any infringement of human liberty, and cannot man\nbe free without being an Atheist? It is absurd to say there is any\nthing favorable to servitude in a doctrine which tells us \"God wills\nnot that you should live like wild beasts: He commands you to be united\nin society, and for this purpose He orders you to live in submission to\nan authority legitimately established.\" If this be called servitude and\noppression, we desire this servitude, we willingly give up the right\nwhich is pretended to be granted to us of wandering in the woods like\nwild beasts: true liberty does not exist in man when he is stripped of\nthe finest attribute of his nature, that of acting in conformity with\nreason.\n\nSuch is the explanation of divine right according to the illustrious\ncommentator whom we have just quoted; let us now see the applications\nwhich he makes of it, and learn in what way, according to him, God\ncommunicates the civil power to those who are charged with its\nexercise. After the words quoted above, Bellarmin continues:[i] \"In\nthe second place, observe, that this power resides _immediately_, as\nin its subject, in all the multitude, for it is by divine right. The\ndivine right has not given this power to any man in particular, for it\nhas given it to the multitude; besides, the positive law being taken\naway, there is no reason why one should rule rather than another, among\na great number of equal men; therefore power belongs to the whole\nmultitude. In fine, society should be a perfect state; it should have\nthe power of self-preservation, and, consequently, that of chastising\nthe disturbers of the peace.\"\n\nThis doctrine has nothing in common with the foolish assertions of\nRousseau and his followers; no one who has studied public law will\nconfound things so different. Indeed, what the Cardinal establishes\nin the passage quoted, viz. that power resides immediately in the\nmultitude, is not in opposition to what he himself taught a little\nbefore, when he said that it comes from God, and is not owing to human\nconventions. His doctrine may be conveyed in this form. Suppose a\nnumber of men without any positive law; there is then no reason why\nany one of them should have a right to rule the rest. Nevertheless,\nthis law exists, nature itself indicates its necessity, God ordains\na government; therefore there exists among this number of men the\nlegitimate power of instituting one. To explain more clearly the ideas\nof this illustrious theologian, let us suppose that a considerable\nnumber of families, perfectly equal among themselves and absolutely\nindependent of each other, were thrown by a tempest on a desert island.\nThe vessel being destroyed, they have no hope either of returning\nhome or of pursuing their journey. All communication with the rest of\nmankind is become impossible: we ask, whether these families could live\nwithout government? No. Has any one among them a right of governing\nthe rest? Clearly not. Can any individual among them pretend to such\na right? Certainly not. Have they a right to appoint the government\nof which they stand in need? Certainly they have. Therefore in this\nmultitude, represented by the fathers of families or in some other\nway, resides the civil power, together with the right of transmitting\nit to one or more persons, according as they shall judge proper. It is\ndifficult to make any valid objection to the doctrine placed in this\npoint of view. That this is the real meaning of his words is clearly\nshown by the observations which follow:[k] \"In the third place,\" he\nsays, \"observe that the multitude transfers this power to one person or\nmore by natural right; for the republic not being able to exercise it\nby itself, is obliged to communicate it to one or to a limited number;\nand it is thus that the power of princes, considered in general, is\nby natural and divine law; and the whole human race, if assembled\ntogether, could not establish the contrary, viz. that princes or\ngovernors did not exist.\"\n\nBut the fundamental principle being once established, Bellarmin allows\nto society an ample right of appointing the form of government which\nthey think proper. This ought to refute the accusations made against\nthe Catholic doctrine, of favoring servitude; for if all forms of\ngovernment are reconcilable with this doctrine, it is evident that it\ncannot justly be accused of being incompatible with liberty. Hear how\nthe same author continues on this point:[l] \"Observe, in the fourth\nplace,\" he says, \"that particular forms of government are by the law\nof nations, and not by divine law, since it depends upon the consent\nof the multitude to place over themselves a king, consuls, or other\nmagistrates, as is clear; and, for a legitimate reason, they can change\nroyalty into aristocracy, or into democracy, or _vice vers\u00e2_, as it was\ndone in Rome.\n\n\"Observe, in the fifth place, that it follows, from what we have said,\nthat this power in particular comes from God, but by means of the\ncounsel and election of man, like all other things which belong to the\nlaw of nations; for the law of nations is, as it were, a conclusion\ndrawn from the natural law by human reasoning. Thence follows a twofold\ndifference between the political and the ecclesiastical power: first,\ndifference with regard to the subject, since political power is in\nthe multitude, and ecclesiastical in a man _immediately_, as in its\nsubject; second, difference with respect to the cause, since political\npower, considered generally, is by divine law, and in particular by\nthe law of nations, while the ecclesiastical power is in every way by\ndivine law, and emanates immediately from God.\"\n\nThese last words show clearly how correct I was in saying that\ntheologians understand the divine law in a very different manner,\naccording as it is applied to the civil or to the ecclesiastical power.\nIt must not be supposed that the doctrine now stated is peculiar\nto Cardinal Bellarmin; the generality of theologians follow him on\nthis point; but I have preferred quoting his authority, because he,\nbeing so strongly attached to the See of Rome, if the latter were\nimbued with the principles of despotism, as it has been charged with\nbeing, no doubt, something of them would appear in the writings of\nthis theologian. It is easy to anticipate the objection that will be\nmade to this explanation; we shall be told that Bellarmin, having for\nhis object the exaltation of the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff,\nwith this view attempted to lower the power of kings, in order to\ntake away or diminish all opposition to the authority of the Popes. I\nwill not now enter into an examination of the opinions of Bellarmin\nwith respect to the two powers--this would be foreign to my design;\nbesides, such points of civil and ecclesiastical law excited at that\ntime great interest, on account of circumstances at that period, but\nnow very little, on account of the new course which events have taken,\nand the great change which has been brought about in ideas. I shall,\nnevertheless, reply to this supposed difficulty by two very simple\nobservations. The first is, that we have not to inquire the intentions\nof Bellarmin in explaining his doctrine, but in what that doctrine\nconsists. Whatever his motive may have been, we see an author of vast\nrenown, whose opinion has great weight in Catholic schools, and who\nwrote at Rome, where, so far from his writings being condemned, he was\nsurrounded with respect and honor: this theologian, I say, explaining\nthe doctrine of the Church on the Divine origin of the civil power,\ndoes it in such terms that, while giving sacred guarantees for the good\norder of society, he does not infringe on the liberty of the people;\nthis is the vindication of Rome against the attacks made upon her. The\nsecond is, that Cardinal Bellarmin does not here profess an isolated\nopinion--the generality of theologians are on his side; therefore, all\nthat can be said against him personally proves nothing against his\ndoctrines. Among the many authors that I could quote, I will select\nsome who will represent many different periods: and as the obligation\nof being brief confines me within narrow limits, I beg the reader\nhimself to examine the works of Catholic theologians and moralists; he\nwill thus make sure of becoming acquainted with their thoughts on this\nsubject. Hear how Suarez explains the origin of power:[m] \"Herein,\" he\nsays, \"the common opinion seems to be, that God, inasmuch as He is the\nauthor of nature, gives the power; so that men are, so to speak, the\nmatter and subject capable of this power; while God gives the form by\ngiving the power.\" (_De Leg._ lib. iii. c. 3.)\n\nHe goes on to develop his doctrine, relying on the reason usually made\nuse of in this matter; and when he comes to draw the conclusions, he\nexplains how society, which, according to him, receives the power\nimmediately from God, communicates it to certain persons. He adds:[n]\n\"In the second place, it follows from what has been said, that the\ncivil power, whenever it is found in a man or a prince, has emanated\naccording to usual and legitimate law, from the people and the\ncommunity, either directly or remotely, and that it cannot otherwise be\njustly possessed.\" (_Ibid._ cap. 4.)\n\nPerhaps some of my readers may not know that a Spanish Jesuit\nmaintained against the King of England in person, the doctrine that\nprinces receive power _mediately_ from God, and _immediately_ from the\npeople. This Jesuit is Suarez himself, and the book to which I allude\nis called,[o] \"_Defence of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith against the\nerrors of the Anglican sect; accompanied by a Reply to the Apology for\nthe Oath of Fidelity, and to the monitory Preface published by the most\nserene James, King of England._ By P. D. Fran\u00e7ois Suarez, Professor\nat the University of Coimbra; addressed to the most serene Kings and\nPrinces of the Christian world.\"\n\nIn the third book, chapter second, where he discusses the question,\nWhether the political sovereignty comes _immediately_ from God or\nfrom divine institution, Suarez says: \"Here the most serene King not\nonly gives a new and singular opinion, but also acrimoniously attacks\nCardinal Bellarmin, for having affirmed that Kings have not received\nauthority _immediately_ from God like the Popes. He himself affirms\nthat Kings hold their power not from the people, but _immediately_ from\nGod; and he attempts to support his opinion by arguments and examples\nthe value of which I shall examine in the next chapter.\n\n\"Although _this controversy does not immediately concern the dogmas\nof faith_ (_for we have nothing in reference to it either in the\nScriptures or in the Fathers_), it may nevertheless be well to discuss\nand explain it carefully; 1. because it might possibly lead to error\nin other dogmas; 2. because the above opinion of the King, as he\nmaintains and explains it, is new, singular, and apparently invented\nto exalt the temporal at the expense of the spiritual power; and 3.\nbecause we consider the opinion of the illustrious Bellarmin _ancient_,\n_received_, _true_, and _necessary_.\" But we must not attribute these\nopinions to the circumstances of the times, nor suppose that they\ndisappeared from the schools of theologians as soon as they were\nadvanced. In support of them, a multitude of authors might very easily\nbe cited, who would show that Suarez was correct in saying that the\nopinion of Bellarmin was received and ancient; they would, moreover,\nshow that this doctrine continued to be admitted as a matter of\ncourse, without any doubt of its orthodoxy, or of its containing any\nthing dangerous to the stability of monarchies. In proof of what is\nhere adduced, I will cite passages from distinguished authors, proving\nthat at Rome this mode of explaining the right divine has never been\ncalled in question; and that in France and Spain, where absolute\nmonarchy had taken so deep root, this opinion was no longer regarded\nas dangerous to the stability of thrones. A long period had already\nelapsed--the critical position which might more or less influence\nthe direction of ideas had consequently disappeared, yet theologians\nstill maintained the same doctrines. Cardinal Gotti, who wrote in the\nearly part of the last century, gives, in his Treatise upon Laws,\nthe above opinion as previously admitted, without even attempting to\nconfirm it.[p] In the Moral Theology of Herman Busenbaum, enlarged by\nSt. Alphonsus Liguori, book 1st, second Treatise upon Laws, (chap.\ni. dub. 2, \u00a7 104,) it is expressly said: \"It is certain that the\npower of making laws exists among men, but as far as civil laws are\nconcerned, this power belongs naturally to no individual. It belongs\nto the community, who transfer it to one or to more, that by them the\ncommunity itself may be governed.\"\n\nShould any one say that I quote the Jesuits only, or suspect that\nthese doctrines are mere casuistry, I will cite remarkable passages\nfrom other theologians, who are neither casuists nor prepossessed\nin favor of the Jesuits. Father Daniel Concina, who wrote at Rome\nabout the middle of the last century, supports the same doctrine as\ngenerally admitted; in his _Th\u00e9ologie chr\u00e9tienne dogmatico-morale_,\nRoman edition, 1768, he expresses himself as follows:[q] \"All writers\ngenerally assert that the origin of supreme power is of God, as Solomon\ndeclares in the Book of Proverbs, c. viii., saying, 'By Me kings reign,\nand lawgivers decree just things:' as truly as subordinate princes are\ndependent upon the supreme temporal majesty, so, in like manner, this\nmajesty itself must depend upon the supreme King and Lord of lords.\nTheologians and jurists dispute whether this supreme power comes\n_immediately_ from God, or merely in an _indirect manner_. Many affirm\nthat it emanates _immediately_ from God, because it cannot emanate\nfrom men, whether we consider them collectively or individually; for\nall fathers of families are equal, and each possesses, with regard\nto his own family, a power merely economical; from which it follows,\nthat they cannot confer upon others that civil and political power\nwhich they themselves do not possess. Moreover, if the community, in\nits superiority, had delegated to one or to more the power here under\ndiscussion, it could revoke it at pleasure, for the superior is always\nat liberty to withdraw the facilities he has delegated to another, and\nthis would be very injurious to society.\n\n\"In support of the opposite opinion, many answer, and _certainly with\nmore probability and truth_, that, in reality, all power proceeds\nfrom God, but that it is not delegated to any particular individual\n_directly_, unless by consent of civil society. That this power is not\nvested _directly_ in any individual, but in the entire collection of\nmen, is what St. Thomas expressly teaches (1, 2, qu. 90, art. 3, ad\n2, et qu. 97, art. 3, ad 3), followed by Dominic Soto (lib. i. qu. 1,\nart. 3); by Ledesma (2 part. qu. 18, art. 3); and by Covarruvias (in\nPract. cap. i.). The reason of this is evident; for as all men are born\nfree with regard to civil society, no one has any civil power over\nanother, since this power exists not in each, nor in any of them in a\nfixed manner; it follows, therefore, that it is vested in the whole\ncollection of men. _God does not confer this power by any special act\ndistinct from creation, but it is a property of right reason, inasmuch\nas right reason dictates that men, united in one moral whole, shall\nprescribe, by express or tacit consent, in what manner society shall be\ngoverned, preserved, and upheld._\"\n\nIt is proper to remark, that Father Concina, speaking here of _tacit_\nor _express consent_, has not in view the actual existence of society,\nnor the authority by which it is governed, but merely the mode of\nexercising this authority for the direction, preservation, and defence\nof society. Hence, his opinion coincides with that of Bellarmin;\nsociety and power are of right divine and natural, but the _mode_ of\norganizing society, and of transmitting and exercising authority, is\nhuman. After having shown in what sense we are to understand that\ncivil power comes from God, Concina resumes the question which he had\nproposed, viz. in what manner authority exists in kings, princes,\nand other supreme heads of government. He proceeds as follows:[r]\n\"It is evident, therefore, that the power existing in the prince,\nthe king, or in many persons whether nobles or plebeians, emanates\nfrom the community itself, directly or indirectly; for, if it came\nimmediately from God, it would be manifested to us in a particular\nmanner, as in the instances of Saul and David, who were chosen by God.\nWe consider, therefore, erroneous, the doctrine that God confers this\npower immediately and directly upon the king, the prince, or any other\nhead of supreme government whatever, to the exclusion of the tacit or\nexpress consent of the public. This discussion, it is true, is one of\nwords rather than of things, for this power comes from God, the author\nof nature, inasmuch as He has ordained and appointed that the public\nitself shall confer upon one or more the power of supreme government,\nfor the preservation and defence of society. The nomination of the\nperson or persons appointed to command being once made, their power\nis said to come from God, because society itself is bound by natural\nand divine right to obey him who commands. In fact, it is the will\nof God that society shall be governed, whether by one individual or\nby several. In this manner the several opinions of theologians are\nreconciled with each other, and the oracles of Scripture appear in\ntheir true sense: 'He that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance\nof God.' 'There is no power but from God.' 'Be subject, therefore, to\nevery human creature for God's sake, whether to the king,' &c. 'Thou\nwouldst not have any power against Me, unless it were given thee\nfrom above.' These testimonies, and others of a like nature, ought\nto convince us that all is ordained and directed by God, the supreme\nMediator. This, however, does not exclude the operations of human\ninstitutions, as is very justly interpreted by St. Augustin and St.\nJohn Chrysostom.\"\n\nFather Billuart, who lived in the early part of last century, and,\nconsequently, at the same epoch when the highly monarchical traditions\nof Louis XIV. were in all their vigor, expressed the same ideas on this\nsubject as the theologians above cited. In his work on Moral Theology,\nwhich, for almost a century, has been widely circulated, he thus\nexpresses himself:[s] \"I maintain, in the first place, that legislative\npower belongs to the community, or to its representative.\" After\nquoting St. Thomas and St. Isidore, he continues: \"Reason proves, that\nto make laws belongs of right to him who is appointed to watch over\nthe public good; for the maintenance of the public good, as has been\nalready said, is the end and aim of the laws. It is the duty of the\ncommunity, or of its ruler, to watch over the public good; for as the\nwelfare of an individual is a fit object for individual agency, so is\nthe public good for the agency of the community, or of him to whom its\nfunctions have been delegated; the power of legislation, therefore, is\nvested in the community, or in its representative. I will confirm what\nis here advanced. The law has the power of commanding and of coercing\nin such a manner that no individual has any authority to command or\nrestrain the multitude. This authority belongs exclusively to the\ncommunity, or to its representative; to these, therefore, legislative\npower belongs.\" Having made these reflections, Billuart starts another\ndifficulty with regard to the extreme extension which he appears to\nhave given to the rights of the multitude. On this occasion he develops\nhis system still further.[t]\n\n\"It will be objected,\" says he, \"that the right of commanding and\ncompelling is vested in the superior, and cannot belong to the\ncommunity, since it is not superior to itself. To this I reply:\nSociety, in one sense, is not superior to itself, but in another it is.\nThe community may be considered collectively as one moral body, and\nin this sense it is superior to itself as considered distributively\nin each of its members. Again; it may be considered as acting in the\nplace of God, from whom emanates all legislative power, as it is said\nin Proverbs: 'By Me kings reign and the lawgivers decree just things;'\nor as capable of being governed conformably to the public good. In the\nformer case, it is superior and legislative; in the latter, inferior\nand subject to the law.\"\n\nAs this explanation might appear somewhat obscure, Billuart proceeds to\ninvestigate more profoundly the origin of society and of civil power.\nHe endeavors to show how the natural, the divine, and the human laws\nagree on this point, defining what belongs to each. He then continues\nas follows:[u] \"To render this more clear, it must be observed, that\nman, unlike other animals, is born destitute of many things necessary\nboth for body and soul, and that for these he is indebted to society\nand the assistance of his fellow-mortals; consequently he is, by his\nvery nature, a social animal. This society, which nature and reason\nprescribe to him as indispensable, cannot long exist without some power\nto direct it, according to what is said in Proverbs: 'Where there is no\ngovernor, the people will come to ruin.' Whence it follows, that God,\nwho has given this nature, has also given the power of governing and of\nlegislating. He, in fact, who gives the form, gives, at the same time,\nall that such form necessarily requires. But as it is not possible for\nthis executive and legislative power to be exercised by the entire\nmultitude, since it would be difficult for all and each forming\nthis multitude to assemble on all occasions when the affairs of the\ncommonweal are to be discussed, or laws to be established, it is usual\nfor the multitude to transfer its right or governing power, either to\na number of people selected from all classes, and bearing the name\nof a democracy; or to a select number of the nobles, which takes the\nname of an aristocracy; or to one alone, for himself only, or for his\nsuccessors, by virtue of the right of hereditary succession, which is\nstyled a monarchy. From which it is evident that all power comes from\nGod, as the Apostle says, in his Epistle to the Romans, chap. xiii.\nThis power resides in the community, _directly and by natural right_,\nbut in kings and other rulers merely _indirectly and by human right_,\nunless God confers it directly upon certain individuals, as He did upon\nMoses over the Jews, and as Christ has conferred it upon the Supreme\nPontiff over the whole Church.\" What is still more remarkable, our\nabsolute monarchies were never alarmed at these theological doctrines,\nnot only previous to the French Revolution, but since that Revolution,\nand up to the time commonly styled with us the _fatal decade_, (from\n1823 to 1833, the latter part of the reign of Ferdinand VII.) It is\nwell known that during that period the _Compendium Salmaticense_\n(Compendium of Salamanca) had a most favorable reception in this\ncountry, and served as a text-book among the professors of ethics\nin the colleges and universities. Ye who are continually declaiming\nagainst this epoch, imagining, without doubt, that in those days no\nother doctrines than those in favor of the most arrant despotism could\nbe circulated, listen to what is said in the above book, which was\nthen placed in the hands of every youth destined to the ecclesiastical\nstate. After having established the existence of a civil legislative\npower, the author thus proceeds:[x] \"You will ask me, in the second\nplace, whether the prince receives this civil legislative power\n_immediately_ from God. I reply, It, is universally admitted that\nprinces receive this power from God; but, at the same time, it is\nmaintained with more truth, that they do not receive it _directly_,\nbut _through the medium_ of the people's consent; for all men are\nnaturally equal, and there is no natural distinction of superiority\nor inferiority. Since nature has not given any individual power over\nanother, God has conferred this power upon the community; which, as\nit may think it more proper to be ruled by one or by many appointed\npersons, transfers it to one or to many, that by them it may be ruled;\naccording to St. Thomas (1, 2, qu. 90, art. 3, ad 2). From this\nnatural principle arises the variety in the forms of civil government;\nfor if a state transfers all its power to a single individual, this\ngovernment is termed monarchical; if it confers it upon the nobles of\nthe nation, it takes the name of an aristocracy; if the people or the\nstate retain this power in their own hands, the civil government is\nstyled a democracy. Princes, therefore, receive from God the power of\ncommanding; for supposing the election made by the whole state, God\nconfers upon the prince the power which was vested in the community.\nWhence it follows, that the prince rules and governs in the name of\nGod, and whoever resists him resists the ordinance of God, according to\nthe words of the Apostle above cited.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER L.\n\nON THE RIGHT DIVINE, ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC DOCTORS.\n\n\nThe doctrine of the right divine, considered in its relation to\nsociety, presents to our notice two particular points which this\ndoctrine contains: 1. The origin of civil power; 2. The mode in which\nGod communicates this power.\n\nThe former point is a question of doctrine. No Catholic can entertain\nany doubt upon it. The second is open to discussion; and various\nopinions may be formed upon it, without interfering with faith. With\nregard to the right divine, considered in itself, true philosophy\nagrees with Catholicity. In fact, if civil power comes not from God,\nto what source can we trace its origin? Upon what solid principle can\nwe support it? If the man who exercises it does not rest upon God the\nlegitimacy of his power, no title will avail to uphold his right. It\nwill be radically and irretrievably null. On the contrary, supposing\nauthority to come from God, our duty to submit to it becomes evident,\nand our dignity is not in the least hurt by the submission; but, in the\nother supposition, we see only force, craft, tyranny, but no reason\nor justice; perhaps a necessity for submission, but no obligation. By\nwhat title does any man pretend to command us? Because he is possessed\nof superior intellect? Who had the right of adjudging to him the\npalm? Besides, this superiority does not constitute a right; in some\ninstances its direction might be useful to us, but it will not be\nobligatory. Is it because he is stronger than we? In that case the\nelephant ought to be king of the entire world. Is it because he is more\nwealthy than we? Reason and justice exist not in metal. The rich man\nis born naked, and his riches will not descend with him into the tomb.\nUpon earth they have enabled him to acquire power; but they do not\nconfer upon him any right to exercise it over others. Shall it consist\nin certain faculties conferred on him by others? who has constituted\nother men our proxies? where is their consent? who has collected their\nvotes? and how can either we or they flatter ourselves that we possess\nfaculties equal to the exercise of civil power? and if we do not\npossess them, how can we delegate them?\n\nWe must here consider the doctrine which places the origin of civil\npower in the will of men, supposing that this power is the result of a\npact, by which individuals have agreed to submit to the retrenchment\nof a part of their natural liberty, in order to enjoy the benefits\nof society. According to this system, the rights of the civil power,\nas well as the duties of the subject, are alike founded on a pact,\ndiffering from other contracts only in the nature and extent of its\nobject; so that, in this case, power would emanate from God merely in\na general sense, just as all rights and duties emanate from Him. Those\nwriters who thus explain the origin of power, do not always agree with\nRousseau. The _Contrat_ of the philosopher of Geneva has nothing to\ndo with the pact spoken of in other authors. This is not the place\nto compare the doctrines of Rousseau with those of other writers;\nsuffice it to say, that although they rely upon the pact, they wish,\nnevertheless, to establish the rights of civil power as they have been\nhitherto understood by the common consent of mankind, whilst the author\nof the _Contrat Social_ proposes in his book the following problem,\nwhich he considers fundamental. I quote his own words: \"_To find a\nform of association which shall defend and protect with all the common\nstrength the person and property of each associate, and by which each\none, being united to all, shall nevertheless obey only himself, and\nremain as free as before._\"\n\nSuch is the fundamental problem, the solution of which is given in the\n_Contrat Social_. This nonsense of having none but one's self to obey,\nmaking a _contract, and remaining as free as before_, needs no comment,\nafter what the author himself says in the following line: \"The clauses\nof this contract are so fixed by the very nature of the act, that the\nleast modification would render them vain and of no effect.\" (Book i.\nchap. 6.) Rousseau's ideas on this subject do not, therefore, agree\nwith those of many other writers, who also have spoken of pacts, in\ntheir explanation of the origin of power; the latter sought a theory in\nsupport of power, the former wished to destroy that which existed, and\nto throw society into a state of excitement. Through a singular idea,\nRousseau, in his vault at the Pantheon, is represented to us with the\ndoor half open, and a lighted torch in his hand--an emblem, perhaps,\nmore significant than has been imagined. The artist's intention was, to\nexpress the idea of Rousseau's enlightening the world even after his\ndeath; but it should be remembered, that the torch is also an emblem of\nthe incendiary. La Harpe said of him:\n\n \"Sa parole est un feu, mais un feu qui ravage.\"\n\nTo return to the question, I will observe, that the doctrine of a pact\nis of no avail in accounting for the establishment of power; for it\ncannot even render legitimate either its origin or its exercise. First,\nan explicit pact has evidently never existed; and secondly, in the\nformation of even the most limited society, such a pact never _could_\nobtain the consent of every individual member. In any convention for\nsuch an object, only the heads of families could take part; and hence,\nwomen, children, and servants might protest against it. In assenting\nto such a pact, what right would fathers have to represent the whole\nof their families? The will of the latter, it will be said, was\nvirtually included in that of their chief; but this is the very point\nthat wants proof. Supposition here is easy enough; proof is not so\neasy. When you seek the origin of power in principles of strict right,\nand attempt to maintain that this is only one of those cases to which\nordinary conditions of contracts are applicable, you are met at once\nby a very serious difficulty; for you are obliged to have recourse to\na fiction:--the words \"_implicit consent_\" are a mere fiction, and\nnothing more. Is it not evident, that the consent of families must have\nbeen implicit, even supposing that of their heads to be explicit? This\nexplicit consent would, in fact, be impossible in the formation of\nany society, however limited in extent. And moreover, the consent of\nsucceeding generations will be equally implicit, since it is impossible\nto be continually renewing the contract, for the purpose of consulting\nthe wishes of the parties interested in its effects. Reason and history\nteach that society has never been thus organized; our own experience\ntells us that it is not now upheld or governed by any such principles.\nOf what use, then, is this inexplicable theory? When a theory has a\npractical object, the best way of proving its fallacy is, to prove its\nimpracticability.\n\nThe faculties with which civil power is, and always has been,\nconsidered to be invested, are of such a nature, that they cannot have\nproceeded from a pact. The right of life and death can have come only\nfrom God. Man is not in possession of this right. No pact merely human\ncould invest him with a power which he has not, either in relation to\nhimself or to others. I will endeavor to demonstrate this point with\nall possible precision. If the right of taking away life emanates not\nfrom God, but from a pact, it must have originated in the following\nmanner: every member of society must have said, expressly or tacitly,\n\"I consent to the establishment of laws to decree punishment of death\nfor certain crimes; and if I should at any time transgress them, I am\nwilling from that moment to forfeit my life.\" In this manner, every\nindividual will have given up his life, supposing that the conditions\nspecified are realized; but no individual having a right over his\nown life, the resigning of it becomes radically null. The joint\nconsent of all the members of society does not obviate the radical\nand essential nullity of each one's right to give up his life; the\nsum of their resignations is therefore equally null, and consequently\nincapable of producing any right whatever. It will be said, perhaps,\nthat man, properly speaking, has no right over his own life, when an\narbitrary right is implied, but that when he chooses to dispose of it\nfor his own advantage, the general principle should be restricted.\nThis reflection, at first sight plausible, would lead to the terrible\nconsequence of authorizing suicide. In reply, it will be said, that\nsuicide is no advantage to him who commits it; but if you once grant\nto the individual the right of disposing of his life, provided he reap\nan advantage from so doing, you cannot constitute yourselves judges to\ndecide whether or not this advantage exists in any particular case.\nAccording to you, he had a right to sacrifice his life when, for\nexample, to satisfy his wants or his taste, he had stolen the property\nof another. That is to say, that he had a right of choice between the\nadvantages of life and those of satisfying a desire: what will you\nanswer, if he tell you that he prefers death to misery, to ennui, to\ngrief, or to such and such misfortunes which torment him?\n\nThe right of life and death cannot consequently emanate from a pact.\nMan's life is not his own; he has only the use of it so long as it\npleases the Creator to grant it him. He has not, therefore, the right\nof disposing of it, and all conventions he may make for that purpose\nare null. In some instances, it is lawful, glorious, it may be even\nobligatory, to deliver one's self up to certain death; but let us\nnot confound ideas: man does not in that case sacrifice his life as\nbeing the master of it, he is a voluntary victim to the salvation\nof his country, or to the good of mankind. The warrior who scales a\nwall, the charitable man who confronts the most dangerous contagion in\nvisiting the sick, the missionary who resorts to unknown countries,\nwho resigns himself to live in unhealthy climates, and who penetrates\ninto inaccessible forests, seeking ferocious hordes, do not dispose\nof their lives as being their own; they sacrifice them to a purpose\ngreat, sublime, just, and pleasing to God; for God loves virtue,\nespecially heroic virtue; and it is a heroic virtue to die for one's\ncountry, to die in visiting the sick, or in carrying the light of truth\nto those seated in darkness and in the shadow of death. This right\nof life and death, with which civil power has ever been considered\ninvested, may by some be considered as founded upon the natural right\nof self-defence vested in society. Every individual, they will say, has\nthe right of taking away the life of another in self-defence; therefore\nsociety also has this right. In the chapter on _Intolerance_, I have\ntouched slightly upon this point, and made some reflections which\nmay be repeated here. I will endeavor, nevertheless, to extend them\nand confirm them by arguments of another kind. In the first place, I\nmaintain that the right of self-defence may confer upon society that of\ntaking away life. If one individual attacked by another may lawfully\nrepel him--kill him even, if necessary to save his own life, it is\nevident that an assemblage of men have the same right. This appears\nso evident, that demonstration is superfluous. One society attacked\nby another has incontestably the right of resisting and repelling the\nattack--it is justified in making war. With more reason, therefore,\nmight it resist an individual, to make war on him, or kill him. This\nis all perfectly true and obvious; and I grant that there thus exists,\nfrom the very nature of things, a title upon which we may found the\nright of inflicting capital punishment.\n\nThese ideas are plausible, and seem at first sight to nullify the\nreasons on which we have supported the necessity of having recourse\nto God for the origin of this formidable right. Nevertheless, when we\ncome to examine them thoroughly, they are far from satisfactory; and it\nmay be even said, that in the sense in which they are understood and\napplied, they are subversive of the acknowledged principles of society.\nIn fact, if such a theory be admitted, if the right of inflicting\ncapital punishment be made to rest exclusively on this principle,\nthe ideas of penalty, chastisement, and of human justice disappear\nat once. It has always been thought that the criminal dying upon a\ngibbet suffers a penalty; and although this terrible act is certainly a\nsatisfaction to society, a means of preservation, yet the principal and\npredominant idea, that which surpasses all others, which best justifies\nand exculpates society, which gives to the judge his august character,\nand stamps disgrace upon the criminal, is the idea of chastisement, of\npenalty, and of justice. All this disappears when once we can assert\nthat society, in taking away life, only acts in self-defence. Such an\nact is conformable to reason, it is just, but it no longer merits the\nhonorable title of an executive act of justice. A man is justified in\nkilling an assassin; but in so doing he does not administer justice, he\ndoes not execute justice, nor inflict a penalty. These things are very\ndifferent, and of a distinct order; we cannot confound them without\nshocking the good sense of mankind.\n\nWe will render this distinction more apparent by putting the two\ntheories into the mouth of the judge: the contrast is striking. In the\nformer case, the judge says to the criminal: \"You are guilty; the law\ndecrees against you the penalty of death; I, the minister of justice,\napply it; the executioner is ordered to inflict it.\" In the second, he\nsays to him: \"You have attacked society, which cannot exist if such\nattacks are tolerated. It defends itself, and for this reason puts you\nto death; I, its agent, declare, that the time for its defending itself\nis come, and hence I give you up to the executioner.\" In the former\nsupposition, the judge is a minister of justice, and the culprit a\ncriminal who undergoes a just penalty; in the latter, the judge is an\ninstrument of force, the culprit a victim. But, it will be said, the\ncriminal is not on this account less criminal, and still merits the\npenalty which he undergoes. This is true with respect to the _guilt_,\nbut not with respect to the _penalty_. The fault exists in the eyes of\nGod, and also in the eyes of man, inasmuch as he possesses a conscience\ncapable of judging of the morality of actions; but it does not exist\nin the eyes of man, considered as a judge. According to you, the judge\ndoes not _punish_ a crime; he restrains an act injurious to society:\nbut if you say that the judge _inflicts a penalty_, you change the\nnature of the question, for he then does something more than protect\nsociety. It follows from what we have just established, that the right\nof inflicting capital punishment can only emanate from God, and,\nconsequently, if there existed no other reason for referring to God\nthe origin of power, this alone would suffice. War against an invading\nnation may be explained by the right of self-defence; invasion also\ncomes under the same principle; for if it be just, it can be entered\nupon only with a view to enforce some reparation or compensation\nrefused by the enemy. War for the sake of alliance enters into that\nclass of actions which are performed for the assistance of a friend; so\nthat this phenomenon of war, with all its glory, and all its ravages,\ndoes not so forcibly oblige us to have recourse to a divine origin as\nthis simple right of condemning a man to the gibbet. The sanction of\nlawful wars also undoubtedly belongs to God, for in Him exists the\nsanction of all rights and of all duties; but there is not, in this\ncase at least, any need of particular authorization, as in the case of\ninflicting capital punishment. It is sufficient to have the general\nsanction which God, as the author of nature, has given to all natural\nrights and duties.\n\nHow do we know that God has granted such an authorization to man?\nThere are three ways of answering this question. 1. The testimony\nof the Scriptures is sufficient for all Christians. 2. The right of\nlife and death is a universal tradition of the human race, and does,\ntherefore, exist in reality; and as we have shown that it can have its\norigin only in God, it is right to suppose that He has communicated\nit to man in one way or another. 3. This right is essential to the\npreservation of society; God must, therefore, have granted it; for\nif He wills the preservation of a being, it is evident that He will\nhave bestowed upon it all things necessary for such preservation. To\nrecapitulate what we have hitherto advanced: the Church teaches that\ncivil power comes from God, and this doctrine, which agrees with the\nformal texts of Scripture, agrees also with natural reason. The Church\ncontents herself with establishing this dogma, and deducing from it\nthe immediate consequence resulting from it, viz. that obedience to\nthe lawful authorities is of right divine. With regard to the mode in\nwhich this right divine is communicated, the Church has not determined\nany thing: the general opinion of theologians is, that society receives\nit from God, and that, from society, it is transferred, by lawful\nmeans, to the person or persons appointed to exercise it. In order that\ncivil power may exact obedience, and be considered invested with this\nright divine, it must be legitimate; that is to say, the person or\npersons in possession of it must have acquired it by lawful means, or\nthis power must have become legitimate in their possession, by means\nacknowledged to be in accordance with right. With respect to political\nforms, the Church does not determine any thing; but whatever be the\nform of government, the civil power must be confined within legitimate\nbounds, while the subject, on his side, is bound to obey. The fitness\nand legitimacy of such or such persons, and of such and such forms,\nare subjects not appertaining to right divine. They are particular\nquestions, depending upon a variety of circumstances, and to which no\ngeneral theory is applicable.\n\nOne example of private right will serve to illustrate what we have just\nexplained. Respect for property is of natural and divine right; but\nthe ownership of property, the respective rights of individuals to the\nsame thing, the restrictions to which property should be subject, are\nquestions appertaining to civil right, which have always been resolved,\nand are still resolved, in various ways. The main object is to adhere\nto the protective principle of property, the indispensable basis of\nall social organization; but the application of this principle is, and\nmust be, subject to a variety of circumstances and events, a variety\narising from the course of human affairs. It is the same with power.\nThe Church, intrusted with the great deposit of the most important\ntruths, keeps in this deposit the truth which guaranties a divine\norigin to civil power, and makes the existence of the law an affair of\nright divine; but she does not interfere in particular cases, which are\nalways controlled more or less by the fluctuation and uncertainty with\nwhich the world is agitated. When thus explained, the Catholic doctrine\nis not in the least opposed to true liberty; it consolidates power, and\ndoes not prejudice the questions that may arise between the governors\nand the governed. No unlawful power can lay claim to the right divine;\nfor it must be legitimate to merit the application of this right. This\nlegitimacy is determined and declared by the laws of each country, from\nwhich it follows that the law is the organ of the right divine. This\nright, therefore, only consolidates what is just; and certainly that\nwhich insures justice in the world cannot be said to lead to despotism,\nfor nothing can be more opposed to the liberty and happiness of the\npeople than the absence of justice and legitimacy.\n\nPopular liberties are not endangered by the strong safeguards\nsurrounding the legitimacy of the governing power. On the contrary,\nreason, history, and experience teach that all illegitimate powers\nare tyrannical. Their illegitimacy necessarily carries weakness along\nwith it; and it is not the strong, but the weak powers that oppress\nthe people. Real tyranny consists in the person governing taking care\nof his own instead of the public interest. Now this is precisely what\ntakes place when, feeling himself weak and tottering, he is forced\nto guard and protect himself. His object is then, no longer society,\nbut himself. Instead of thinking how he may benefit those over whom\nhe rules, he only studies and calculates beforehand the utility he\nmay derive from his own measures. I have said in another place, and\nI repeat, that, in looking over history, we find continually this\nimportant truth written in letters of blood: _Wo to the people governed\nby a power which is obliged to think of its own preservation!_ A\nfundamental truth in political science, and which has, nevertheless,\nbeen lamentably overlooked in modern times. Much labor has been and is\nstill spent to produce guarantees for liberty. To this end a multitude\nof governments have been overturned, and attempts have been made to\nweaken them all, without thinking that this was the most certain\nmeans of introducing oppression. What signify the veils under which\ndespotism is concealed, and the forms by which it seeks to disguise its\nexistence? History, which has recorded the outrages committed in Europe\nduring the last century; true history, not that written by the authors\nof those outrages, by their accomplices, or by interested parties, will\nrelate to posterity the injustices and crimes committed in the midst\nof civil discord by governments foreseeing their end, and feeling in\nthemselves extreme weakness caused by their tyrannical conduct and the\nillegality of their origin.\n\nHow is it, then, that such a violent warfare has been declared against\ndoctrines tending to consolidate civil authority by rendering it\nlegitimate, and to prove this legitimacy by declaring that power\ndescends from Heaven? How has it been overlooked that the legitimacy of\npower is an essential element of its strength, and that this strength\nis the safest guarantee of true liberty? Let it not be said that these\nare paradoxes. What is the object of societies and governments? Is\nit not the substitution of public for private force, of the rule of\nright for the rule of the strong? But when once you begin to undermine\npower, to make it an object of popular aversion or defiance; when once\nyou represent it to the people as their natural enemy, and vilify the\nsacred titles on which obedience due to it is founded, you attack at\nonce the very object of the institution of society; and by weakening\nthe action of public force, you provoke a development of private\nforce, which is the very thing that governments were instituted to\nprevent. The secret of that mildness for which European monarchies\nwere remarkable, consisted chiefly in their security and strength,\nfounded upon the loftiness and legality of the titles of their power;\nwhilst you will find in the perils with which the thrones of the\nRoman emperors and Eastern monarchs were beset, one reason for their\nmonstrous despotism. I do not hesitate to assert, and in the course\nof this work I shall prove more and more, that one cause of the evils\nto which Europe has been exposed during the laborious solution of the\nproblem of the alliance between order and liberty, is the oblivion of\nCatholic doctrines on this point. These doctrines have been condemned\nwithout being heard or examined into, and the enemies of the Church\nhave copied each other without ever having recourse to the real\nsources, where they might easily have found out the truth.\n\nProtestantism, departing from the teaching of Catholicity, has been\nthrown alternately upon two opposite rocks; wishing to establish order,\nit has done so to the prejudice of true liberty; and in its desire\nto maintain liberty, it has become an enemy to order. From the bosom\nof false reform have arisen the insane doctrines, which, preaching up\nChristian liberty, discharged the subject from his obedience to the\nlawful authorities; from the bosom of the same reform has likewise\narisen the theory of Hobbes, which sets up despotism in the midst of\nsociety as a monstrous idol, to which all should be sacrificed, without\nregard for the eternal principles of morality, with no other rule than\nthe caprice of him who rules, with no other bounds to his power than\nthose marked out by the extent of his strength. Such is the necessary\nresult of banishing from the world the authority of God. Man, left to\nhimself, can only succeed in producing slavery or anarchy; the same\nthing under two forms; _the reign of force_.\n\nIn explaining the origin of society and power, divers modern writers\nhave said a great deal about a certain state of nature anterior to\nall societies, and have supposed that these societies were formed\nby a gradual transition from a barbarous to a civilized state. This\nerroneous doctrine lies deeper than some persons imagine. If we pay\nparticular attention to the subject, we shall find that the erroneous\nideas entertained on this subject may be traced to the forgetfulness\nof Christian teaching. Hobbes derives every kind of right from a\npact. According to him, when men live in a state of nature, they\nhave a right to every thing; which means, in other terms, that there\nis no difference between good and evil. From which it follows that\nsociety was organized without any regard to morality, and ought to be\nconsidered merely as a means to an end. Puffendorf and some others,\nadmitting the principle of _sociality_, that is, deriving from society\nthe rules of morality, arrive at last at the principle of Hobbes, and\ntrample under foot both the natural and eternal laws. Investigating the\ncauses of these grave errors, I find them in the deplorable contempt\nwhich writers on philosophy and morality in modern times have so\neagerly evinced for the treasures of light afforded us by religion.\nThis light, religion affords us on all questions, fixing by its dogmas\nthe cardinal points of all true philosophy, and offering us in its\nnarrations the only thread that can guide us through the labyrinth of\nthe first ages. Read the Protestant writers, compare them with the\nCatholic, and you will find a remarkable difference between them. The\nlatter reason, give their minds free scope, and allow them a wide\nrange; but they ever leave untouched certain fundamental principles,\nand every theory which they cannot reconcile with these principles is\ninexorably rejected by them as erroneous. The former roam without guide\nor compass in the boundless space of human opinions, presenting to us\na lively image of that pagan philosophy which had not the light of\nfaith to guide its inquiries into the principles of things. Instead of\nfinding a God, the Creator and Director, occupied without ceasing, like\na tender father, with the happiness of beings whom He has drawn from\nnothing, this philosophy never discovered any thing but chaos, either\nin the physical or in the social world. This degraded and brutalized\nstate, disguised under the name of nature, is in reality nothing but\nthe chaos of society. This chaos will be found in a great number of\nmodern writers who are not Catholics; and by a surprising coincidence,\nworthy of the most serious reflection, it will also be found in the\nprincipal writers on pagan science.\n\nFrom the moment that we lose sight of the great traditions of mankind,\ntraditions in which man is represented to us receiving from God himself\nintelligence, speech, and rules for his conduct in this life; from the\nmoment that we forget the narration of Moses, that simple, sublime,\nand only true explanation of the origin of man and of society; our\nideas become confused, the facts are jumbled, one absurdity creates\nanother, and, like the builders of the tower of Babel, we suffer the\njust punishment of our pride. How wonderful! that antiquity, which,\ndeprived of the light of Christianity, and lost in the labyrinth of\nhuman inventions, had almost forgotten the primitive tradition of the\norigin of society, and had recourse to the absurd transition from\nthe barbarous to the civilized state, should nevertheless, whenever a\nsociety was to be formed, have invoked this right divine, which certain\nphilosophers have treated with so much disdain. The most renowned\nlegislators sought to establish upon Divine authority, the laws they\nwere giving to the people, thus rendering a solemn homage to that truth\nlogically established by Catholics, viz. that all power, to be regarded\nas legitimate and to exercise its due ascendency, must receive its\ntitles from God. If you desire that the legislator should not be placed\nunder the sad necessity of feigning revelations which he has never\nreceived, or bringing forward the intervention of God at every moment\nin an extraordinary manner in human affairs, establish the general\nprinciple that all power proceeds from God, that the author of nature\nis likewise the author of society, that the existence of society is a\nprecept imposed upon mankind for their own preservation. Let submission\nand obedience be so regulated as not to wound man's pride; let those\nwho rule over him be invested with superior authority, to which he can\nsubmit without a shadow of self-abasement. In short, establish the\nCatholic doctrine. Whatever be the form of government, you will then\nhave found a solid basis on which to support the respect due to the\nauthorities; you will have placed the social edifice upon a foundation\nfar more secure than human conventions.\n\nExamine the right divine such as I have represented it, supported by\nthe interpretations of illustrious doctors, and I am certain that\nyou cannot refuse to admit its perfect conformity to the lights of\ntrue philosophy; but if you persist in giving to this right a strange\nsense which it does not possess, pretending that it ought to have a\ndifferent explanation, I shall insist upon one thing which you cannot\nrefuse me: produce me a text of Scripture, a monument of the traditions\nacknowledged as articles of faith in the Catholic Church, a decision of\nthe Councils or of the Pontiffs, showing your interpretation to be well\nfounded. Until you have done this, I have a right to tell you, that,\npossessed with the desire of rendering Catholicity odious, you impute\nto it doctrines which it does not profess, you attribute to it dogmas\nwhich it does not acknowledge; that you are adversaries without candor\nor honesty, and employ weapons disallowed by the laws of combat.[28]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LI.\n\nTRANSMISSION OF POWER, ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC DOCTORS.\n\n\nThe difference of opinion concerning the mode in which God communicates\ncivil power, however grave in theory, does not appear to be of great\nimportance in practice. We have already observed, that, among those who\nassert that this power comes from God, some maintain that it proceeds\nfrom Him _directly_, others _indirectly_. In the opinion of the former,\nwhen once the nomination of the persons appointed to exercise authority\nis made, society not only lays down the necessary conditions for the\ncommunication of power, but actually communicates it, having first\nreceived it from God. The latter maintain that society merely makes\nthe appointment, and, by means of this act, God confers the power upon\nthe person appointed. I repeat, that, in practice, the result is the\nsame, and the difference therefore vanishes. Nay, even in _theory_, the\ndivergence may not be so great as it appears at first sight. I shall\nendeavor to demonstrate this by submitting the two opinions to rigorous\ninvestigation.\n\nThe explanation given of the origin of power by both parties may\nbe set forth in the following terms: In the opinion of some, God\nsays, \"Society, for thy preservation and well-being, thou requirest\na government; choose, therefore, under what form this government\nshall be exercised, and appoint the persons who are to take charge\nof it; I, on my part, will confer upon them the faculties necessary\nfor the fulfilment of their mission.\" In the opinion of others, God\nsays, \"Society, for thy preservation and well-being, thou requirest\na government: I confer upon thee the faculties necessary for the\nfulfilment of this object; choose thyself the form under which this\ngovernment shall be exercised, and, appointing the persons who are\nto take charge of it, transmit to them the faculties which I have\ncommunicated to thee.\"\n\nIn order to be convinced of the identity of the results of these two\nformulas, we must examine them in their relations: 1. to the sanctity\nof their origin; 2. to the rights and duties of power; 3. to the rights\nand duties of the subject. Whether God has communicated power to\nsociety, to be transmitted by it to the persons appointed to exercise\nit, or has merely conferred upon it the right of determining the form\nand appointing such persons, that, by means of this determination\nand appointment, the rights annexed to supreme power may be directly\ncommunicated to the persons intrusted with the exercise of it, it\nfollows, in either case, that this supreme power, wherever it exists,\nemanates from God; and is not less sacred because it passes through\nan intermediate means appointed by Him. I will illustrate these ideas\nby a very simple and obvious example. Suppose there exists in a state\nsome particular community, instituted by the sovereign, and having no\nrights but those granted by him; no duties but those which he imposes\nupon it; in fine, a community indebted to the sovereign for all that\nit is and has. This community, however small it may be, will require\na government: this government may be formed in two ways; either the\nsovereign who has given it its laws has conferred upon it the right\nof governing itself, and of transmitting this right to the person\nor persons whom it may think proper to elect; or he has left to the\ncommunity itself the determination of the form and the appointment of\nthe persons, adding that such determination and appointment being once\nmade, it shall be understood that, by this simple act, the sovereign\ngrants to the persons appointed the right of exercising their functions\nwithin lawful bounds. It is evident that the parity is complete; and\nnow I ask, Is it not true that, in this case, as in the other, the\nfaculties of him who governs should be considered and respected as an\nemanation from the sovereign? Is it not true that it would be difficult\nto discover any difference between these two kinds of investiture? In\nboth suppositions, the community would have the right of determining\nthe form and appointing the person; in both cases, he who governs could\nonly obtain his powers by virtue of the previous determination and\nappointment; in neither case would there need any new manifestation\non the part of the sovereign, that the person nominated might be\nunderstood to be invested with faculties corresponding to the exercise\nof his functions. In practice, therefore, there would be no difference;\nfurther, I will assert that, in theory even, it would be difficult to\ntrace the point of separation between the two cases.\n\nCertainly, if we view the matter with the eye of an acute\nmetaphysician, we may very easily discover this difference, by\nconsidering the moral entity which we call _power_; not as it is in\nitself, and in its effects, but as an abstract being, passing from one\nhand to another, in the manner of corporeal objects. But, instead of\nexamining the question for the curiosity of knowing whether this moral\nentity, before arriving at one person, has not first passed through\nanother, let us first seek to verify from whence it emanates, and what\nare the faculties it confers, the rights it imposes: we shall then\nfind that, in saying, \"I confer this faculty upon you, transmit it to\nwhomsoever you think proper, and in whatever way you think proper,\"\nthe sovereign expresses no more than if he should say: \"Such or such\na faculty shall be conferred by me upon the person you wish, and in\nthe manner you wish, by the simple fact of the election you have\nmade.\" It follows hence, that whether we adopt the opinion of direct\ncommunication, or the contrary one, the supreme rights of hereditary\nmonarchies, of elective monarchies, and in general of all supreme\npowers, whatever be their forms of government, will not on this account\nbe less sacred, less certainly sealed with divine authority. Difference\nin the forms of government does not in the least diminish the\nobligations of submitting to civil power, lawfully established; so that\nthe refusing of obedience to the president of a republic, in a country\nin which republicanism is the legal form of government, is no less\na criminal resistance to the ordinance of God, than the refusing of\nthe same obedience to the most absolute monarch. Bossuet, so strongly\nattached to monarchy, and writing in a country and at a period in which\nthe king might exclaim, \"_I am the state_;\" and in a work, in which he\nproposed nothing less than to offer a complete treatise on Politics,\ntaken from the words of Holy Scripture; established, nevertheless,\nin a manner the most explicit and conclusive, the truth which I have\njust pointed out. \"We ought to be subject,\" says he, \"to the form of\ngovernment established in our country.\" And he afterwards quotes these\nwords of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, chap. xiii.: \"Let every\nsoul be subject to higher powers; for there is no power but from God;\nand those that are, are ordained of God; therefore he that resisteth\nthe power, resisteth the ordinance of God.\" \"There is no form of\ngovernment,\" continues Bossuet, \"nor any human institution, without its\ninconveniences; so that it is necessary to remain in the state to which\nlength of time has inured the people. For this reason, God _takes under\nHis protection all legitimate governments, in whatever form they may be\nestablished_; whoever undertakes to overturn them, is not only an enemy\nto the public, but also to God.\" (Liv. ii. prop. 12.)\n\nIt is of little consequence whether power be communicated directly\nor indirectly; the respect and obedience due to it are not in the\nleast changed, and consequently the sacredness of the origin of power\nremains the same, whichever opinion be adopted; neither do the rights\nand duties of government, and those of the subject, remain less\nsacred. These rights and duties suffer no change, whether there be\nor not an intermediate means for the communication of power; their\nnature and limits are founded upon the very object of the institution\nof society; but this object is totally independent of the mode in\nwhich God communicates power to man. Against what I have advanced\nupon the small amount of difference existing between these various\nopinions, the authority of the theologians, whose texts I have cited\nin the preceding chapter, will be objected. \"These theologians,\"\nit will be said, \"certainly understood these affairs; and as they\nplaced so much importance upon the distinction here under discussion,\nthey undoubtedly saw in it some great truth proper to be taken into\naccount.\" This objection acquires the more force, when we consider\nthat the distinction made upon this point by these theologians does\nnot proceed from a spirit of subtilty, as it might be suspected in the\ncase of those scholastic theologians, whose writings are replete with\ndialectic arguments, rather than with reasoning founded upon Scripture,\nupon the apostolical traditions and other theological resources, from\nwhich we ought principally to take our arguments in controversies of\nthis nature; but the theologians whom I have quoted are certainly not\nof this class. We need only name Bellarmin, to recognise a grave and\nextremely solid author, who opposed the Protestants with Scripture,\nwith traditions, with the authority of the holy Fathers, the decisions\nof the universal Church and of the Sovereign Pontiffs: Bellarmin was\nnot one of those theologians who excited the lamentations of Melchior\nCano, and of whom he said, that in the hour of combat against heresy,\ninstead of wielding well-tempered weapons, they wielded only long\nreeds: _arundines longas_. Such was the importance given to this\ndistinction, that James, King of England, complained loudly that\nCardinal Bellarmin taught that the power of kings came from God only\nindirectly; and the Catholic schools were so far from looking upon\nthis distinction as insignificant, that they defended it against the\nattacks of King James; and that one of their most illustrious doctors,\nSuarez, entered the lists to contend for the doctrines of Bellarmin.\n\nIt appears, then, at first sight, that I am wrong in what I have\nsaid upon the slight importance of the distinction here mentioned. I\nbelieve, nevertheless, that the difficulty may be easily removed, and\nthat it will suffice for this purpose to distinguish the different\naspects under which the question presents itself. First of all, I will\nobserve, that the Catholic theologians proceeded upon this point with\nadmirable prudence and foresight; and truly the question, such as it\nwas then proposed, comprehended more than a subtilty; I am inclined to\nthink that it included one of the most serious points of public right.\nIn order to examine deeply these doctrines of Catholic theologians,\nand to lay hold of their true sense, we must fix our attention upon\nthe tendencies which the religious reform of the sixteenth century\ncommunicated to European monarchy. Even before this reform, thrones had\nacquired a great deal of force and solidity, through the decline in\nthe power of the feudal lords, and the development of the democratic\nelement. That element, which in due time was destined to acquire the\npower of which it is now possessed, was not then in sufficiently\nfavorable circumstances to exert its action on the vast scale which it\nembraces in our days. On this account, it was obliged to take refuge\nunder the shadow of the throne--an emblem of order and justice elevated\nin the midst of society--a sort of universal regulator and leveller,\ndestined gradually to destroy the extreme inequalities so harassing\nand obnoxious to the people. Thus, democracy itself, which, in after\nages, was to overturn so many thrones, served them, at that time,\nas a firm support, sheltering them from the attacks of a turbulent\nand formidable aristocracy, unwilling to be transformed into mere\ncourtiers. There was nothing in this state of things very mischievous,\nso long as matters remained within the limits prescribed by reason and\njustice; but, unfortunately, good principles were exaggerated, regal\nauthority was gradually converted into an absorbent force, which would\nhave concentrated in itself all other forces. European monarchy lost\nthus its true character, which consists in monarchy having just limits,\neven when these limits are not marked out and guarded by political\ninstitutions.\n\nProtestantism exalts to an incredible degree the pretensions of\nkings, by attacking the spiritual power of the Pope, by painting in\nthe darkest colors the dangers of his temporal power, and especially\nby establishing the fatal doctrine, that the supreme civil power has\necclesiastical affairs totally under its direction; and by accusing of\nabuse, of usurpation, of unbounded ambition, the independence which\nthe Church claims by virtue of the sacred canons, of the guarantee\nafforded by the civil law, of the traditions of fifteen centuries, and\nabove all, of the institution of her Divine Founder. He had no need of\nthe permission, of any civil power to send His apostles to preach the\nGospel, and to baptize in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of\nthe Holy Ghost. A glance at the history of Europe at the epoch here\nmentioned will convince us of the evil consequences of such a doctrine,\nand show us how agreeable it must have been to the ears of power,\nwhich it invested with unbounded faculties, even in matters purely\nreligious. This exaggeration of the rights of civil power, coinciding\nwith the efforts made on the other hand to repress the pontifical\nauthority, must have favored the doctrine which attempted to place the\npower of kings upon a level, in every respect, with that of Popes;\nand consequently, it was very natural that its authors should wish to\nestablish, that sovereigns received their power from God, in the same\nmanner as the Popes, without any difference whatever. The doctrine of\n_direct_ communication, although very susceptible, as we have seen, of\na reasonable explanation, might involve a more extensive meaning, which\nwould have made the people oblivious of the special and characteristic\nmanner in which the supreme power of the Church was instituted by God\nhimself. What I have just advanced cannot be considered as merely\nconjectural; the whole is supported by facts which cannot have been\nforgotten. The reigns of Henry VIII. and of Elizabeth of England,\nand the usurpations and violence in which Protestant powers indulged\nagainst the Catholic Church, are a sufficient confirmation of these\nsad truths. But, unfortunately, even in countries where Catholicity\nremained triumphant, attempts were then, have since been, and still are\nwitnessed, that show clearly enough how strong was the impulse given\nin this sense to the civil power; for even now it is but too prone to\ntransgress its legitimate bounds.\n\nThe circumstances under which the two illustrious theologians above\ncited, Bellarmin and Suarez, wrote, are another reason in support of\nwhat I have just adduced. I have quoted remarkable passages from a\nwork by Suarez, written in refutation of a publication of King James\nof England. This King could not bear the idea of Cardinal Bellarmin's\nhaving established that the power of kings does not emanate directly\nfrom God, but is communicated through the medium of society, which\nreceives it in a direct manner. Possessed, as is well known, with the\nmania for theological debates and decisions, King James did not confine\nhimself to simple theory; he reduced his theory to practice, and said\nto his Parliament: \"that God had appointed him absolute master; and\nthat all privileges which co-legislative bodies enjoyed were pure\nconcessions proceeding from the bounty of kings.\" His courtiers, in\ntheir adulations, decreed him the title of the modern Solomon; he\nmight well, therefore, feel displeased with the Italian and Spanish\ntheologians for endeavoring to humble the pride of his presumptuous\nwisdom, and restrain his despotism. If we reflect upon the words of\nBellarmin, and especially on those of Suarez, we shall find that the\naim of these eminent theologians was to point out the difference\nbetween the civil and ecclesiastical powers, with respect to the mode\nof their origin. They admit that both powers come from God; that it\nis an indispensable duty to be subject to them; and that to resist\nthem is to resist the ordinance of God; but not finding, either in\nthe Scripture or in tradition, the least foundation for establishing\nthat civil power, like that of the Sovereign Pontiffs, has been\ninstituted in a special and extraordinary manner, they are anxious\nthat this difference should remain obvious, and seek to avoid the\nintroduction, in a point of such import, of a confusion of ideas, from\nwhich dangerous errors might arise. \"This opinion,\" says Suarez, \"is\nnew, singular, and apparently invented to exalt the temporal over the\nspiritual power.\" (See above.) Hence, in discussing the question of the\norigin of civil power, they require you to bear in mind the influence\nof society. \"_By means of man's counsel and election_,\" says Bellarmin;\nthus reminding the King, that how sacred soever his authority might\nbe, it had been very differently instituted from that of the Sovereign\nPontiff. The distinction between direct and indirect communication\nserved, in a particular manner, to prove the difference in question;\nfor this very distinction recalled to mind that civil power, although\nestablished by God, owed its existence to no extraordinary measure, and\ncould not be considered as supernatural, but was to be looked upon as\ndependent upon human and natural right, sanctioned, nevertheless, in an\nexpress manner, by right divine.\n\nThese theologians would not, perhaps, have forcibly insisted upon this\ndistinction, had it not been for the efforts made by others to efface\nit. It was a matter of consequence with them to humble the pride of\npower, to prevent it from assuming, whether in respect to its origin\nor its rights, titles not appertaining to it; to prevent its ascribing\nto itself an unlawful supremacy, even in religious affairs, and thus\ncausing monarchy to degenerate into a sort of Oriental despotism, in\nwhich the governing power is every thing, the people and their affairs\nnothing. If we weigh their words attentively, we shall find that the\npredominating idea with them was that which I have just stated. At\nfirst sight, their language appears exceedingly democratical, from\ntheir frequent use of the words _community_, _state_, _society_,\n_people_; but on examining closely their system of doctrine, and\npaying attention to the expressions they use, we perceive that they\nhad no subversive design, and that anarchical theories never once\nentered their minds. They advocated on the one hand the rights of\nauthority, whilst they protected on the other those of the subject,\nthus endeavoring to resolve the problem which formed the continual\noccupation of all honest political writers; to limit power without\ndestroying it, or placing it under too great restraint; to protect\nsociety against the disorder of despotism, without rendering it at the\nsame time refractory or turbulent. From the above reasoning we see\nthat the distinction between direct and indirect communication may be\nof great or of little importance, according to the view we take of\nit. It is of great importance when serving to remind the civil power\nthat the establishment of governments and the regulation of their\nforms has in some way been dependent upon society itself, and that no\nindividual, no family, can presume upon having received from God the\ngovernment of the people without regard to the laws of the country, as\nif those laws, in whatever form, were a free offering made by them to\nthe people. This same distinction serves, in short, to establish the\norigin of civil power as an emanation from the Deity, the Author of\nnature, but not as instituted in an extraordinary manner, as something\nsupernatural, as in the case of the supreme ecclesiastical power. From\nthis latter consideration two consequences follow, one of which is of\nmore importance than the other to the legitimate liberties of mankind\nand the independence of the Church. To call in the intervention,\nexpress or tacit, of society for the establishment of governments and\nthe regulation of their forms, is to prevent the concealment of their\norigin under any veil of mystery; it is simply and plainly to define\ntheir object, consequently to explain their duties, as well as to\npoint out their faculties. By these means a restraint is put upon the\ndisorders and abuses of authority, which it is thenceforth clearly seen\nare not to find support in enigmatical theories.\n\nThe independence of the Church is thus established upon a solid basis.\nWhenever the civil power attempts to offer it violence, the Church\nmay say: \"My authority is established directly and immediately by God\nin a special, extraordinary, and miraculous manner; yours likewise\nemanates from God, but through the intervention of man, through the\nintermediary of the laws, in the ordinary course pointed out by nature\nand determined by human prudence; but neither man nor the civil\npower has a right to destroy or change what God Himself, deviating\nfrom the course of nature and making use of ineffable prodigies, has\nthought proper to institute.\" So long as the ideas here set forth are\nrespected, so long as _direct_ communication is not received in too\nextensive a sense, and care taken not to confound things whose limits\nso gravely affect religion and society, the distinction here spoken of\nis of little importance. We have seen, even, that the two opinions may\nbe reconciled with each other. At all events, this distinction will\nhave served to illustrate with what exalted views Catholic theologians\nhave discussed the grave questions of public right. Guided by sound\nphilosophy, and without ever losing sight of the beacon of revelation,\nthey have given equal satisfaction to the desires of both schools. They\nhave not fallen into the errors of either; democratical without being\nanarchists, monarchical without being base adulators. In establishing\nthe rights of the people, they were not, like modern demagogues, under\nthe necessity of destroying religion, but made her the guardian of the\nrights of the people, as well as of those of kings. Liberty was not\nwith them a synonyme for license and irreligion; in their opinion, men\nmight be free without being rebellious or impious; liberty consisted in\nbeing subject to the law; and, as they could not conceive that law was\npossible without religion and without God; in like manner also they\nbelieved that liberty was not possible without God and religion. What\nreason, revelation, and history taught them has become evident to us by\nexperience. Shall we be told of the dangers, grave or slight, in which\ntheologians could involve governments? But people now-a-days are not\nled astray by affected and insidious declamations; and kings well know\nwhether the schools of theologians have exiled royalty, and led it to\nthe scaffold.[29]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LII.\n\nFREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER THE SPANISH MONARCHY.\n\n\nExtreme doctrines neither insure the liberty of the people, nor the\nforce and stability of governments; both require truth and justice,\nthe only foundations upon which we can build with any hope of the\ndurability of the edifice. In general, maxims favorable to liberty are\nnever carried to a higher pitch than on the eve of the establishment\nof despotism; and it is to be feared that the overthrow and ruin of\ngovernments are very near when undue adulations are lavished upon their\npower. When was the power of kings more extolled than about the middle\nof last century? Who is not aware of the exaggerations given to the\nprerogatives of royal power, when the Jesuits were to be expelled, and\nthe authority of the Sovereign Pontiff impugned? In Portugal, Spain,\nItaly, Austria, and in France, the unanimous voice of the purest\nand most fervent royalism was heard; and yet what became of this\ngreat love, this lively zeal for monarchy, from the moment that the\nrevolutionary storm had placed it in danger? Observe what, generally\nspeaking, has been the conduct of men opposed to the ecclesiastical\nauthority; they have united themselves to demagogues for destroying, at\nthe same time, the authority of the Church and that of kings; they have\nforgotten their base adulations, and abandoned themselves to insults\nand violence. People and governments should never lose sight of this\nrule of conduct, so useful to men of sense, to mistrust flatterers,\nand to confide in those who warn and correct them. Let them beware\nwhenever they are caressed with an affected tenderness, and their cause\nis maintained with especial warmth; it is a sure sign of an attempt\nto make use of them as tools for the furtherance of interests very\ndifferent from their own. In France, at certain times, monarchical zeal\nwas carried to such an extent as to call forth, in the assembly of the\nStates-General, a motion for establishing, as a sacred principle, that\nkings receive their supreme authority immediately from God: this was\nnot carried into effect, but the proposal shows how ardently the cause\nof the throne was then maintained. Now, what did all this ardor mean?\nSimply an antipathy against the Court of Rome, a dread of the extension\nof papal power; it was an obstacle to be opposed to the phantom\nof a _universal monarchy_. Louis XIV., so tenacious of the royal\nprerogative, assuredly did not foresee the misfortunes of Louis XVI.;\nand Charles III., in listening to the Count of Aranda and Campomanes,\nlittle thought that the constituent Cortes of Cadiz was so near.\n\nIn the midst of their splendor, monarchs forgot one principle\npredominating in the whole modern history of Europe, viz. that social\norganization is an emanation of religion, and, consequently, that the\ntwo powers to which the defence and preservation of society appertain\nought to co-exist in perfect harmony.\n\nThe power of the Church cannot be diminished without injury to the\ncivil power; he who sows schism will reap rebellion. During the last\nthree centuries the most liberal and popular doctrines upon the\norigin of power have been circulated amongst us. What did it matter\nto the Spanish monarchy, since those very persons who advocated\nthese doctrines were the first to condemn resistance to the lawful\nauthorities, to inculcate the obligation of obedience to them, and\nto establish in all hearts, respect, love, and veneration for the\nsovereign? The disturbances of our epoch, and the dangers constantly\nbesetting thrones, are not exactly attributable to the propagation of\ndoctrines more or less democratical, but to the absence of moral and\nreligious principles. What will be gained by asserting that power comes\nfrom God, if people believe not in God? Point out the sacred character\nof the duty of obedience, and what effect will it produce upon those\nwho admit not the existence of moral order, and to whom duty is merely\na chimerical idea? Suppose, on the contrary, that you have to deal with\nmen penetrated with moral and religious principles, who bow to the\nwill of God, and believe themselves bound to submit to it, so soon as\nit is manifested to them. What does it matter then whether civil power\nproceeds from God directly or indirectly? it is enough to convince\nthem, in one way or another, that, whatever be its origin, God approves\nof it, and wills that it should be obeyed; they will immediately submit\nwith pleasure, for they will see in this submission the accomplishment\nof a duty.\n\nThese considerations serve to explain the reason why certain doctrines\nappear more dangerous now than formerly: incredulity and immorality\ngive them perverse interpretations, and apply them so as to create\nnothing but excesses and disorders. From the manner in which the\ndespotism of Philip II. and his successors is now spoken of, we might\nbe led to suppose that in their time no other doctrines than those in\nfavor of the most rigid absolutism could be circulated; and yet we find\nthat there were circulated, without the least apprehension on the part\nof power, works maintaining theories which, even in our days, would be\nesteemed too bold. Is it not, therefore, remarkable, that the famous\nbook of Father Mariana, intituled _De Rege et Regis institutione_,\nwhich was burned at Paris by the hand of the public executioner,\nhad been published in Spain eleven years before, without the least\nobstacle to its publication, either on the part of the ecclesiastical\nor civil authority? Mariana undertook his task at the instigation and\nrequest of D. Garcia de Loaisa, tutor to Philip III., and subsequently\nBishop of Toledo; so that the work, strange to say, was intended for\nthe instruction of the heir-apparent. Never was more freedom used in\nspeaking to kings; never was tyranny condemned in a louder voice; never\nwere more popular doctrines proclaimed; and the work was, nevertheless,\npublished at Toledo, in 1599, in the printing-office of Pedro Rodrigo,\nprinter to the king, with the approbation of P. Fr. Pedro de Ona,\nprovincial of the Mercenaries of Madrid, with the permission of\nStephen Hojeda, visitor of the Society of Jesus in the province of\nToledo, under the generalship of Claude Aquaviva; and, what is still\nmore forcible, with the royal sanction, and a dedication to the king\nhimself. We should also observe, that Mariana was not satisfied with\nthis dedication placed at the commencement of the book, but he makes\nthe very title itself serve to show to whom it was addressed: _De\nRege et Regis institutione. Libri 3, ad Philippum 3, Hispani\u00e6 Regem\nCatholicum_; and, as if this were not sufficient, in dedicating his\nSpanish version of the History of Spain to Philip III., he says to him:\n\"I last year dedicated to your majesty a work of my own composition,\nupon the virtues which ought to exist in a good king, my desire being\nthat all princes should read it carefully and understand it.\" \"El a\u00f1o\npasado present\u00e9 \u00e1 V. M. un libro que compuse de las virtudes que debe\ntener un buen Rey, que deseo lean y entiendan todos los principes con\ncuidado.\"\n\nWe will pass over his doctrine upon tyrannicide, which was the\nprincipal cause of its condemnation in France, where there existed,\nwithout doubt, motives of alarm, since kings were perishing there by\nthe hand of the assassin. On examining his theory upon power, we find\nit as popular and liberal as those of modern democrats could be.\nMariana ventures to express his opinions without evasion or disguise.\nFor example, drawing a parallel between the king and the tyrant,\nhe says: \"The king exercises with great moderation the power which\nhe has received from his subjects.... Hence, he does not, like the\ntyrant, oppress his subjects as slaves, but governs them as free men;\nand having received his power from the people, he takes particular\ncare that during his life, the people shall voluntarily yield him\nsubmission.\" \"Rex quam a subditis accepit potestatem singulari modestia\nexercet.... Sic fit, ut subditis non tanquam servis dominetur, quod\nfaciunt tyranni, sed tanquam liberis pr\u00e6sit, et qui a populo potestatem\naccepit, id in primis cur\u00e6 habet ut per totam vitam volentibus\nimperet.\" (Lib. 1, cap. 4, p. 57.) This was said in Spain by a simple\nreligious, was sanctioned by his superiors, and attentively listened\nto by kings. To what grave reflections does this simple fact lead us!\nWhere is that strict and indissoluble alliance which the enemies of the\nChurch have imagined to exist between her dogmas and those of slavery?\nIf such expressions as the above were tolerated in a country in which\nCatholicity predominated so extensively, how can it be maintained that\nsuch a religion tends to enslave the human race, and that its doctrines\nare favorable to despotism? Nothing would be easier than to fill whole\nvolumes with remarkable passages of our writers, both lay and clerical,\nshowing the extreme liberty granted upon this point, as well by the\nChurch as by the civil government. What absolute monarch in Europe\nwould approve of one of his high functionaries expressing the origin of\npower after the manner of our immortal Saavedra? \"It is from the centre\nof justice,\" says he, \"that the circumference of the crown has been\ndrawn. The latter would not be necessary, if we could dispense with\nthe former.\n\n Hac una reges olim sunt fine creati,\n Dicere jus populis, injustaque tollere facta.\n\nIn the first age, there was no necessity for penalties, because the\nlaw did not take cognisance of transgressions; rewards were equally\nunnecessary, because integrity and honor were loved for their own\nsakes. But vice, growing with the age of the world, intimidated\nvirtue; simple and confiding, the latter, till then, dwelt in the\ncountry. Equality was despised, modesty and chastity lost, ambition\nand force introduced, and after them domination. Prudence, forced by\nnecessity, and aroused by the light of nature, reduced men to a state\nof civil society, to exercise therein those virtues to which reason\ninclines them. By means of the articulate voice with which nature had\ngifted them, they could explain to each other their mutual thoughts,\nmanifest to each other their sentiments, and explain their wants,\ninstruct, counsel, and protect each other. Society once formed, a\npower was created _by common consent, in the whole of this community,\nenlightened by the law of nature_, for preserving its different\nparts, for maintaining them in justice and peace, by punishing vice\nand rewarding virtue. _As this power could not remain spread through\nthe whole body of the people, on account of the confusion which would\nhave arisen from the resolutions and their execution_, and as it was\nabsolutely necessary that there should be some to command, and others\nto obey, _one portion divested itself of this power, and vested it in\none member, or in a small, or in a great, number of members, that is\nto say, in one of the three forms of every state government--monarchy,\naristocracy, or democracy_. Monarchy was the first; because men\nselected for their government, out of their families, and afterwards\neven from among the whole people, some one who excelled the rest in\ngoodness: his greatness increasing, they honored his hand with the\nsceptre, and encircled his head with a crown as an emblem of majesty,\nand as a badge of the supreme power which they had conferred upon him.\nThis power, however, consists chiefly in that justice which ought to\nmaintain the people in peace; _this justice failing, the order of\nthe state fails, and the office of king ceases_, as was the case in\nCastile, when the government by judges was substituted for that by\nkings, on account of the injustice of D. Ordona and of D. Fruela.\"\n(_Character of a Christian Prince's Policy, set forth in a hundred\nDevices_, by D. Diego de Saavedra Fajardo, Knight of the Order of St.\nJames, Member of his Majesty's Supreme Council for the Indies, _device_\n22.)\n\nThe words _people_, _pact_, _consent_, have ended in becoming the\ndread of men of sound ideas and upright intentions, on account of the\ndeplorable abuses which have been made of them in those immoral schools\nwhich ought rather to be qualified with the epithet of irreligious than\nwith that of democratical. No, it was not the desire of ameliorating\nthe condition of the people which led them to overthrow the world, by\noverturning thrones and shedding torrents of blood in civil discord;\nthe real cause was a blind rage for reducing to ashes the work of ages,\nby especially attacking religion, the main support of every thing wise,\njust, and salutary, that European civilization had acquired. And,\nin fact, have we not seen impious schools, whilst boasting of their\nliberty, bend under the hand of despotism, whenever they thought it\nuseful to their designs? Previous to the French Revolution, were they\nnot the basest adulators of kings, whose prerogatives they extended\nimmeasurably, with the intention of making regal power the means of\noppressing the Church? After the revolutionary epoch, did we not\nsee them assembled round Napoleon; and even yet, do they not almost\ndeify him? And why? Because Napoleon was revolution personified, the\nrepresentative and executor of the new ideas sought to be substituted\nfor the old ones. In the same manner Protestantism extols its Queen\nElizabeth; because it was she who placed the Establishment upon a\nsolid foundation. Revolutionary doctrines, besides the evils they\ninflict upon society, produce indirectly another effect, which may, at\nfirst sight, appear salutary, but which, in reality, is not so. They\noccasion dangerous reactions in the order of events, and check the\nprogress of knowledge, by narrowing and debasing men's ideas, leading\nthem to condemn as erroneous and pernicious, or to view with mistrust,\nprinciples which would previously have been looked upon as sound, or\nthat would, at all events, have been regarded as mere harmless errors.\nThe reason of all this is, simply, that liberty has no worse enemy than\nlicentiousness.\n\nIn support of this last observation, it may be well to show, that\nthe most rigorous doctrines in political matters have originated in\ncountries in which anarchy had made the greatest ravages, and precisely\nat the time when the evil, still present, or very recent, was most\nkeenly felt. The religious revolution of the sixteenth century, and\nthe political commotions consequent upon it, were principally felt in\nthe north of Europe; the south, and especially Italy and Spain, were\nalmost entirely preserved from them. Now, these last two countries are\nprecisely those in which the dignities and prerogatives of civil power\nhave been the least exaggerated, as well as those in which they were\nnot disparaged in theory, and were respected in practice. Of all modern\nnations, England was the first in which a revolution, properly so\ncalled, was realized; for I do not consider as such the insurrection of\nthe German peasantry, which, in spite of the terrible catastrophe which\nit caused, never effected any change in the state of society; or that\nof the United Provinces, which may be considered a war of independence.\nNow, it was precisely in England that the most erroneous doctrines\nin favor of the supreme authority of civil power appeared. Hobbes,\nwho, whilst he refused to allow the rights of the Creator, attributed\nunbounded authority to the monarchs of the earth, lived at the most\nagitated and turbulent epoch in the annals of Great Britain. He was\nborn in 1588, and died in 1679.\n\nIn Spain, where the impious and anarchical doctrines, which had\ntroubled Europe since the schism of Luther, did not penetrate until the\nlatter part of the eighteenth century, we have seen that the greatest\nlicense of expression was permitted upon the most important points of\npublic right, and that doctrines were maintained which, in any other\ncountry, would have been looked upon as dangerous. Error gave rise to\nexaggeration; the rights of monarchs were never so much extolled as\nunder the reign of Charles III.; that is, at the time when the modern\nepoch was inaugurated among us.\n\nReligion, which predominated in all consciences, maintained them in\nthe obedience due to the sovereign, without there being any need of\ngiving this obedience any extraordinary titles, when its real ones\nwere sufficient, as they certainly were. For him who knows that God\nhas prescribed obedience to lawful authority, it matters little\nwhether this authority emanate from Heaven directly or indirectly, or\nwhether society has more or less taken part in the determination of\npolitical forms, or in the election of the persons or families who are\nto exercise the supreme command. Hence we find that in Spain, although\nthe words _people_, _consent_, _pacts_, were spoken of, monarchs were\nheld in the most profound veneration, so much so that modern history\ndoes not mention a single attempt upon their persons. Popular tumults\nwere also of rare occurrence; and those which did happen are not\nattributable to either of the two above-mentioned doctrines. How does\nit happen that, at the end of the sixteenth century, the Council of\nCastile was not alarmed at the bold principles of Mariana, in his book\n_De Rege et Regis institutione_, whilst those of the Abb\u00e9 Spedalieri,\nat the end of the eighteenth century, were such a terror to it? The\nreason of this lies not so much in the contents of the works, as in\nthe epoch of their publication. The former appeared at a time when\nthe Spanish nation, confirmed in religious and moral principles,\nmight be compared to those robust constitutions capable of bearing\nfood difficult of digestion. The latter was introduced among us when\nthe doctrines and deeds of the French Revolution were shaking all the\nthrones of Europe, and when the propagandism of Paris was beginning to\npervert us by its emissaries and books. In a nation in which reason\nand virtue prevail, in which evil passions are never excited, in which\nthe well-being and prosperity of the country are the only aim of every\ncitizen, the most popular and liberal forms of government may exist\nwithout danger; for in such a nation numerous assemblies produce no\ndisorder, merit is not obscured by intrigue, nor are worthless persons\nraised to the government, and the names of public liberty and felicity\ndo not serve as means to raise the fortunes or satisfy the ambition of\nindividuals. So also in a country in which religion and morality rule\nin every breast, in which duty is not looked upon as an empty word, in\nwhich it is considered really criminal to disturb the tranquillity of\nthe state, to revolt against the lawful authorities: in such a country,\nI say, it is less dangerous to discuss, with more or less freedom,\nquestions arising from theories on the formation of society and the\norigin of the civil power, and to establish principles favorable to\npopular rights. But when these conditions do not exist, it is of little\nuse to proclaim rigorous doctrines. To abstain from pronouncing the\nname of people, as a sacrilegious word, is a useless precaution. How\ncan it be expected, that he who respects not Divine Majesty, should\nrespect human? The conservative schools of our age, proposing to\nplace a restraint upon the revolutionary torrent, and to tranquillize\nagitated nations, have almost always been infected with a certain\nfailing, which consists in forgetting the truth which I have just\nnoticed: _royal majesty_, _authority of the government_, _supremacy\nof the law_, _parliamentary sovereignty_, _respect for established\nforms, and order_: such are the terms they are constantly making use\nof. This is their palladium of society; and they condemn with all their\nmight _the state_, _insubordination_, _disobedience to the laws_,\n_insurrection_, _riot_, _anarchy_; but they forget that these doctrines\nwill not suffice, unless there be some fixed point to which the first\nlink of the chain may be riveted. These schools, generally speaking,\noriginate in the bosom of revolution; they are directed by men who\nhave figured in revolutions, who have contributed to prepare them, who\nhave given them their force, and who, in order to attain the object of\ntheir ardent desires, feared not to ruin the edifice at its foundation,\nby diminishing the ascendency of religion and opening the way to moral\nrelaxation. Hence they become powerless when prudence, or their own\ninterests, bid them say, \"_We have gone far enough_;\" and, hurried on\nlike the rest by the furious whirlwind, they have neither the means of\nstopping the movement nor of giving it a proper direction.\n\nWe are continually hearing the _Contrat Social_ of Rousseau condemned\non account of its anarchical doctrines, whilst at the same time\ndoctrines are circulated tending visibly to weaken religion. Can we\npossibly believe that the _Contrat Social_ has alone caused all the\ncommotions of Europe? It has doubtless produced serious evils, but\nstill more serious ones have been caused by that irreligion which so\ndeeply undermines the foundations of society, which loosens family\nbonds, and delivers up the individual to the caprice of his passions,\nwith no other restraint or guide than the promptings of his own low\negotism. Men of upright and reflecting minds begin to penetrate these\ntruths. We find, nevertheless, in the political sphere, this error,\nwhich attributes to the action of civil government sufficient creative\npower to form, organize, and preserve society, independently of all\nmoral and religious influences. It is of little consequence what be\nmaintained in theory, if this error be acted upon in practice; and what\navails the proclaiming of certain sound principles, if our conduct\nis not guided by them? These philosophico-political schools, which\nare desirous of ruling the destinies of the world, proceed in a way\ndiametrically opposite to that of Christianity. The latter, whose\nprincipal object was heaven, did not, however, neglect the happiness of\nman upon earth; it addressed itself directly to the understanding and\nthe heart, considering that the community is regulated by the conduct\nof individuals, and that, in order to have a well-regulated society,\nit was necessary to have good citizens. To proclaim certain political\nprinciples, to institute particular forms--such is the panacea of some\nschools, who deem it possible to govern society without exercising\na due influence over the intelligence and heart of man; reason and\nexperience agree in teaching us what we may expect from such a system.\n\nProfoundly to impress the minds of men with religion and\nmorality,--this is the first step towards the prevention of revolutions\nand disorganization. When these sacred objects have acquired their\nfull influence over the hearts of men, there is no longer any thing to\nbe apprehended from a greater or less latitude in political opinions.\nWhat confidence can a government repose in a man professing highly\nmonarchical opinions, if he join impiety to them? Will he who refuses\nto give to God his rights, respect those of temporal kings? \"The first\nthing,\" says Seneca, \"is the worship of the gods, and faith in their\nexistence; we are next to acknowledge their majesty, and bounty,\nwithout which there is no majesty.\" \"Primum est Deorum cultus, Deos\ncredere; deinde reddere illis majestatem suam, reddere bonitatem, sine\nqua nulla majestas est.\" (Seneca, _Epist_. 95.) Observe how Cicero, the\nfirst orator and perhaps the greatest philosopher of Rome, expresses\nhimself: \"It is necessary,\" says he, \"that the citizens should be\nfirst persuaded of the existence of gods, the directors and rulers of\nall things, in whose hands are all events, who are ever conferring\non mankind immense benefits, who search the heart of man, who see\nhis actions, the spirit of piety which he carries into the practice\nof religion, and who distinguish the life of the pious from that of\nthe ungodly man.\" \"Sit igitur jam hoc a principio persuasum civibus,\ndominos esse omnium rerum, ac moderatores deos; eaque qu\u00e6 gerantur,\neorum geri ditione ac numine, eosdemque optime de genere hominum\nmereri, et qualis quisque sit, quid agat, quid inde admittat, qua\nmente, qua pietate colat religiones intueri: piorumque et impiorum\nhabere rationem.\" (Cic. _de Nat. Deor._ 2.)\n\nThese truths should be profoundly impressed upon the mind: the\nevils of society do not principally emanate from political ideas\nor systems; the root of the evil lies in religion; and if a check\nis not put upon irreligion, it is vain to proclaim the most rigid\nmonarchical principles. Hobbes did certainly flatter kings a little\nmore than Bellarmin; and yet, when these two writers are compared, what\nsensible monarch would not prefer as a subject the learned and pious\ncontrovertist?[30]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LIII.\n\nON THE FACULTIES OF THE CIVIL POWER.\n\n\nHaving shown that the Catholic doctrine upon the origin of the civil\npower does not include any thing but what is perfectly reasonable and\nreconcilable with the true interests of the people, let us discuss\nthe second of the proposed questions. Let us inquire into the nature\nof the faculties of this power, and see whether under this aspect the\nChurch teaches any thing favorable to despotism--to that oppression of\nwhich she is so calumniously accused of being a supporter. We invite\nour opponents to demonstrate the contrary, fully confident that they\nwill find it more difficult to succeed in so doing, than to accumulate\nvague accusations, which serve only to lead too confiding minds astray.\nTo sustain these charges properly, recourse should be had to texts of\nScripture, to tradition, to the decisions of Councils, or to those\nof Supreme Pontiffs, to passages of the Fathers; and it should be\nshown that these immoderately extend the bounds of power, with the\ndesign of placing undue restraint upon the liberty of the people, or\nof destroying it. But it will be said, if the sources retained their\npurity, the streams have been polluted by commentators; in other terms,\ntheologians of latter ages, becoming the adulators of civil power,\nhave powerfully labored to extend its faculties, and, consequently,\nto establish despotism. As many persons too readily claim the right\nof criticizing the doctors of what is termed the period of decline,\nflippantly censuring those illustrious men, without having ever taken\nthe trouble to open their works, it is necessary for us to enter into\nsome details on this subject, and to dispel prejudices and errors which\nare seriously injurious to religion, and not less so to science.\n\nThe declamations and invectives of Protestants have induced certain\nminds to imagine that every idea of liberty would have disappeared\nfrom the heart of Europe, had it not been for the timely intervention\nof the pretended Reformation of the sixteenth century. According to\nthis idea, Catholic theologians are represented as a crowd of ignorant\nmonks, capable only of writing, in bad language and in still worse\nstyle, a heap of nonsense, the ultimate and only aim of which was to\nexalt the authority of Popes and kings, and to support intellectual and\npolitical oppression, obscurantism, and tyranny. That a portion should\nbecome the victim of illusion in matters the investigation of which\nis difficult and arduous; that the reader should suffer himself to be\ndeceived by a writer on whose word he must either rely or remain in\ncomplete ignorance,--as, for example, in the description of a country\nor a phenomenon examined only by the narrator,--is nothing strange; but\nthat any one should adhere to errors which a few moments spent in the\nmost obscure library would eradicate, that the authors of the brilliant\nvolumes of Paris should have the privilege of disfiguring with impunity\nthe opinions of a writer lying covered with dust and forgotten in the\nsame library, and perhaps on the same shelf upon which the former\nglitter; that the reader should peruse with avidity the glossy pages of\nthe newly-published work, filling his mind with the writer's notions,\nwithout even so much as putting forth his hand to the voluminous tome\nwithin his reach, and which needs only to be opened to furnish at every\npage a refutation of the censures in which levity, if not bad faith, is\nso ready to indulge; is difficult to be conceived or excused in any man\nprofessing to be a lover of science, and a conscientious investigator\nof truth. A great number of writers would assuredly not be so ready and\nfree to speak of what they have never studied, to analyze books which\nthey have never read, if they did not reckon upon the docility and\nlevity of their readers; they would certainly refrain from pronouncing\nmagisterially upon an opinion, a system, or a school, in fine, upon the\nlabors of many ages, from deciding the gravest questions by a sally of\nwit, if they found that the reader, seized in his turn with distrust,\nand particularly with the skepticism of the period, would not place\nimplicit faith in their assertions, but would take the trouble to\nconfront them with the facts to which they relate.\n\nOur ancestors did not consider themselves justified, I will not say\nin making an assertion, but even a single allusion, without giving\ncareful references to the source of their information. Their delicacy\non this point was carried to excess; but we have done wrong by going\nto the opposite extreme, and judging that we might dispense with all\nformality, even in the most important matters which imperiously demand\nthe testimony of facts. But the opinions of ancient writers are facts,\nfacts averred in their writings. By judging them hastily, without\nentering into details, without imposing upon ourselves the obligation\nof quoting authorities, we incur the suspicion of falsifying history,\nand history, I repeat, the most precious, that of the human mind. The\nlevity observable in certain writers proceeds, in a great measure,\nfrom the character which science has assumed in our days. There is no\nlonger any particular science, but only a general one, embracing them\nall, and including in its immense circle all branches of knowledge.\nConsequently, minds of ordinary capacity are obliged to remain\nsatisfied with vague notions, unfortunately only serving to stimulate\nabstraction and universality. Never was knowledge so much generalized\nas now, and never was it more difficult to obtain deserved renown for\nwisdom. In every aspirant to scientific excellence the state of science\nrequires a laborious activity in the acquisition of knowledge, profound\nreflection to regulate and direct it, a comprehensive and penetrating\nview to simplify and concentrate it, an intellect of a high order,\nelevating him to the regions in which science has established her\nabode. How many men are endowed with these qualifications? But let us\nrevert to the subject.\n\nCatholic theologians are so far from favoring despotism, that I doubt\nmuch whether it would be possible to find better books than theirs\nfor enabling us to form clear and just ideas of the faculties of\npower. I will even add that, generally speaking, they incline, in\na very remarkable manner, to the development of true liberty. The\ngreat type of theological schools, the model to the contemplation of\nwhich they have constantly turned during several centuries, are the\nworks of St. Thomas of Aquin; and we may with full confidence defy\nour opponents to find us a jurist or philosopher who expounds with\nmore lucidity, wisdom, noble independence, and generous dignity, the\nprinciples to which civil power ought to adhere. His _Treatise upon\nLaws_ is immortal, and whoever has fully comprehended it has no further\ninformation to acquire respecting the great principles which ought to\nguide the legislator. You think lightly of past times, imagining that\ntill now nothing was known of politics or public right; and in your\nimagination you invent an incestuous alliance between religion and\ndespotism, fancying you have discovered in the distant obscurity of the\ncloister, the plot contrived by this infamous pact. But have you heard\nthe opinion of a religious of the thirteenth century upon the nature\nof law? You already imagine that you see in his ideas force dominating\nover all, and constantly invoking religion the better to disguise his\nrude snares with a few falsehoods. Learn, then, that you could not\nyourself have given a milder definition of law. You would never have\nthought, as he has done, of excluding from it the idea of force; you\ncould never have conceived how, in so few words, he has managed to say\nall, and with such exactitude, such lucidity, in terms so favorable\nto the true liberty of the people and to the dignity of man. The\ndefinition here spoken of being the summary of his entire doctrine,\nand at the same time the guide which has directed theologians, may be\nconsidered as an abridgment of theological doctrines in their relation\nto the faculties of civil power. It presents to us at a single glance\nwhat were, in this point of view, the predominating principles among\nCatholics.\n\nCivil power acts upon society through the medium of the law; and,\naccording to St. Thomas, the law is, \"_a rule dictated by reason, the\naim of which is the public good, and promulgated by him who has the\ncare of society_.\" \"Qu\u00e6dam rationis ordinatio ad bonum commune, et ab\neo qui curam communitatis habet promulgata.\" (1, 2, qu\u00e6st. 90, art.\n4.) A rule dictated by reason, _rationis ordinatio_. Here by one word\ndespotism and force are banished; here is the principle that the law\nis not a pure effect of the will. The celebrated maxim, _Quod principi\nplacuit legis habet vigorem_, is here corrected. Although capable of\na reasonable and just interpretation, this maxim was, nevertheless,\nincorrect, and inclined to flattery. A celebrated writer of our days\nhas devoted numerous pages to proving that legitimacy has not its\norigin in the will of man, but in reason, inferring from this that\nwhat ought to command men is not in the will of another man, but\nreason. With much less pomp, but not less solidity and conciseness, the\nholy Doctor expresses this idea in the words above quoted, _rationis\nordinatio_. On reflection we find that despotism, arbitrary power,\nand tyranny are nothing else than the absence of reason in power, the\ndomination of the will. When reason commands, there is legitimacy,\njustice, liberty; when the will alone commands, there is illegitimacy,\ninjustice, despotism. Hence the fundamental idea of all law is, that it\nbe in accordance with reason, that it be an emanation from reason, an\napplication of reason to society; and the will, in giving its sanction\nto law and carrying it into execution, should be merely auxiliary to\nreason, its instrument, its arm.\n\nIt is evident that, without the action of the will, there is no law;\nfor acts of pure reason, without the co-operation of the will, are\nthoughts and not commands. They enlighten the mind, but do not produce\naction. It is, therefore, impossible to conceive the existence of law\nwithout the combined operation of the will and of reason. But this\nis no reason why we should not consider all law to have a rational\nfoundation and to be conformable to reason, that it may merit the name\nof law. These observations have not escaped the penetration of the holy\nDoctor; he examines them, and dispels the error of believing that the\nlaw consists in the mere will of the prince. He expresses himself as\nfollows: \"Reason receives its motive power from the will, as we have\nobserved above (qu\u00e6st. 17, art. 1;) for whilst the will seeks the end,\nreason enjoins the means of its attainment; but the will, to have the\nforce of law, must be guided by reason. In this sense only can the will\nof a sovereign be said to have the force of law; in any other sense it\nwould not be law, but injustice.\" \"Ratio habet vim movendi a voluntate,\nut supra dictum est. (Qu\u00e6st. 17, art. 1.) Ex hoc enim quod aliquis vult\nfinem, ratio imperat de his qu\u00e6 sunt ad finem, sed voluntas de his qu\u00e6\nimperantur, ad hoc quod legis rationem habeat, oportet quod sit aliqua\nratione regulata; et hoc modo intelligitur quod voluntas principis\nhabet vigorem legis; _alioquin voluntas principis magis esset iniquitas\nquam lex_.\" (Qu\u00e6st. 90, art. 1.)\n\nThese doctrines of St. Thomas are the same as those of all theologians.\nImpartiality and good sense will tell us whether they are favorable to\nabsolutism and despotism, whether they are in any way opposed to true\nliberty, whether they are not eminently conformable to the dignity of\nman. These doctrines form the most explicit and conclusive proclamation\nof the limits of civil power, and they certainly have in this respect\nmore weight than the declarations of imprescriptible rights. That which\nhumbles man, wounds in him the feeling of a just independence, and\nintroduces despotism into the world, is the will of man commanding and\nexacting submission merely because it is his will; but by submitting\nto reason, being guided by her dictates, we are not degraded; on the\ncontrary, we are elevated, we are dignified, for we live conformably\nto eternal order and to the divine will. The obligation of being\nsubject to the law does not originate in the will of another, but in\nreason. Theologians, however, have not considered the latter of itself\nsufficient to command. They derive the sanction of the law from a\nhigher source; when the conscience of man was to be acted upon, to be\nbound by duty, they could find nothing in the sphere of created things\ncapable of attaining so high an object. \"Human laws, if they are just,\"\nsays the holy Doctor, \"are binding in conscience, and they derive their\npower from the eternal law, from which they are formed, according to\nwhat is said in Proverbs, chap. viii., 'By Me kings reign, and the\nlawgivers decree just things.'\" \"Si quidem just\u00e6 sunt, habent vim\nobligandi in foro conscienti\u00e6 a lege eterna, a qua derivantur, secundum\nillud Proverb. cap. 8, per me reges regnant, et legum conditores justa\ndecernunt.\" (1, 2, qu\u00e6st. 96, art. 3.) This proves, according to St.\nThomas, that just law is derived not exactly from human reason, but\nfrom the eternal law; and that this is what makes it binding upon\nconscience.\n\nThis is doubtless more philosophical than to seek the obligatory\nforce of laws in private reason, in pacts, or in the general will. In\nthis manner the titles, the true titles of humanity are explained, a\nreasonable limit is placed upon civil power, and obedience is easily\nobtained; the rights and duties of governments, as well as those of\nsubjects, are established upon solid and indestructible foundations;\nthe nature of power, society, command, and obedience become perfectly\ncomprehensible. It is no longer the will of one man predominating over\nthat of his fellow-man; it is not his reason, but reason emanating from\nGod, or more properly speaking the reason of God, the eternal law, God\nHimself. A sublime theory, in which power finds its rights, its duties,\nits force, its authority, its prestige, and in which society possesses\nits safest guarantee of order, well-being, and true liberty; a theory\nwhich divests authority of the will of man, since it changes this will\ninto an instrument of the eternal law, into a divine ministry, _whose\naim is the public good, ad bonum commune_. This, according to St.\nThomas, is also one of the essential conditions of law. It has been\nasked, Whether kings are made for the people, or the people for kings?\nSuch a question could only arise from a want of due reflection upon\nthe nature of society, its object, and its origin, and upon the intent\nof power. The concise expression above cited, _ad bonum commune_, is a\nfitting answer to this question. \"Laws,\" says the holy Doctor, \"may be\nunjust in two ways; either by being opposed to the commonweal, or by\nhaving an improper aim, as when a government imposes upon its subjects\nonerous laws, which do not serve the common interest, but rather\ncupidity and ambition. Such laws are rather injustices than laws.\"\n\"Injust\u00e6 autem sunt leges dupliciter; uno modo per contrarietatem\nad bonum commune, e contrario pr\u00e6dictis; vel ex fine, sicut cum\naliquis pr\u00e6sidens leges imponit, onerosas subditis non pertinentes ad\nutilitatem communem, sed magis ad propriam cupiditatem vel gloriam:\n...... Et hujusmodi magis sunt violenti\u00e6 quam leges.\" (1, 2, q. 96, art.\n4.) From this doctrine it follows, that command must be exercised for\nthe well-being of all; and, failing in this condition, it is unjust:\ngovernors are invested with it only for the advantage of the governed.\nKings are not, as some philosophers, regardless of the most palpable\ninconsistencies, have absurdly maintained, the slaves of their people;\nneither is their power a simple commission without any real authority,\nand continually subject to the caprice of their people; but, at the\nsame time, the people are not the property of their kings. The latter\ncan, by no means, consider their subjects as slaves, to be disposed of\nat their free-will: governments are not, by any means, the absolute\narbiters of the lives and fortunes of the governed; they are bound\nto watch over them, not as a master over slaves from whom he derives\nprofit, but as a father over the son whom he loves and whose happiness\nhe has at heart.\n\n\"The kingdom is not made for the king, but the king for the kingdom,\"\nsays the holy Doctor, from whom I continue to quote; and, in a style\nremarkable for its force and freedom, he continues as follows: \"for God\nhas constituted kings to rule and govern, and to secure to every one\nthe possession of his rights; such is the aim of their institution; but\nif kings, turning things to their own profit, should act otherwise,\nthey are no longer kings, but tyrants.\" (_D. Th. de Reg. Princ._ cap.\n11.) From this doctrine it is evident, that the people are not made\nfor kings; that the subject is not made for the ruler; but that all\ngovernments have been established for the good of society, and that\nthis alone should be the compass to guide those who are in command,\nwhatever be the form of government. From the president of the most\ninsignificant republic to the most powerful monarch, none are exempt\nfrom this law; for it is a law anterior to society,--a law which\npresided at the formation of society, and which is superior to human\nlaw, inasmuch as it emanates from the Author of all society, from the\nsource of all law.\n\nNo, the people are not made for kings; kings are all appointed for\nthe good of the people: and if this object is not accomplished, the\ngovernment is useless; and this affects the republic as well as the\nmonarchy. To flatter kings with opposite maxims is to ruin them.\nReligion has not, at any time, done this; this was not the language\nof those illustrious men who, clothed in the sacerdotal habit,\ndelivered to the powerful ones of the earth the messages of Heaven.\n\"Kings, princes, magistrates,\" cries out the venerable Palafox, \"all\njurisdiction is ordained by God for the preservation of His people,\nnot for their destruction; for defence, not for offence; for man's\nright, and not for his injury. They who maintain that kings can do as\nthey please, and who establish their power upon their will, open the\nway to tyranny. Those who maintain that kings have power to do as they\nought, and what is necessary for the preservation of their subjects\nand of their crowns, for the exaltation of faith and religion, for the\njust and right administration of justice, the preservation of peace\nand the support of just war, for the due and becoming _\u00e9clat_ of regal\ndignity, the honorable maintenance of their houses and families, speak\nthe truth without flattery, throw open the gates to justice, and to\nmagnanimous and royal virtues.\" (_Hist. Real. Sagrada_, lib. i. cap.\n11.) When Louis XIV. said, \"I am the state,\" he had not learned this\nmaxim either from Bossuet, Bourdaloue, or Masillon. Pride, exalted by\nso much grandeur and power, and infatuated by base adulators, was here\nspeaking by his mouth. How unsearchable are the ways of Providence!\nThe corpse of this man, who said he was the state, was insulted at his\nfuneral; and, before the lapse of a century, his grandson suffered\ndeath on the scaffold! Thus the crimes of families are expiated, as\nwell as those of nations. When the measure of His indignation is filled\nup, the Lord reminds terrified man that the God of mercy is likewise a\nGod of vengeance, and that, as He opened upon the world the floodgates\nof heaven, so also He lets loose upon kings and nations the tempests of\nrevolution. When once the rights and duties of power are founded upon\na base as solid as that of their divine origin, when once they become\nestablished by a rule as exalted as that of the eternal law, there\nis no longer any necessity for extolling or exaggerating power, nor\nof attributing to it faculties to which it has no claim; and, on the\nother hand, it is no longer necessary to exact from it the fulfilment\nof its obligations with that imperious haughtiness which enervates by\nhumiliating it. Flattery and menace become alike needless when there\nare other resources for exciting it to action, and other barriers for\nrestraining it within due bounds. The statue of the king, it is true,\nis not set up in the public squares as an object for the people's\nadoration; but, on the other hand, the king is no longer placed at the\nmercy of democrats, soon to become an object of mockery and derision,\nthe contemptible laughing-stock of demagogues.\n\nObserve the moderation and mildness of the definition we have just\nanalysed! It does not contain a single word which can wound the\nmost delicate susceptibility of the most ardent partisans of public\nliberty. The law, according to this definition, consists in the rule\nof reason; the common weal is its only aim; and when the authority of\nhim who promulgates and executes it is spoken of, there is no mention\nmade of any sovereignty, no expression is used indicative of slavish\nsubjection, the most measured term which it was possible to select is\nmade use of--_care_: _Qui CURAM communitatis habet_. Bear in mind,\nthat the author here quoted is accustomed to weigh his words like\nprecious metal, and to employ them with the most scrupulous delicacy,\npausing a long time, when necessary, to explain any that may present\nthe least ambiguity, and you will then understand what ideas this great\nman entertained upon power; you will discover whether the spirit of\noppressive doctrines could have prevailed in the Catholic schools,\nin which this Doctor was, and is still, acknowledged as an almost\ninfallible oracle.\n\nCompare the definition given by St. Thomas, and adopted by all\ntheologians, with that which Rousseau has given. In that of St. Thomas,\nlaw is the expression of reason; in that of Rousseau, the expression\nof will: in the former, it is an application of the eternal law; in\nthe latter, the product of general will. On which side are wisdom and\ngood sense? Law was understood among the nations of Europe as it is\nexplained by St. Thomas and all the Catholic schools; and tyranny was\nbanished from Europe, Asiatic despotism was impossible, the admirable\ninstitution of European monarchy was established. At a later period,\nRousseau's explanation was adopted, and then came the Convention, with\nits scaffolds and its horrors.\n\nPublicists have already nearly abandoned the theory of \"a general\nwill;\" and even those who contend for the sovereignty of the people,\ndo not maintain that the will of all the citizens should constitute\nthe law. The law, say they, is not the expression of general will, but\nof general reason. The philosopher of Geneva would have the will of\nindividuals collected, the aggregate of which he termed the general\nwill. In like manner, the publicists of whom we are speaking are of\nopinion that it is necessary to collect, amongst the governed, the\ngreatest amount of reason, and to give this to the government for\nits guidance, the governing body being merely an instrument for the\napplication of it. It is not men who command, say they, but the law;\nand the law is nothing else than reason and justice.\n\nThis theory, so far as it is correct, and apart from the applications\nwhich might be made of it, is not a discovery of modern science; it is\na traditional principle of all Europe, which presided at the formation\nof society, and has given to civil power an organisation differing\nwidely from those of antiquity, and equally so from those of modern\ntimes that have not participated in our civilisation. This, on close\nexamination, appears to be the reason why European monarchies, even\nthe most absolute, have been so very different from the Asiatic.\nA singular phenomenon: at the very time when society among us had\nno legal guarantees against the power of kings, it still had other\nvery forcible ones which were purely moral. Modern science cannot,\ntherefore, claim the discovery of a new principle of government; it\nhas unknowingly resuscitated the ancient one. By rejecting the doctrine\nof Rousseau, instead of making, according to the vulgar expression,\na step in advance, it retrograded; but to retrograde is not always\nto lose an advantage. What is or can be lost by receding from the\nbrink of a precipice to enter upon a safe road? Rousseau complains,\nand with reason, that certain writers have so far exaggerated the\nprerogatives of civil power, as to convert mankind into a common herd,\nof which rulers could dispose to serve their interest or caprice. Such\nreproaches, however, cannot be applied to the Catholic Church, nor to\nany of the illustrious schools sheltered in her bosom. The philosopher\nof Geneva makes a severe attack upon Hobbes and Grotius for having\nmaintained this servile doctrine. Catholics have nothing to do with the\ncause of these two writers. I will observe, however, that it would not\nbe just to place the latter upon a parallel with the former. Grotius\nhas certainly afforded reason for the accusation. He maintains that\nthere are cases in which governments are not for the benefit of the\ngoverned, but for that of the governing powers. \"Sic imperia qu\u00e6dam\nesse possunt comparata ad regum utilitatem.\" (_De Jure Belli et Pacis_,\nlib. i. cap. 3.) But, whilst we acknowledge that this principle has a\ndangerous tendency, we grant that the doctrines of the Dutch writer do\nnot upon the whole tend to the total ruin of morality.\n\nBy rendering Grotius his due share of justice, we prevent any\nexaggeration of the evil which may exist on the side of our opponents;\nit must now be permitted to Catholic hearts to remark with noble\nsatisfaction, that such doctrines could never be established amongst\nthe professors of the true faith, and that the fatal maxims which lead\nto oppression have originated precisely among those who have deviated\nfrom the teaching of the Chair of St. Peter. No; Catholics have never\nbrought under discussion whether kings have an unlimited power over\nthe lives and fortunes of their subjects, to such a degree as to\nadmit of no opposition, whatever be the excess of the absolutism and\ndespotism exercised over them. Whenever flattery raised its voice to\nexaggerate the royal prerogative, this voice was immediately silenced\nby the unanimous outcry of the supporters of sound doctrine. Witness\nthe remarkable example of a solemn retractation imposed by the tribunal\nof the Inquisition upon a preacher who had exceeded his bounds. Not\nso in England, a country proverbial for its hatred of Catholicity.\nWhilst here, in Spain, it was forbidden under a severe penalty to\ncirculate maxims so degrading, in England the question was proposed\nwith the greatest gravity, and writers upon law were divided in their\nsentiments. (See end of chapter 39.)\n\nEvery impartial reader has already been able to form an opinion on\nthe value of declamations against the right divine, and on that\npretended affinity of Catholic doctrines with despotism and slavery.\nThe exposition of these doctrines which I have just given is certainly\nnot founded upon vain reasoning, sought out on purpose to darken the\nquestion. I have not in any way shunned the difficulty.\n\nThe question was, to know in what these doctrines consisted. I have\nshown clearly, that those who calumniate them do not understand them,\nand that we may even be allowed to suppose that they have never taken\nthe trouble to examine them, such is the levity and ignorance with\nwhich they express themselves. Perhaps I have adduced too many facts\nand quotations; but let the reader bear in mind, that my object is not\nto present him with a code of doctrines, but to give to this point\nof doctrine an historical investigation. Now, history does not call\nfor discourses, but facts; and in matters of doctrine, the sentiments\nof authors are facts. Whilst beholding the salutary reaction now\ntaking place in favour of sound principles, let us avoid giving an\nincomplete statement of the truth. For the cause of religion it is\nhighly important that its advocates should be free from even the most\nremote suspicion of dishonesty or dissimulation. On this account,\nI have, without hesitation, given in their integrity the doctrines\nlaid down by Catholic writers, just as I find them in their works. By\nmisrepresenting and confounding facts, Protestants and unbelievers have\nsucceeded in deceiving; let me hope that, by explaining and elucidating\nthem, I shall not be unsuccessful in removing the deception.\n\nI purpose examining, in the remaining part of this work, some other\nquestions relating to the same subject--questions perhaps not more\nimportant, but certainly more delicate. And for this reason, I was\nobliged to smooth the way, that I might proceed with more liberty\nand ease. I have hitherto made the cause of religion defend itself\nwith its own weapons, without borrowing the support of auxiliaries\nwhich were superfluous. I shall proceed in the same course, fully\nconvinced that Catholicity can only lose by any line of vindication\nthat identifies it with political interests, and confines it within a\ncircle too limited for its immensity. Empires appear and disappear; the\nChurch of Christ will last till the end of time. Political opinions\nundergo changes and modifications; the august dogmas of our religion\nremain immutable. Thrones rise and fall; and the rock upon which Jesus\nChrist has built His Church stands unshaken throughout the course of\ntime, ever defying the powers of hell. When we take up arms in her\ndefence, let us be impressed with the importance of our mission; let\nthere be no exaggeration, no flattery--the pure truth in measured, but\naccurate and firm language. In addressing ourselves to the people, in\nproclaiming the truth to kings, let us bear in mind that religion is\nabove politics, and God above kings and people.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LIV.\n\nON RESISTANCE TO THE CIVIL POWER.\n\n\nThe doctrines of Catholicity, therefore, in reference both to the\norigin and the exercise of civil power, are unobjectionable. Let us\nnow proceed to another point--one of greater delicacy and difficulty,\nif not of more importance. To state the question frankly, without any\nsubterfuge or evasion: \"_Is it allowable in any case to resist the\ncivil power?_\" It is impossible to speak more distinctly, or to employ\nmore precise and simple terms in stating this question, which is the\nmost important, the most difficult, and the most startling of any\nthat the subject we have in hand presents for our investigation. We\nknow that Protestantism from its commencement proclaimed the right of\ninsurrection against civil power; and no one is ignorant of the fact\nthat Catholicity has ever preached up obedience to this power; so that\nif the former has been from its infancy an element of revolution and\nof overthrow, the latter has been an element of tranquillity and good\norder. This distinction might induce us to believe that Catholicity\nfavors oppression, since it leaves the people without arms to defend\ntheir liberty. \"You preach up obedience to the civil powers,\" our\nadversaries will say; \"you pronounce, in all cases, an anathema upon\nany insurrection which attacks them; should tyranny prevail, therefore,\nyou become its most powerful auxiliaries; for, by your doctrine, you\narrest the arm ready to be raised in defence of liberty; you stifle\nwith the cry of conscience the indignation awakened in generous\nhearts.\" This is a serious charge, which compels us to elucidate, as\nfar as possible, this important point, and to distinguish in it truth\nfrom error, certainty from doubt.\n\nSome men would shrink from the investigation of such questions, and\nprefer drawing a veil over them--a veil which they venture not to\nraise, lest they should find an abyss. And assuredly their timidity\nis not inexcusable; for there are abysses unfathomable, and dangers\nthat strike the mind with awe. One false step may lead to destruction;\none move in a wrong direction may let loose tempests that would\nlay society in ruins. Whilst, however, I willingly admit the pure\nintentions of such persons, I may be permitted to observe, that their\nprudence is quite thrown away, that their foresight and precaution are\nof no avail. Whether they investigate these questions or not, they are\ninvestigated, agitated, and decided, in a manner that we must deplore;\nand, worse still, the theories thence arising have been reduced to\npractice. Revolutions are no longer confined to books, they have become\nrealities; quitting the quiet path of mere speculative philosophy,\nthey are to be seen in the streets and in the public squares. Since,\nthen, things have come to such a pass, why seek palliatives, make use\nof restrictions, or invoke silence? Let us tell the truth, just as it\nis, without concealment; since it is the truth, it will neither shrink\nbefore abundance of knowledge, nor the attacks of error. It is truth;\nits manifestation, its diffusion can have no injurious effect. In a\nword, God, who is the Author of societies, had no need of establishing\nthem upon falsehood. This candor is the more necessary, because\npolitical changes may have led some persons to disavow the truths we\nare discussing, or no longer to understand them aright; whilst others\nimagine that obedience to legitimate authority has been taught only by\na party anxious to make this doctrine the foundation of their tyranny.\nMen of erroneous opinions and evil intentions have their own codes, to\nwhich they have recourse whenever it will forward their designs: their\nfatal errors or their sordid interests form the rule of their conduct;\nthis is the source of their knowledge and of their inspirations. Men,\ntherefore, endowed with a pure heart and with upright intentions,\nshould know what to hold by in political oscillations; it is no longer\nsufficient for them to have a general knowledge of the principle of\nobedience to the legitimate authorities; they must also be acquainted\nwith their applications.\n\nIt is true that, in conflicts arising from civil discord, many men\nthrow aside their own convictions to accommodate themselves to the\nexigencies of their interests; but it is no less certain, that there\nis still to be found a great number of conscientious men who adhere\nto them. We may also add, that the generality of the individuals\ncomposing a nation, not being usually in the urgent necessity of\nchoosing between the sacrifice of their convictions and the risk of\ngrave and imminent peril, those who entertain them usually find means\nto make their influence felt in preventing great evils or in remedying\nthem. According to certain _pessimistes_, reason and justice are for\never banished from the earth, leaving it a prey to self-interest, and\nsubstituting for the dictates of conscience the designs of egotism. In\ntheir estimation, it is labor in vain to discuss and decide questions\nwhich may guide us in practice; for, according to them, whatever a\nman's conviction may be in theory, his practical decision will always\nbe the same. It is my happiness, or misfortune, to take a different\nview of the case, and to believe that there still exist in the world,\nand particularly in Spain, men of profound convictions, and possessed\nof sufficient strength of mind to regulate their conduct by those\nconvictions. The strongest proof that the inutility of doctrines is\nexaggerated, is the zeal evinced by all parties to lay hold of them.\nWhether from interest or from delicacy, all appeal to doctrines; and\nthis interest or delicacy would not exist, if doctrines did not possess\na powerful ascendency in society. Nothing, in discussion, is more\nperplexing than the introduction of several questions at the same time;\nand for this reason, I shall proceed in such a manner as to distinguish\nthose which present themselves here. I will resolve, one by one, those\nwhich relate to our object, and pass over those which are foreign to\nit. Above all, we must bear in mind the general principle at all times\ninculcated by Catholicity, viz. _the obligation of obeying legitimate\nauthority_. Let us now see how this principle is to be applied. In the\nfirst place, _Are we to obey the civil power when it commands something\nthat is evil in itself?_ No, we are not; for the simple reason that\nwhat is evil in itself is forbidden by God; now, _we must obey God\nrather than men_.\n\nIn the second place, _Are we to obey the civil power when it interferes\nin matters not included in the circle of its faculties?_ No; for, with\nregard to these matters, it is not a power. From the very supposition\nthat its faculties do not extend so far, we affirm that, in this point\nof view, it is not a real power. Besides, what I have advanced does not\nexactly and exclusively concern spiritual matters, to which I appear\nto allude. I apply this restriction of civil power also to matters\npurely temporal. It is necessary to refer here to what I have said in\nanother part of this work, viz., that whilst we grant to civil power\nsufficient force and attributes for the maintenance of order and unity\nin the social body, it is just nevertheless, that we should not allow\nit to absorb the individual and the family, so as to destroy their\nindividuality, to deprive them of their own sphere, and leave them only\nthe means of acting as an integral part of society. This is one of the\ndistinguishing features between Christian and pagan civilisation: the\nlatter, in its zeal for the preservation of social unity, excluded\nevery individual and family right; the former, on the contrary, has\namalgamated the interests of the individual with those of families\nand society, so that they neither destroy nor embarrass each other.\nThus, besides the sphere within which the action of the civil power\nis properly confined, there are others into which it has no right to\nenter, and in which individuals and families live without clashing with\nthe colossal force of the government.\n\nIt is just to observe here, that Catholicity has done much for the\nmaintenance of this principle, which is a strong guarantee of the\nliberty of the people. The separation of the two powers temporal and\nspiritual, the independence of the latter with respect to the former,\nthe distinction of the persons in whom it is vested: such has been one\nof the principal causes of this liberty, which, under different forms\nof government, is the common inheritance of European nations. Ever\nsince the foundation of the Church, this principle of the independence\nof the spiritual power has at all times served, by the mere fact of its\nexistence, to remind men that the rights of civil power are limited,\nthat there are things beyond its province, cases in which a man may\nsay, and ought to say, _I will not obey_.\n\nThis is another of those cases in which Protestantism has given a wrong\ndirection to the civilisation of Europe, and in which, far from opening\nthe way to liberty, it has riveted the chains of slavery. Its first\nstep was the abolition of the Pontifical authority, the overthrow of\nthe hierarchy, the refusal to grant to the Church any kind of power\nwhatever, and the placing of spiritual supremacy in the hands of\nprinces; that is to say, it has retrograded towards pagan civilisation,\nin which we find the sceptre united with the pontificate. The grand\npolitical problem was precisely the separation of these two powers, in\norder to save society from subjection to one sole unlimited authority,\nexercising its faculties without restraint, and from which might\nconsequently be expected vexation and oppression. This separation was\neffected without any political views, any fixed design on the part of\nmen, wherever Catholicity was established; for her discipline required\nand her dogmas inculcated it. Is it not strange that the advocates of\ntheories of equilibrium and counterpoise, who have so loudly extolled\nthe utility of separating powers, and of dividing authority among them\nwith a view to prevent it from being converted into tyranny, should\nnot have noticed the profound wisdom of this Catholic doctrine, even\nwhen considered merely in a social and political point of view? But no;\nit is remarkable, on the contrary, that all modern revolutions have\nmanifested a decided tendency towards the amalgamation of the civil\nand ecclesiastical powers--a convincing proof that these revolutions\nhave proceeded from an origin contrary to the generative principle\nof European civilisation, and that instead of guiding it towards\nperfection, they have rather served to lead it astray. The union of\nChurch and State in England, under the reigns of Henry VIII. and\nElizabeth, produced the most cruel despotism; and if that country at a\nlater period acquired a higher degree of liberty, it was not assuredly\nowing to that religious authority given by Protestantism to the head of\nthe state, but in spite of it. It is worthy of remark, that in later\ntimes, when England entered upon a more extensive sphere of liberty,\nit was owing to the diminution of the civil power on all matters\nappertaining to religion, and to a greater development of Catholicity,\nopposed in its very principles to this monstrous supremacy. In the\nNorth of Europe, where the Protestant system has also prevailed, civil\nauthority has been unlimited; and even at the present time, we find the\nEmperor of Russia indulging in the most barbarous persecutions against\nCatholics; more distrustful of those who defend the independence of\nspiritual power, than of the revolutionary clubs. The autocrat is\ndevoured with a thirst for unlimited authority, and a decided instinct\nurges him to attack in particular the Catholic religion, which forms\nhis principal obstacle.\n\nIt is remarkable with what uniformity all power, in this respect,\ntends to despotism, whether under a revolutionary or monarchical form.\nImpatient of the restraint laid upon him by the spiritual power, Louis\nXIV. attempted to crush the power of Rome. He was urged to it by the\nsame motives as the Constituent Assembly; the monarch rested his\ncause upon the rights of royalty, and the liberties of the Gallican\nChurch--the Constituent Assembly invoked the rights of the nation,\nand the principles of philosophy; but in the main they were actuated\nby one and the same motive, that of ascertaining whether or not civil\npower should be restricted: in the former case, it was monarchy tending\nto despotism; in the latter, democracy advancing to the terrors\nof the Convention. When Napoleon wished to bruise the head of the\nrevolutionary hydra, to reorganize society, to create a power, he made\nuse of religion as the most potent element. Catholicity was the only\npredominating religion in France; to this he had recourse, and signed\nthe _Concordat_. But, observe, that no sooner did he imagine his work\nof reparation complete, and the critical moment of the establishment of\nhis power passed, than he began to think of extending it, of freeing\nhimself from all restraint. He began to look upon that pontiff, whose\npresence at his coronation had so much gratified him, with a more\nsupercilious eye. At first he had some serious disputes with him, and\nended by becoming his most inveterate enemy.\n\nThese observations, to which I invite the attention of every reflecting\nmind, acquire more importance from the consideration of what has taken\nplace in our own religious and most Catholic monarchy. In spite of\nthe preponderating influence of the Catholic religion in Spain, the\nprinciple of resistance to the court of Rome has ever been preserved\nin a particular and remarkable manner; thus, whilst the Austrian\ndynasty and the Bourbons endeavoured to lay aside our old laws, so\nfar as they were favourable to political liberty, they preserved as a\nsacred deposit the traditional resistance of Ferdinand the Catholic,\nof Charles V., and of Philip II. The deep root which Catholicity had\ntaken in Spain doubtless prevented matters from being carried to\nextremes; but it is no less true that the germ existed, and was handed\ndown from generation to generation, as if its complete development\nwas expected at some more favourable period. This fact was placed in\npeculiarly strong relief at the time of the Bourbon accession, when\nthe monarchy of Louis XIV. was introduced amongst us, and the last\nvestiges of the ancient liberties of Castile, Aragon, Valencia, and\nCatalonia disappeared; the mania for kingly rights was at its height in\nthe reigns of Charles III. and Charles IV. Strange coincidence! The\nepoch in which the greatest jealousy was entertained against the Court\nof Rome and the independence of Church authority, was exactly that in\nwhich ministerial despotism was in its greatest force, and in which\nthere was seen something still worse--the despotism of a favorite,\nwith all its pitiful show. True, the ideas of the French schools were\nat that time influencing Spain; and of this neither the King, nor,\nprobably, some of his ministers, were aware: but this does not militate\nagainst the reflections we are making; on the contrary, it comes in\nsupport of them, by showing their applicability to circumstances quite\ndissimilar, and consequently their soundness and importance. The\nobject here aimed at was the overthrow of the established authority,\nto make way for another equally unlimited; to effect this, it was\nnecessary to urge on the former to abuse its prerogatives, and, at the\nsame time, to establish precedents to fall back upon, so soon as the\nrevolution should have displaced the absolute monarchy. What important\nreflections are here presented to us! What strange analogies rise to\nview between circumstances apparently most antagonistic! In our times,\nwe have seen bishops brought to trial from the same motives that were\nalleged in a celebrated cause in the reign of Charles III.; and the\n_Supreme Tribunals_ of our own days have heard from the lips of their\n_fiscals_[B] the same doctrines formerly propounded by those of the\n_Council_. Thus do doctrines meet, and thus, by different ways, do\nwe arrive at the same end. According to the ancient _fiscals_, the\nauthority of the king was every thing; the rights of the crown, like\nthe ark of old, were held so sacred, that to touch, or even to look\nupon them, was accounted a sacrilege. Well, the ancient monarchy has\ndisappeared--the throne is no longer any thing more than a shadow\nof what it once was--the Revolution has triumphed over it; and yet,\ndespite a change so profound, it is not long since a _fiscal_ of the\nSupreme Tribunal, charging a bishop with an offence against the rights\nof the civil power, made use of these words: \"In the state, a leaf\ncannot be plucked without the permission of government.\" These words\nneed no comment; the writer of these lines heard them uttered; and this\nplain, unequivocal declaration of arbitrary power seemed to him to\nthrow a new ray of light upon history.\n\n [B] Crown attorneys, charged with the prosecution of criminal and other\n causes.\n\nThe gravity and importance of this subject required this digression;\nit was incumbent on me to show how far the Catholic principle of the\nindependence of spiritual power may serve the cause of true liberty.\nThis principle, in fact, eminently teaches that the faculties of civil\npower are limited, and it is, consequently, a perpetual condemnation\nof despotism. To revert to the original question. It remains, then,\nestablished, that we are to be subject to the civil power so long as it\ndoes not go beyond its proper limits; but that the Catholic doctrine\nnever enjoins obedience when civil power oversteps the limits of its\nfaculties.\n\nIt will not be uninteresting to the reader to learn how the principle\nof obedience was understood by one of the most illustrious interpreters\nof Catholic doctrine--by the holy Doctor so often cited. According\nto him, whenever laws are unjust (and observe, that, in his opinion,\nthey may be so in many ways), they are not binding on conscience,\nunless for fear of creating scandal, or causing greater evils; that is\nto say, that, in certain cases, an unjust law may become obligatory,\nnot by virtue of any duty which it imposes, but from motives of\nprudence. These are his words, to which I crave the reader's particular\nattention: \"Laws are unjust in two ways; either because they are\nopposed to the common weal; or on account of their aim, as is the case\nwhen a government imposes upon its subjects onerous laws, not for the\ngood of the commonweal, but for the sake of self-interest or ambition;\nor on account of their author, as when any one makes a law without\nbeing invested with proper faculties; again, they may be unjust in\nform, as when the taxes are unequally divided among the multitude,\nalthough in other respects tending to the public good. Such laws are\nrather outrages than laws; since, as St. Augustin observes (lib. i. _de\nLib. Arb._ cap. 5), 'An unjust law does not appear to be a law.' Such\nlaws, therefore, are not binding in conscience, unless, perhaps, for\nthe avoiding of scandal and trouble--a motive which ought to induce man\nto give up his right, as St. Matthew observes: 'And whosoever shall\nforce thee to go one mile, go with him other two; and if any man will\ngo to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak\nalso.' Laws may also be unjust in another point of view, when they are\ncontrary to the will of God; as the laws of tyrants enforcing idolatry,\nor anything else contrary to divine law. With respect to such laws, it\nis not allowable, under any circumstances, to obey them; for, as it is\nsaid in the Acts of the Apostles, 'We must obey God rather than man.'\"\n\"Injust\u00e6 autem sunt leges dupliciter; uno modo per contrarietatem ad\nbonum commune e contrario pr\u00e6dictis, vel ex fine, sicut cum aliquis\npr\u00e6sidens leges imponit onerosas subditis non pertinentes ad utilitatem\ncommunem, sed magis ad propriam cupiditatem vel gloriam; vel etiam ex\nauctore, sicut cum aliquis legem fert ultra sibi commissam potestatem;\nvel etiam ex forma cum in\u00e6qualiter onera multitudinis dispensantur,\netiamsi ordinentur ad bonum commune; et hujusmodi magis sunt violenti\u00e6\nquam leges, quia sicut Augustinus dicit (lib. i. _de Lib. Arb._ cap.\n5, parum a princ.) lex esse non videtur qu\u00e6 justa non fuerit, unde\ntales leges in foro conscienti\u00e6 non obligant, nisi forte propter\nvitandum scandalum vel turbationem, propter quod etiam homo juri suo\ncedere debet secundum illud Math. cap. v. 'Qui te angariaverit mille\npassus, vade cum eo alia duo, et qui abstulerit tibi tunicam da ei et\npallium.' Alio modo leges possunt esse injust\u00e6 per contrarietatem ad\nbonum divinum, sicut leges tyrannorum inducentes ad idololatriam, vel\nad quodcumque aliud quod sit contra legem divinam, et tales leges nullo\nmodo licet observare, quia sicut dicitur Act. cap. v.: 'Obedire oportet\nDeo magis quam hominibus.'\" (_D. Th._ 1, 2, qu\u00e6st. 90, art. 1.)\n\nThis doctrine furnishes us with the following rules:\n\n1. We cannot, under any circumstances, obey the civil power when its\ncommands are opposed to the divine law.\n\n2. When laws are unjust, they are not binding in conscience.\n\n3. It may become necessary to obey these laws from motives of prudence;\nthat is, in order to avoid scandal and commotions.\n\n4. Laws are unjust from some one of the following causes:\n\nWhen they are opposed to the common weal--when their aim is not the\ngood of the commonweal--when the legislator outsteps the limits of his\nfaculties--when, although in other respects tending to the good of\nthe commonweal, and proceeding from competent authority, they do not\nobserve suitable equity; for instance, when they divide unequally the\npublic imposts.\n\nWe have quoted and copied the venerable text whence these rules are\nderived: their illustrious author has been the guide of all the\ntheological schools during the last six centuries; his authority has\nnever been called in question in these schools on points of dogma or\nmorality; these rules may, therefore, be regarded as the recapitulation\nof the doctrines of Catholic theologians with reference to the\nobedience due to authority. We may now, without doubt, appeal with\nentire confidence to every man of good sense. Let him judge whether\nthese doctrines are in the least inclined to despotism, whether they\nhave the least tendency to tyranny, in fine, whether they aim the\nslightest blow at liberty. It is vain to seek in them the slightest\nappearance of flattery to the civil power, whose limits are marked out\nwith rigorous severity; if it outsteps them, it is openly told, \"Thy\nlaws are not laws, but outrages; they are not binding in conscience;\nand if, in some instances, thou art obeyed, it is not owing to any\nobligation, but to prudence, in order to avoid scandal and commotion;\nit is thenceforth such a dishonor to thee, that thy triumph, far from\nentitling thee to renown, assimilates thee to the robber who despoils\nthe peaceable man of his garment, and to whom the latter, for the\nsake of peace, gives up his cloak also.\" If these are doctrines of\noppression and despotism, we also are advocates for such oppression and\ndespotism; for we cannot conceive doctrines more favorable to liberty.\n\nUpon these principles the admirable institution of European monarchy\nwas founded. This teaching has created the moral defences by which that\nmonarchy is surrounded; defences restraining it within the limits of\nits duties, even where political guarantees do not exist. The mind,\nwearied with foolish declamations against the _tyranny of kings_, and,\non the other hand, not less tired of the boisterous adulations lavished\nupon power in modern times, expands and rejoices on meeting with this\npure, disinterested, and sincere expression of the rights and duties of\ngovernments and of people, on hearing this language, impressed with as\nmuch of wisdom as of upright intention and generous freedom. What books\nwere consulted by men making use of such language? The Scriptures, the\nFathers, the collections of ecclesiastical documents. Could they have\nreceived their inspirations from the society which surrounded them? No;\nfor in that same society disorder and confusion prevailed; sometimes a\nturbulent disobedience, at others despotism was predominant. And yet\nthey speak with as much discretion, tact, and calmness as if they were\nliving in the midst of well-regulated society. They were guided by\ndivine revelation, which taught them truth. How often did they see it\nforgotten and trampled under foot! But uninfluenced by circumstances,\nhowever unfavorable, they wrote in a region far above the atmosphere of\nhuman passions. Truth is of all times; proclaim it ever, and God will\neffect the rest.[31]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LV.\n\nON RESISTANCE TO DE FACTO GOVERNMENTS.\n\n\nThe questions hitherto discussed relating to the obedience due to power\nare very grave; but those of resistance to it are still more important.\n\nIs it allowable, under any circumstances, in any supposition, to\nresist the civil power _by physical force_? Does there nowhere exist a\ndeposing power? How far do Catholic doctrines extend on this subject?\nSuch are the extreme points we purpose to discuss. According to one\nsystem, obedience is due to a government from the very fact of its\nexistence, even on the supposition that its existence is illegitimate.\nNow, it is important to demonstrate, at the very outset, the\nunsoundness of this doctrine, which is contrary to right reason, and\nhas never been taught by Catholicity. In preaching obedience \"to the\npowers that be,\" the Church speaks of powers that have a legitimate\nexistence. The absurdity, that a simple fact can create right, can\nnever become a dogma of Catholicity. Were it true that resistance would\nbe unlawful, it would be equally true that an illegitimate government\nhas a right to command; for the obligation to obey is correlative\nwith the right to command; and an illegitimate government would,\nconsequently, become legitimatised by the simple fact of its existence.\nThis would legitimatise all usurpations; the most heroic resistance\non the part of the people would be condemned; the world would be\nabandoned to the mere rule of force. No; that degrading doctrine is not\ntrue which derives legitimacy from usurpation; which says to a people\nconquered and subjugated by any usurper whatever, \"Obey your tyrant;\nhis rights are founded on force, and your obligation to him on your\nweakness.\" No; there cannot be truth in a doctrine that would efface\nfrom our history one of its brightest pages, that would entail disgrace\nupon a nation taking up arms to expel an usurper, struggling for its\nindependence during a period of six years, and finally overthrowing\nthe conqueror of Europe. If Napoleon had succeeded in establishing his\npower amongst us, the Spanish nation would still have maintained the\nright on account of which it revolted in 1808; victory could not have\nrendered usurpation legitimate. The victims of the second of May did\nnot legalise the command of Murat; and had even every corner of the\npeninsula been made a theatre of horrors similar to those witnessed\non the Prado, the blood of martyred patriots, covering the usurper\nand his satellites with everlasting infamy, would only have confirmed\nthe sacred right of revolting in defence of the throne, of national\nindependence. We must repeat it: the simple fact does not create a\nright, either in private or public affairs; and so soon as such a\nprinciple is acknowledged, every idea of reason and justice disappears\nfrom the world. Those who may have wished to flatter governments with\nso fatal a doctrine, were not aware that this was the very way to ruin\nthem, and to sow the seeds of usurpation and insurrection. What will\nbe safe here below if we admit the principle, that success insures\njustice, and that the conqueror is always the rightful ruler? Is not\nthis throwing open a wide gate to ambition, and to every crime? Is it\nnot exciting men to forget every idea of right, reason, and justice,\nto acknowledge no other rule than brute force? Governments protected\nby so strange a doctrine would assuredly owe little gratitude to their\nprotectors: this, in fact, is no defence; it is an insult; it is more\nof a cruel sarcasm than an apology. To what, indeed, does it amount,\nand how would this doctrine sound? Why, as follows: \"People, obey him\nwho commands you; you say his authority is usurped; we do not deny\nit; but, by the very fact of his having attained his end, the usurper\nhas acquired a right. He is, indeed, a robber who has attacked you on\nthe highway; he has stolen your money; but, by the mere fact of your\nnot being able to resist him, and being forced to deliver to him your\npurse, now that he is possessed of it, you ought to respect this money\nas an inviolable property: such is your duty. It is a robbery; but this\nrobbery being a _consummated act_, you cannot now obtain redress for\nit.\"\n\nIn this point of view the doctrine of _consummated facts_ appears\nso much opposed to generally received ideas, that no reasonable man\ncan seriously accept it. I do not deny that there are cases in which\nobedience, even to an illegitimate government, is to be recommended;\nwhen, for instance, we foresee that resistance would be useless, that\nit would only lead to new disorders, and to a greater effusion of\nblood: but in recommending prudence to the people, let us not disguise\nit under false doctrines--let us beware of calming the exasperation\nof misfortune by circulating errors subversive of all governments,\nof all society. It is worthy of remark, that all powers, even the\nmost illegitimate, have a truer instinct than that manifested by the\nmaintenance of such maxims. All powers in the first moment of their\nexistence, before commencing their operations, before proceeding to one\nsingle act, proclaim their legitimacy. They seek it in right divine and\nhuman, they establish it upon birth or election, they derive it from\nhistorical titles, or the sudden development of extraordinary events;\nbut all tends to the same point, the pretension to legitimacy. They\nnever speak of the mere fact of their existence; from the instinct that\nprompts their own preservation they learn better than to rely upon\nsuch grounds, since to do so would be to annihilate their authority,\nto destroy their prestige, to encourage revolt; in a word, to commit\nself-destruction. We have here the most explicit condemnation of the\ndoctrine we are combating, for the most shameless usurpers have more\nrespect for good sense and the public conscience.\n\nIt sometimes happens that doctrines the most erroneous assume a\nveil of gentleness and Christian meekness. We must overthrow the\narguments that might be employed against us, by the advocates of\nblind submission to any power that happens to be established. \"The\nScriptures,\" they will say, \"prescribe to us obedience to the\nauthorities, without any distinction; the Christian, therefore, ought\nnot to make any distinction, but submit with resignation to such as he\nfinds established.\" In reply to this objection, I see the following\nvery decisive answers. 1. Illegitimate authority is no authority at\nall; the idea of power involves the idea of right, without which\nit is mere physical power, that is, _force_. When, therefore, the\nScriptures prescribe obedience to the authorities, it is the lawful\nauthorities that are implied. 2. The sacred text, in enjoining us\nobedience to the civil power, tells us that it is ordained by God\nHimself, that it is the minister of God Himself; and it is evident that\nusurpation is never invested with so high a character. The usurper\nis perhaps the instrument of Providence, _the scourge of Heaven_, as\nAttila designated himself, but not the minister of God. 3. The sacred\nScriptures prescribe obedience to the subject in relation to the civil\npower, in the same way as they prescribe it to the slave in relation\nto his master. But what sort of masters are here implied? Evidently\nsuch as exercised a legitimate dominion, as it was understood at the\ntime, conformable to the prevailing laws and customs; otherwise the\nScriptures would require obedience from such slaves as were reduced\nto slavery by an abuse of power. Hence, as the obedience to masters\nprescribed by the Scriptures does not deprive the slave unjustly\nretained in servitude of his right, so also the obedience due to the\nestablished authorities should be restricted to the lawful authorities,\nand to cases in which prudence would dictate it in order to avoid\ncommotion and scandal.\n\nIn confirmation of the doctrine of mere _de facto_ government, the\nconduct of the first Christians has been sometimes alleged. \"They\nsubmitted,\" it is said, \"to the constituted authorities without\neven inquiring whether they were legitimate or not. At this epoch\nusurpations were frequent, the imperial throne was established by\nforce, its occupants one after another owed their elevation to military\ninsurrection, and to the assassination of their predecessors. We\nfind, nevertheless, that Christians never meddled with the question\nof legitimacy; they respected the established power, and this power\nfailing, they submitted without murmuring to the new tyrant who had\nusurped the throne.\" This argument, it cannot be denied, is very\nplausible, and presents at first sight a serious difficulty; a few\nreflections, however, suffice to show its extreme futility. In order\nthat an insurrection against an unlawful power may be legitimate and\nprudent, those who undertake to overturn it should be sure of its\nillegitimacy, should have in view the substitution of a lawful power,\nand should count besides on the probability of the success of their\nenterprise. If these conditions are not fulfilled, the insurrection\nhas no object; it is a mere fruitless attempt, an impotent revenge,\nwhich, instead of being useful to society, only causes bloodshed, only\nirritates the power attacked, and can have in consequence no other\neffect than to increase oppression and tyranny.\n\nNone of the conditions here mentioned were in existence at the time we\nare speaking of; all that upright men could do was quietly to resign\nthemselves to the calamitous circumstances of the times, and by fervent\nprayer to implore the Almighty to take compassion on mankind.\n\nWhen every thing was decided by force of arms, who could say whether\nsuch or such an emperor was lawfully established? Upon what rules\nwas the imperial succession established? Where was legitimacy to be\nsubstituted for illegitimacy? Amongst the Romans--those vile, degraded\nbeings, kissing the chains of the first tyrant who offered them _food_\nand _games_? In the worthless posterity of those illustrious patricians\nwho formerly gave laws to the universe? Was it vested in the sons or\nin the family of some assassinated emperor, when the laws had not\nestablished hereditary succession, when the sceptre of the empire was\nat the disposal of the legions, when it frequently happened that the\nemperor, the victim of usurpation, had been himself merely a usurper,\nwho had mounted to the throne over the corpse of his rival? Did it\nexist in the ancient rights of those conquered nations now reduced to\nsimple dependencies of the empire, divested of all national spirit,\nhaving even lost the recollection of their former condition, without a\nthought capable of conducting them in the work of their emancipation,\nand destitute of resources against the colossal force of their masters?\nWhat object could any one have, under such circumstances, in making\nattempts against the established government? When the legions decided\nthe fate of the world, alternately elevating and assassinating their\nmasters, what could or what ought the Christian to do? The disciple\nof a God of peace and love, he could not take part in criminal scenes\nof bloodshed and tumult; authority was tottering and uncertain; it\nwas not for him to decide whether it was legitimate or not; it only\nremained for him to submit to the power generally acknowledged, and\nat the arrival of one of those changes, at that time of so frequent\noccurrence, to yield the same obedience to the newly-established\ngovernment.\n\nThe interference of Christians in political disputes would only have\nserved to bring into disrepute the holy religion they professed; it\nwould have given to philosophers and idolaters a pretext for increasing\nthe catalogue of black calumnies which they everywhere brought against\nthe faith. Public report accused Catholicity of being subversive of\ngovernments; Christians would have furnished a pretext for extending\nand accrediting this unfounded report, the hatred of governments would\nhave been redoubled, and the rigors of persecution so cruelly exercised\nagainst the disciples of the cross would have been increased. Has this\nstate of things ever existed but once, either in ancient or modern\ntimes? And could the conduct of the first Christians in this respect be\nmade a rule for the Spaniards, for instance, at the time they resisted\nthe usurpation of Bonaparte? Or could it be imitated by any other\npeople in similar circumstances? Or will it be received as an argument\nin favor of every kind of usurpation? No; man, in becoming a Christian,\ndoes not cease to be a citizen, to be a man, to have his rights, and he\nacts in a praiseworthy manner whenever, within the bounds of reason and\njustice, he attempts to maintain these rights with fearless intrepidity.\n\nDon Felix Amat, Archbishop of Palmyra, in his posthumous work entitled\n_Idea of the Church Militant_, makes use of these words: \"Jesus Christ,\nby his plain and expressive answer, _Render to C\u00e6sar the things that\nare C\u00e6sar's_, has sufficiently established, that the mere fact of a\ngovernment's existence is sufficient for enforcing the obedience of\nsubjects to it.\" What I have already advanced is enough, in my opinion,\nto show the fallacy of such an assertion; and, as I intend to revert to\nthis subject, and investigate more attentively this author's opinion,\nand the reasons upon which he supports it, I shall not now attempt to\nenter upon its refutation. I will, nevertheless, make one observation,\nwhich occurred to me on reading the passages in which the Archbishop\nof Palmyra developes it. His work was forbidden at Rome; and whatever\nmay have been the motives for such a prohibition, we may rest assured\nthat, in the case of a book advocating such doctrines, every man who\nis jealous of his rights might acquiesce in the decree of the Sacred\nCongregation.\n\nAs the opportunity is favorable, we may make a few remarks upon\n_consummated facts_, which are so closely connected with the doctrine\nunder discussion. _Consummated_ implies something perfect in its kind;\nhence an act is consummated when it has attained its completion.\nThis word, applied to crimes, is opposed to mere attempt. We say\nan attempt at robbery, murder, or arson, when the undertaking to\ncommit these crimes has been manifested by some act; for instance,\nthe lock of a door has been broken, an attack has been made with a\nmurderous weapon, combustible matter has been ignited--but the crime\nis not said to be consummated till the robbery, murder, or arson has\nactually been committed. Hence, in a political and social sense, we\ndesignate _consummated facts_ an usurpation, completely overthrowing\nthe legitimate power, and by means of which the usurper is already\nsubstituted in its place; a measure executed in all its points; such as\nthe suppression of the regular clergy in Spain, and the confiscation of\ntheir property to the treasury; a revolution which has been triumphant,\nand which has entirely disposed of a country, as was the case with our\nAmerican possessions.\n\nFrom this explanation, we see clearly that a fact does not, by being\n_consummated_, change its nature; it still remains a simple fact--just\nor unjust, legal or illegal--as it was before. The most horrible\noutrages may also be termed _consummated facts_; yet, for all that,\nthey do not cease to deserve disgrace and punishment.\n\nWhat, then, is the meaning of certain phrases continually uttered by\nsome men? \"We must respect consummated facts; we must always accept\nconsummated facts; it is folly to resist consummated facts; it is a\nwise policy that yields to consummated facts.\" Far be it from me to\nassert that all those who establish these maxims, profess the fatal\ndoctrines to which they give rise. We often admit principles, the\nconsequences of which we reject; and point out a certain line of\nconduct as right, without attending to the abominable maxims in which\nit originates. In human affairs, good and evil, error and truth are\nso narrowly separated, and prudence so closely borders on culpable\ntimidity, that in theory, as well as in practice, it is not always\neasy to remain within the bounds prescribed by reason and the eternal\nprinciples of sound morality. If respect for consummated facts is\nmentioned, perverse men immediately include in it the sanctioning\nof crime, the spoils of plunder secured to the robber, no hope of\nrestitution left to the victims, and a gag put upon their mouths, to\nstifle their complaints. Others, I am aware, have no such design in\nmaking use of these words, but are the dupes of a confusion of ideas,\narising from their not having distinguished between moral principles\nand public expediency. On this point, therefore, we must distinguish\nand define, which I will do in a few words.\n\nThe simple consummation of a fact does not render it legitimate; and,\nconsequently, it is not on this account alone worthy of respect. The\nrobber who has stolen does not acquire a right to the thing stolen;\nthe incendiary who reduces a house to ashes is no less deserving of\npunishment, of being forced to make reparation, than if he had been\narrested in the attempt. This is so evident and clear, that it cannot\nbe called in question. To assert the contrary, is to become the enemy\nof all morality, of all justice, of all right; and to proclaim the\nexclusive rule of force and cunning. Consummated facts, appertaining\nto social and political order, do not change their nature; the\nusurper, who seizes upon the crown of his lawful predecessor; the\nconqueror, who, by mere force of arms, has subdued a nation, does not\nthereby acquire a right to its possession; the government, which by\ngross iniquities has despoiled entire classes of citizens, exacted\nundue contributions, abolished legitimate rights, cannot justify its\nacts by the simple fact of its having sufficient strength to execute\nthese iniquities. That is equally evident; and if there is here any\ndifference at all, the crime is only the greater, from the greater\ngravity and extent of the wrongs committed, and of the scandal given\nto the public. Such are the principles of sound morality--individual\nmorality, social morality; morality of the whole human race; immutable,\neternal morality.\n\nLet us now examine the question of public expediency. In some\ninstances, a consummated fact, in spite of all its injustice, all\nits immorality and atrocity, acquires such an ascendency, that by\nnot accepting it, or by being determined to destroy it, we should\nlet loose a train of troubles and commotions, and perhaps without\neffect. Every government is bound to respect justice, and to act in\nsuch a manner that its subjects may also respect it; but it should not\ncommand what will not be obeyed, when it is deprived of the means of\nenforcing obedience. In such a case, we should not commit an injustice\nby not attacking the illegal interests, or by not endeavoring to\nobtain redress for the victims; the government, in such a case, may be\ncompared to a man who, beholding robbers loaded with the fruit of their\ntheft, is without the means of forcing them to make restitution. If you\nsuppose an impossibility, what does it avail to say that the government\nis not a single individual, but a defender of all legitimate interests?\nNo one is bound to impossibilities.\n\nObserve, also, that this remark applies not only to a physical\nimpossibility, but also to a moral one. Whenever, therefore, the\ngovernment possesses the material means of obtaining reparation, a\nmoral impossibility will be constituted, when the employing of those\nmeans would cause serious difficulties to the state, endanger the\npublic peace, or sow the seeds of future insurrection. Order and public\ninterest require the preference, for these are the primary objects of\nall government; consequently, that which cannot be accomplished without\nendangering them, ought to be considered as impossible. The application\nof these doctrines will always be a question of prudence, that cannot\nbe subjected to any general rule. Depending as it _does_ upon a\nthousand circumstances, it cannot be decided upon abstract principles;\nbut by the consideration of existing facts, duly appreciated and\nconsidered by political tact. Such is the case of the respect due to\nconsummated facts; the injustice of these facts is apparent; but we\nmust not overlook their force. Not to attack them is not, necessarily,\nto sanction them. The legislator is bound to diminish the evil as far\nas possible; but not to risk an aggravation of it by attempting an\nimpracticable reparation. As it is particularly injurious to society\nfor great interests to remain insecure, and uncertain for the future,\njust means must be adopted, which, without occasioning complicity in\nthe evil, may prevent the dangers of a doubtful situation, resulting\nfrom injustice itself. A just policy does not sanction injustice; but\na wise policy never despises the importance of established facts. If\nsuch facts exist, and appear indestructible, it tolerates them; but\nwithout affording them the sanction of its participation or approval.\nActing with dignity, it makes the best of difficulties; and in some\nsort allies the principles of eternal justice with the views of public\nexpediency. We have a very striking case in point, which will place\nthis matter in the clearest possible light. After the great evils,\nand the enormous acts of injustice perpetrated during the French\nRevolution, what possibility was there of making a complete reparation?\nIn 1814, could every thing be restored to the position in which it\nstood in 1789? The throne overturned, all social distinctions levelled,\nand property broken up; who could reconstruct the ancient social\nedifice? No one.\n\nSuch is the respect to be entertained for consummated facts, which\nmight be more properly termed _indestructible_ ones. To illustrate\nmy idea still further, I will give it a very simple exemplification.\nA proprietor, driven from his possessions by a powerful neighbor,\nhas not the means of repossessing himself of them. He has neither\nwealth nor influence; and his spoliator abounds in both. If he have\nrecourse to force, he will be vanquished; if to the tribunal, he will\nlose his cause; what, therefore, is he to do? To negotiate for an\naccommodation, to obtain what he can, and be resigned to his fate.\nThis is all that can be said; and it is remarkable, that such are the\nprinciples adopted by governments. History and experience teach us,\nthat consummated facts are respected when they are indestructible;\nthat is, when they possess in themselves sufficient force to make them\nrespected; in any other case, they are not so. And nothing is more\nnatural. Whatever is not founded upon right, can only be maintained by\nforce.[32]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LVI.\n\nHOW THE CIVIL POWER MAY BE LAWFULLY RESISTED.\n\n\nFrom what has been said in the foregoing chapters it follows, that\nit is allowable to resist illegitimate power by force. The Catholic\nreligion does not enjoin obedience to governments existing merely\n_de facto_; for morality does not admit a mere fact, unsupported\nby right and justice. However, when power is in itself lawful, but\nin its exercise tyrannical, does our religion prohibit, in every\ninstance, resistance by physical force; so that not to resist at all,\nforms a part of her dogmas? Is insurrection never allowable, in any\nsupposition, for any motive? Although I have already eliminated many\nquestions, it is necessary to draw here a fresh distinction, in order\nto fix exactly the point at which dogma ends, and opinions begin. It is\nevident, in the first place, that an individual has no right to kill\na tyrant on his own authority. The Council of Constance, in its 15th\nsession, condemned the following proposition as heretical: \"Any vassal\nor subject may and should, lawfully and meritoriously, kill any tyrant.\nHe may even, for this purpose, avail himself of ambushes, and wily\nexpressions of affection or adulation; notwithstanding any oath or pact\nimposed upon him by the tyrant; and without waiting for the sentence\nor order of any judge.\" \"Quilibet tyrannus potest et debet licite et\nmeritorie occidi per quemcumque vassallum suum vel subditum, etiam\nper clanculares insidias, et subtiles blanditias vel adulationes, non\nobstante quocumque pr\u00e6stito juramento, seu conf\u0153deratione factis cum\neo, non expectata sententia vel mandato judicis cujuscumque.\"\n\nBut does this decision of the Council of Constance constitute a\nprohibition of every kind of insurrection? No; it speaks of the murder\nof a tyrant by any particular individual; but every case of resistance\nis not maintained by a single individual; neither is it the aim of\nevery insurrection to destroy a tyrant. This doctrine only serves to\nprevent murder, and a train of evils which would overwhelm society\nif it were established that any individual had a right of his own\nauthority to kill the supreme ruler. Who will venture to accuse this\ndoctrine of being favorable to tyranny? The liberty of the people\nshould not be based upon the horrid right of assassination; the defence\nof the rights of society should not be confided to the dagger of a\nfanatic. The attributes of public power are so extensive and various,\nthat their exercise must necessarily and frequently inconvenience some\nindividuals. Man, inclined to extremes and revenge, easily enlarges\nupon the grievances which he suffers; passing from a particular to a\ngeneral, he is inclined to look upon those who injure or oppose him as\nvillains. At the slightest shock which he receives from government,\nhe cries out that tyranny is insupportable; the act of arbitrary\npower, real or imaginary, committed against him, becomes, in his\nmouth, one of the many iniquities perpetrated, or the commencement of\nthose that are to be. Grant, therefore, to the individual the right\nof killing a tyrant; proclaim to the people that, to render such an\nact lawful and meritorious, there is no need of a sentence, or any\njudicial condemnation; and from that time this horrible crime will\nbecome frequent. The wisest, the justest kings will fall victims to\nthe parricidal dagger, or the poisoned cup. You will have furnished no\nguarantee to the liberty of the people, and you will have exposed the\ndearest interests of society to dreadful hazards.\n\nThe Catholic Church, by this solemn declaration, has conferred an\nimmense service on humanity. The violent death of him who holds the\nsupreme power seldom happens without causing bloodshed and great\ncommotion. It provokes measures of suspicious precaution, easily\nconverted into tyranny. It follows, then, that any crime instigated\nby excessive hatred of tyranny contributes to establish it in a form\nstill more absolute and cruel. Modern nations should feel grateful\nto the Catholic Church for having established this sacred and saving\nprinciple. A person must be possessed of very mean sentiments, or very\nferocious instincts, not to appreciate it, or to regret the bloody\nscenes of the Roman Empire and the barbarian monarchy. We have seen,\nand we still see, powerful nations delivered up to dreadful troubles,\nby the neglect of this Catholic maxim. The history of the last three\ncenturies, and the experience of this, prove that this august precept\nof the Church was given to the people in anticipation of the dangers\nwhich were threatening them. In it we find no flattery for kings;\nfor they are not the only ones benefited by it; it is a general\nproposition, including all others, whatever be their titles, who\nexercise supreme authority, whatever be the form of government, from\nthe Russian autocrat to the most democratical republic.\n\nIt is worthy of remark, that modern constitutions, proceeding from the\nbosom of revolutions, have universally rendered a solemn homage to this\nCatholic maxim; they have declared the person of the monarch _sacred\nand inviolable_. What does this mean, but that this person should be\nplaced under an impenetrable safeguard? You reproach the Catholic\nChurch with placing a sort of shield before the person of kings, and\nyet you yourselves declare that person inviolable. The anointing of\nkings you ridicule, and yet you yourself declare that the king is\nsacred. Since you are forced to imitate the Church, her dogmas and her\ndiscipline must have contained an eternal truth, and high political\nprinciples; with this difference, however, that you represent as the\nwork of the will of man what she esteems the work of the will of God.\nBut if supreme power makes a scandalous abuse of its faculties, if it\noutsteps its just bounds, if it tramples under foot fundamental laws,\nif it persecutes religion, corrupts morality, outrages public dignity,\nattacks the honor of citizens, exacts illegal and disproportionate\ncontributions, alienates national property, dismembers provinces,\ninflicts death and ignominy upon the people: in such cases, does\nCatholicity also prescribe obedience? does it forbid resistance? does\nit command subjects to remain tranquil, like a lamb in the claws of a\nwild beast? May there not exist, either in an individual, or in the\nprincipal bodies, or in the most distinguished classes of society, or\nin the entire mass of the nation, somewhere, in fine, the right of\nopposing, of resisting, after all means of mildness, representation,\ncounsel, and entreaty have failed? In such disastrous circumstances,\ndoes the Church leave the people without hope, and tyrants without\nrestraint?\n\nIn such extremities, certain very renowned theologians think that\nresistance is allowable; but the dogmas of the Church do not descend\nto these details. The Church abstains from condemning the opposite\ndoctrines. In such extreme circumstances, non-resistance is not a\ndogmatical prescription. The Church has never taught such a doctrine;\nif any one will maintain that she has, let him bring forward a decision\nof a Council or of a Sovereign Pontiff to that effect. St. Thomas of\nAquin, Cardinal Bellarmin, Suarez, and other eminent theologians,\nwere well versed in the dogmas of the Church; and yet, if you consult\ntheir works, so far from finding this doctrine in them, you will find\nthe opposite one. Now the Church has not condemned them, she has not\nconfounded them with those seditious writers in whom Protestantism\nabounds, nor with modern revolutionists, who are continually disturbing\nsocial order. Bossuet and other authors of repute differ from St.\nThomas, Bellarmin, Suarez; and this gives credit to the opposite\nopinion, but does not convert it into a dogma. Upon certain points of\nthe highest import, the opinions of the illustrious Bishop of Meaux\nsuffered contradiction; and we know that upon this case of an excess\nof tyranny, the Pope at another period was acknowledged to possess\nfaculties which Bossuet refuses him.\n\nThe Abb\u00e9 de Lamennais, in his impotent and obstinate resistance to the\nHoly see, adduced the doctrines of St. Thomas, and those of some other\ntheologians, pretending that to condemn his own works was to condemn\nschools hitherto held irreproachable. (_Affaires de Rome._) The Abb\u00e9\nGerbet, in his excellent refutation of M. de Lamennais, after having\nvery judiciously remarked, that the Sovereign Pontiff's object in\nreproving modern doctrines was, to prevent a renewal of the errors of\nWickliffe, observes, at the epoch of this heresiarch's condemnation,\nthe doctrines of St. Thomas and of other theologians were well known,\nand that, nevertheless, no one believed that they were included in\nthe condemnation. The excellent author of this refutation deemed\nthis sufficient to deprive M. de Lamennais of the shield under which\nhe sought to defend and cover his apostacy; and for this reason, he\nabstains from drawing a parallel between the two doctrines. In fact,\nthis reflection alone is sufficient to convince any judicious man that\nthe doctrines of St. Thomas bear no resemblance to those of M. de\nLamennais. It may, however, be useful to give in few words a comparison\nof the two doctrines. At the present time, and in these matters, it\nis very proper to know, not only that these doctrines differ, but\nlikewise wherein they differ. M. de Lamennais' theory may be stated in\nthe following terms: A natural equality among men, and, as necessary\nconsequences, 1. Equality of rights, political rights included; 2. The\ninjustice of every social and political organization not establishing\nthis equality completely, as is the case in Europe and in the whole\nuniverse; 3. Expediency and legitimacy of insurrection, to destroy\ngovernments, and change social organization; 4. Abolition of all\ngovernment, as the object of the progress of the human race.\n\nThe doctrines of St. Thomas on the same points may be thus expressed:\n_A natural equality among men_; that is to say, an essential equality,\nbut exclusive of physical, intellectual, and moral gifts--an equality\namong men in the eyes of God--an equality in their destination,\ninasmuch as they are all created to enjoy God--an equality of means,\ninasmuch as they are all redeemed by Christ, and may all receive His\ngrace; but exclusive of the inequalities which it may please God to\nestablish by gifts of grace and glory. 1. _An equality of social and\npolitical rights._ According to the holy doctor, such an equality is\nimpossible. He rather supports the utility and legitimacy of certain\nhierarchies; the respect due to those established by law; the necessity\nof there being some to command and others to obey; the obligation of\nbeing subject to the established laws of the country, whatever be the\nform of government; the preference for monarchical governments. 2. _The\ninjustice of every social and political organization not establishing\na complete equality._ St. Thomas looks upon this as an error opposed\nto reason and to faith. Nay, more; not only is it true that the\ninequality founded upon the very nature of man and of society is an\neffect and punishment of original sin, in as far as it entails upon\nman injury or inconvenience; but, according to the holy Doctor, this\ninequality would have existed among men even in a state of innocence.\n3. _Expediency and legitimacy of insurrection, to destroy governments,\nand to change the social organization._ An erroneous and fatal opinion.\nWe ought to submit to legitimate governments; it is expedient even to\ntolerate such as make an improper use of their power; we must exhaust\nevery means of entreaty, of counsel and representation, before we\nhave recourse to others. We can only appeal to force in the greatest\nextremities, on rare occasions, and then only under many restrictions,\nas will be seen elsewhere. 4. _Abolition of all government, as the\nobject of the progress of the human race._ An absurd proposition--a\ndream that cannot be realized. The necessity of government in every\nsociety; arguments founded upon the nature of man; analogies from the\nhuman body, from the very order of the universe; the existence of\ngovernment even in a state of innocence. Such are the doctrines of De\nLamennais and St. Thomas respectively. Let the reader compare them, and\njudge for himself.\n\nIt is impossible to adduce the words of the holy Doctor--they would\nfill the volume. Should any reader wish to consult them himself, let\nhim read, in addition to the passages inserted in this work, the whole\ntreatise, _De Regimine Principum_, the commentaries on the Epistle\nto the Romans, and those passages of the _Summa_ in which the holy\nDoctor treats of the soul, of the creation of man, of the state of\ninnocence, of the angels and of their hierarchy, of original sin and\nits effects, and, above all, his valuable Treatise on Laws and that on\nJustice, in which he discusses the origin of the right of property and\nof inflicting punishments. After that he will be convinced of the truth\nof what I have just advanced; he will then see the injustice of M. de\nLamennais in attempting to make the illustrious writers and saints\nvenerated on our altars the accomplices of his apostacy. In grave and\ndelicate matters confusion produces error, the enemies of truth are\ninterested in spreading darkness, in establishing general and vague\npropositions susceptible of various interpretations. They seek with\nanxiety a text favorable to some one of the numerous interpretations\nthat are possible, and proudly exclaim, \"How unjust it is in you to\ncondemn us; what we maintain was asserted centuries ago, by the most\nrespected and celebrated writers.\" The Abb\u00e9 de Lamennais must have\nreckoned in a singular manner upon the credulity of his readers, to\nthink of making them believe that there was no honest man to be found\nat Rome capable of informing the Pope, that in condemning the doctrines\nof the apostle of revolution, he was condemning also those of the angel\nof the schools, and other distinguished theologians. It is possible\nthat M. de Lamennais never read the authors except in haste and in\nfragments, but many persons at Rome have spent their lives in studying\nthem.\n\nWe are not ignorant of the violent declamations of Luther, Zwinglius,\nKnox, Jurieu, and other leaders of Protestantism, to stir up the\npeople to revolt against princes; we are not ignorant of the gross\nand violent invectives made use of by these sectaries to excite the\nmultitude. Catholics look upon such extravagances with horror. In like\nmanner, they look with dread upon the anarchical doctrine of Rousseau,\nestablishing that \"the clauses of the _social contract_ are so\ndetermined by the very nature of the act, that the _least modification_\nof them would render them _vain and null_; so that every one then\nresumes his former rights and regains his natural liberty\". (_Contrat\nSocial_, l. i. c. 6.) The doctrine of the theologians above cited does\nnot contain this fruitful germ of insurrection and disaster; but, on\nthe other hand, they are not found timid and pusillanimous in the last\nextremities. They preach up resignation, patience, and longanimity; but\nthere is a point at which they stop and exclaim, _Enough_. If they do\nnot advocate insurrection, they do not prohibit it; it would be in vain\nto require them to teach as a dogmatical truth the obligation of not\nresisting in extreme cases. They cannot teach the people to consider\nas a dogma what they do not acknowledge as such. It is not their fault\nif the tempest bursts, if the roaring waves arise; no other hand can\ncontrol them than that of God, who rides upon the north wind and sports\nwith the tempest.\n\nFor many centuries there has been inculcated in Europe a doctrine much\ncriticised by those who do not understand it, the intervention of the\nPontifical authority between the people and their sovereigns. This\ndoctrine was nothing less than Heaven descending as an arbiter and\njudge, to put an end to the disputes of the earth.\n\nThe temporal power of the Popes has served as a wonderful theme to\nthe enemies of the Church to create alarm, and declaim against Rome;\nbut this power is no less an historical fact and a social phenomenon,\nwhich has filled with admiration the most renowned men of modern\ntimes, including some Protestants. The Scriptures make it a duty\nfor slaves to obey their masters, even when they are oppressive and\nunjust. All that can be inferred from this is, that a prince, by the\nsimple fact of his being wicked, does not lose his authority over his\nsubjects, which condemns beforehand the errors of those who make the\nright of commanding dependent upon the sanctity of its possessor. Such\na principle is anarchical, and incompatible with the existence of\nevery society. When it is once established, power remains unsafe and\ntottering; every disturber declares all those divested of authority\nwhom he may deem culpable. But our question is of a different nature,\nand the opinion of theologians cited by us has nothing to do with this\nerror. These theologians also on their part advocate obedience to\nrulers, even though they be oppressive and unjust; they also condemn\ninsurrection, when founded on no other pretext than the vices of\npersons exercising supreme power; they do not admit that any abuse of\npower justifies resistance; but they do not consider that they impugn\nthe sacred text by admitting that in extreme cases it is allowable to\nplace a barrier against the excesses of a tyrant. \"If governments do\nnot lose their power by the simple fact of their being wicked, how,\"\nit will be said, \"can we conceive resistance to them lawful?\" This is\ncertainly not allowable, so long as they do not outstep the bounds of\ntheir faculties; but when they do so, their commands, as St. Thomas\nsays, are rather acts of violence than laws. \"No one has the right of\njudging the supreme power.\" This is true; but above this power exist\nthe principles of reason, morality, religion. Power, although supreme,\nis bound to the execution of its promises, to keep its oaths. Society\nis not formed upon the model of Rousseau's ideal _contract_; but there\nexist, in certain cases, real pacts between the rulers and the people,\nto which both are bound to adhere.\n\nIn the celebrated _Catholic Proclamation to his pious Majesty Philip\nthe Great, King of Spain and Emperor of the Indies by the Counsellors\nand the Council of One Hundred of the city of Barcelona_, in 1640, an\nepoch so profoundly religious that the Counsellors quote, as a high\ntitle of glory, _the zeal of the Catalonians for the Catholic faith,\nthe devotion of the Catalonians to our lady the Blessed Virgin and the\nmost holy Sacrament_;--at that time, which pride and ignorance have\nso often taxed with fanaticism, these counsellors said to the king,\n\"Besides civil obligation, the customs, constitutions, and acts of the\ncourt of Catalonia are binding on conscience, and to violate them would\nbe a mortal sin; for the prince has no right to annul a contract; it\nis made freely, but cannot be revoked without injustice. If a contract\nis not subject to the civil law, it is subject to the law of reason;\nand although the prince may be the master of the laws, the contracts he\nmakes with his vassals are inviolable, for in making them he is a mere\nindividual, and the vassal acquires a right equal to his. A contract,\nin fine, should be made between equals. Hence, as the vassal cannot be\nunfaithful to his lord, the latter, in like manner, is bound to keep\nthe promise he has made by solemn engagement; and indeed, the rupture\nof a pact ought least of all to be expected on the part of a prince.\nIf the word of a king is law, that word given in a solemn contract is\nstill more binding.\" (_Catholic Proclamation_, sect. 27.) The courtiers\nurged the monarch to measures of coercion to reduce the Catalonians to\nsubmission; the Castilian army was preparing to enter the principality.\nIn this extremity, after exhausting all means of representation and\nentreaty, the counsellors thus expressed themselves: \"Finally, men who\nhave vowed an inveterate hatred against the Catalonians have been so\nsuccessful in their continual persuasions, that the uprightness and\nequity of your majesty have been turned from the means of peace and\ntranquillity proposed by us, and which should have been admitted, were\nit only on the grounds of experience; and to fill up the cup of their\nmalice, they now lay your majesty under an obligation of oppressing\nthe principality still further, by sending an army to sack and pillage\nwherever the caprice of the soldier may lead him; which would place\nthis country in a position to say (were it not for the love it has\nborne, still bears, and ever will bear to your majesty) that such\na breach of sworn faith would leave it free, a thing of which the\nprovince is unwilling to think, and prays God to avert. Nevertheless,\nthe principality knows from experience that these soldiers have neither\nrespect nor pity for any thing or person, married women and innocent\nvirgins, temples, or God Himself, images of the Saints or the sacred\nvessels of our churches, nay, even the blessed Sacrament has twice this\nyear been committed to the flames by these soldiers. _The principality\nis, therefore, everywhere in arms to defend, in such an urgent and\nirremediable extremity, fortune, life, honor, liberty, home, laws, and\nabove all the sacred temples, the sacred images, and the holy Sacrament\nof the altar (be the same for ever praised). In such a case, the holy\ntheologians do not merely affirm that resistance is lawful, but still\nfurther, that all persons, whether lay or clerical, may take up arms to\navert the evil; that both secular and ecclesiastical property may and\nought to contribute to the defence; that the nations invaded may, as\nthe cause is universal, unite, confederate, and form juntas with a view\nto prevent such evils._\" (\u00a736)\n\nSuch was the language addressed to kings, at a time when religion\npredominated over all things. The counsellors, according to the usage\nof the time, took care to make marginal notes of the sources of their\ninformation; and we are not aware that their doctrines have ever been\ncondemned as heretical. These doctrines cannot, without manifest\ndishonesty, be confounded with those of many Protestants and modern\nrevolutionists. A cursory perusal of these writings will enable any\none to discover how widely they differ. By maintaining that it is\nnot allowable in any case, in the greatest extremities, not even\nwhen the most precious and sacred interests are at stake, to offer\nresistance to the civil power, the thrones of kings are thought to be\nstrengthened; for it is generally kings that are spoken of. But it\nshould be remembered, that this doctrine affects every other supreme\npower, under every form of government. Since the texts of Scripture\nrecommending obedience \"to the powers that be,\" do not allude to kings\nonly, but to all supreme powers, without exception or distinction, it\nfollows that resistance cannot in any case be offered to the president\nof a republic. Will it be said that the faculties of a president are\ndetermined? Are not the faculties of a king also determined? Are\nthere not, in absolute governments, laws fixing the limits of these\nfaculties? And is not this the distinction constantly employed by\nthe supporters of monarchy to repel the errors of their adversaries,\nwho confound monarchy with despotism? \"But,\" it will be said, \"the\npresident of a republic is only temporary.\" And what if he were\nperpetual? Besides, the faculties are neither increased nor diminished\nby the simple fact of their having to last a long or short period. If a\ncouncil, a man, a family, is invested with a certain right, by virtue\nof a certain law; with certain restrictions, but with certain contracts\nand oaths; such a council, such a man or such a family is bound to\nadhere to the oath taken, whatever be the extent of its duration,\ntemporary or perpetual. Such are the principles of natural right; so\ncertain and simple, that they cannot present any difficulty.\n\nTheologians, even those most attached to the Sovereign Pontiff, teach a\ndoctrine which we must notice here, on account of the analogy it bears\nto the point under discussion. It is known that the Pope, when speaking\n_ex cathedra_, is acknowledged to be infallible, but not as a simple\nindividual; and that, in this latter capacity, he might fall into\nheresy. In this case, theologians are of opinion that he would forfeit\nhis dignity; some maintaining that he ought to be deposed, others that\nhis deposition is the consequence of his having fallen from the faith.\nWhichever of these opinions be admitted, in this case resistance would\nbecome allowable, for this reason, that the Pope would have shamefully\ndeparted from the object of his institution, would have trampled on\nthe basis of the laws of the Church, which is her dogmas, and would\nconsequently have nullified the promises and oaths of obedience made to\nhim. Spedalieri, in adducing this argument, observes, that kings are\ncertainly not of higher rank than Popes,--that power has been granted\nto both _in \u00e6dificationem non in destructionem_; adding, that if\nSovereign Pontiffs authorize this doctrine with relation to themselves,\ntemporal sovereigns cannot object to its application to them.\n\nIt is strange that the monarchical zeal of Protestants and incredulous\nphilosophers imputes to the Catholic religion as a crime, that she has\nallowed it to be maintained within her bosom, that, in certain cases,\nthe subject may be released from his oath of allegiance; whilst other\nphilosophers of the same school reproach it with having sanctioned\ndespotism by its _detestable doctrine of non-resistance_, as Dr. Beatty\nexpresses it. _The direct, indirect, and declaratory powers of the\nPopes_ have served as an admirable bugbear to intimidate kings; the\ndangerous principles of theological works formed an excellent pretext\nfor raising the cry of alarm, for representing Catholicity as a nest of\nseditious maxims. The hour of revolutions was struck,--circumstances\nwere changed,--fresh necessities arose, and men adapted their language\nto the times. The Catholics, a short time before seditious and\nregicidal, were then declared abettors of despotism, fulsome adulators\nof civil power. Recently, the Jesuits, leagued with the infernal\npolicy of Rome, were everywhere undermining thrones, to establish on\ntheir ruins the universal monarchy of the Pope; but the secret of this\nhorrid plot was discovered, and fortunately so, for the world was\notherwise about to experience a frightful catastrophe. But now that\nthe Jesuits are expelled, and are expiating their crimes in exile, the\nFrench Revolution, the prelude to so many others, breaks out, and the\naspect of affairs changes immediately. Protestants and unbelievers, the\n_supporters of ancient discipline_, _the zealous adversaries of the\nabuses of the Court of Rome_, fully comprehending the new situation\nof affairs, hasten to conform to it. From that moment, the Jesuits,\nthe Catholics, the Pope, are no longer seditious or tyrannicides, but\nMachiavellian supporters of tyranny, enemies of the liberty of the\npeople; and just as a league had been supposed to exist between the\nJesuits and the Pope for the foundation of a universal theocracy,\nthere is now discovered, thanks to the investigations of these eminent\nphilosophers and _strict, incorruptible Christians_, _an infamous\npact between the Pope and kings_ to oppress, enslave, and degrade the\nunfortunate human race.\n\nThe answer to this enigma may be thus briefly expressed. So long as\nkings maintain their power and the peaceable possession of their\nthrones, so long as Providence restrains the tempest, and the monarch,\nraising his proud head towards heaven, commands the people with a lofty\nair, the Catholic Church does not flatter him. \"Thou art dust,\" she\nsays to him, \"and into dust thou shalt return; power was given thee\nnot unto destruction, but unto edification; thy faculties are great,\nbut not boundless. God is thy judge, as well as that of the lowest of\nthy subjects.\" The Church is then accused of insolence; and if any\ntheologian should venture to investigate the origin of civil power,\nto point out, with generous freedom, the duties to which this power\nis subject; to write, in a word, with prudence upon public right, but\nwithout servility, the Catholics are then declared seditious. But the\ntempest bursts, thrones are overturned, revolution prevails, spills the\nblood of the people in torrents, cuts off royal heads, and all in the\nname of liberty. The Church says: \"This is no liberty, but a succession\nof crimes; the fraternity and equality which I have taught, were never\nyour orgies and guillotines.\" The Church then becomes a vile flatterer;\nher words, her actions, have indubitably revealed that the Sovereign\nPontiff is the surest anchor of despotism; it has been proved that the\nCourt of Rome has been polluted by an infamous pact.[33]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LVII.\n\nPOLITICAL SOCIETY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.\n\n\nWe have already seen what has been the conduct of the Christian\nreligion with respect to society; that is to say, that not caring\nwhether such or such political forms were established in a country,\nshe has ever addressed herself to man, seeking to enlighten his\nunderstanding and to purify his heart, fully confident that when these\nobjects were attained, society would naturally pursue a safe course.\nThis is sufficient to obliterate the reproach imputed to her of being\nan enemy to the liberty of the people.\n\nProtestantism has certainly never revealed to the world a single\ndogma which exalts the dignity of man, nor created fresh motives\nof consideration and respect, or closer bonds of fraternity. The\nReformation cannot, therefore, boast of having given the least impetus\nto the progress of modern nations; it cannot, consequently, lay the\nleast claim to the gratitude of the people in this respect. But as\nit frequently happens that people lay aside main points and set a\ngreat value on appearances; and as Protestantism has been supposed\nto accord much better than Catholicity with those institutions in\nwhich it is usual to find guarantees for a high degree of liberty; we\nmust draw a parallel. Besides, we cannot omit it without betraying an\nignorance of the genius of this age, and authorizing the suspicion that\nCatholicity cannot derive any advantage from such a comparison. In the\nfirst place, I will observe, that those who look upon Protestantism as\ninseparable from public liberty do not in this respect agree with M.\nGuizot, who cannot certainly be accused of any want of sympathy for the\nReformation. \"In Germany,\" says this celebrated publicist, \"far from\ndemanding political liberty, it has accepted, I should not like to say\npolitical servitude, _but the absence of liberty_.\" (_Hist. G\u00e9n. de la\nCivil. en Eur._ le\u00e7. 12.)\n\nI quote M. Guizot, because in Spain we are so accustomed to\ntranslations, because we Spaniards have been led to suppose, that\nthe best thing for us is to believe foreigners on their bare word;\nbecause amongst us, in questions of importance, it is necessary to\nhave recourse to foreign authorities; and hence, a writer who appears\nto slight such authorities, exposes himself to the risk of being\ntreated as an ignoramus, as one behind the age. Besides, with a certain\nclass of writers, the authority of M. Guizot is decisive. In fact, a\nmultitude of publications have appeared amongst us bearing the title\nof \"Philosophy of History,\" whose authors, it is quite clear, have\nused the works of that French writer as their text-books. Is this\nassertion, that Protestantism is the natural bulwark of liberty, true\nor false, accurate or inaccurate? What do history and philosophy teach\nus on this point? Has Protestantism advanced the popular cause, by\ncontributing to the establishment and development of liberal forms of\ngovernment? To place the question in its true light, and discuss it\nthoroughly, we must take a view of the state of Europe at the close\nof the fifteenth century, and at the beginning of the sixteenth. It\nis incontestable that individuals and society were then making rapid\nprogress towards perfection. We have sufficient evidence of this fact\nin the wonderful march of intellect at this period, in the numerous\nmeasures of improvement effected at that epoch, and in the better\norganization everywhere introduced. This organization is doubtless\nstill imperfect; but it is nevertheless such as cannot be likened\nto that of former times. If we carefully examine into the state of\nsociety at that epoch, as represented either in the writings or in the\nevents of the time, we shall observe a certain restlessness, anxiety,\nand fermentation, which, while they indicated the existence of vast\nwants not yet satisfied, were evidence also of a tolerably distinct\nknowledge of those wants. Far from discovering in the men of that\nperiod a contempt or forgetfulness of their rights and dignity, or any\ndiscouragement and pusillanimity at the sight of obstacles, we find\nthem abounding in foresight and ingenuity, swayed by lofty and sublime\nthoughts, fired with noble sentiments, and animated with intrepid and\nardent courage. The progress of European society at that epoch was very\nrapid; three very remarkable circumstances contributed to render it so:\n1. The introduction of the whole body of men to the rank of citizens,\nas a necessary consequence of the abolition of slavery and the decline\nof feudality; 2. The very nature of civilization, in which every thing\nadvances together and abreast; 3. In fine, the existence of a means\nfor increasing its development and rapidity--this means was the art of\nprinting. To make use of a physico-mathematical expression, we may say,\nthat the amount of motion must have been very considerable, since it\nwas the product of the mass by the rapidity, and that the mass, as well\nas the rapidity, were then very considerable.\n\nThis powerful movement, which proceeds from good, is in itself good,\nand is productive of good, is, however, accompanied by inconveniences\nand perils; it raises flattering hopes, but it also inspires\napprehensions and fears. The people of Europe are an ancient people,\nbut they may be said to have become young again; their inclinations,\ntheir wants, urge them to great enterprises; and they enter upon them\nwith the ardor of an impetuous and inexperienced young man, feeling in\nhis breast a great heart, and in his head the lively spark of genius.\nIn this situation, a great problem presents itself for solution, viz.,\nto find the most proper means for directing society without impeding\nits progress; and for conducting it by a way free from precipices\nto the objects of its aim, _intelligence_, _morality_, _felicity_.\nA slight glance at this problem startles us at its immense extent;\nso numerous are the objects it embraces, the relations it bears, the\nobstacles and difficulties with which it is beset. Considering this\nquestion attentively, and comparing it with man's weakness, the mind is\nready to lose courage and despond. The problem, however, exists, not as\na scientific speculation, but as a real and urgent necessity. In such\na case, society is like individuals; it attempts, essays, and makes\nefforts to get clear of the difficulty as well as possible.\n\nMan's civil state improves daily; but to maintain this improvement, and\nto perfect it, requires a means: and this is the problem of _political\nforms_. What ought these forms to be? And, above all, what elements can\nwe make use of? What is the respective force of these elements? What\nare their tendencies, their relations, their affinities? How shall they\nbe combined? _Monarchy_, _Aristocracy_, _Democracy_--these three powers\npresent themselves at the same time to dispute for the direction and\ngovernment of society. They are certainly not equal, either in force,\nmeans of action, or in practical intelligence; but they all command\nour respect, they have all pretensions to a preponderance more or less\ndecisive, and none of them are without the probability of obtaining it.\nThis simultaneous concurrence of pretensions, this rivalship of three\npowers so different in their nature and aim, forms one of the leading\nfeatures of this epoch. It is, as it were, in a great measure the key\nto the principal events; and, in spite of the various aspects presented\nby this feature, it may be signalized as a general fact among all the\ncivilized portion of the nations of Europe.\n\nBefore proceeding further in our examination of this subject, the mere\nindication of such a fact suggests the reflection, that it must be very\nincorrect to say that Catholicity has tendencies opposed to the true\nliberty of the people; for we see that European civilization, which,\nduring so many ages, was under the influence and guardianship of this\nreligion, did not then present one single principle of government\nexclusively predominating. Survey the whole of Europe at this period,\nand you will not find one country in which the same fact did not\nexist. In Spain, France, England, Germany, under the names of Cortes,\nStates-General, Parliaments, or Diets; the same thing everywhere, with\nthe simple modifications which necessarily result from circumstances\nadapted to each people. What is very remarkable in this case is, that\nif there be a single exception, it is in favor of liberty; and, strange\nto say, it exists precisely in Italy, where the influence of the Popes\nis immediately felt. The names of the Republics of Genoa, Pisa, Sienna,\nFlorence, Venice, are familiar to all. It is well known that Italy is\nthe country in which popular forms at that period gained most ground,\nand in which they were put in practice, whilst in other countries they\nhad already abandoned the field. I do not mean to say that the Italian\nRepublics were a model worthy of being imitated by the other nations of\nEurope. I am well aware that these forms of government were attended\nwith grave inconveniences; but since so much is said of _spirit_ and\n_tendencies_, since the Catholic Church is reproached with her affinity\nto despotism, and the Popes with a _taste_ for oppression, it is well\nto adduce those facts which may serve to throw some doubt upon certain\nauthoritative assertions, adduced as so many philosophico-historical\ndogmas. If Italy preserved her independence in spite of the efforts of\nthe Emperors of Germany to wrest it from her, she owed it in a great\npart to the firmness and energy of the Popes.\n\nIn order to comprehend fully the relations which Catholicity bears to\npolitical institutions, in order to ascertain what degree of affinity\nit bears to such and such forms, and to form a correct idea of the\ninfluence of Protestantism in this respect over European civilization,\nwe must examine carefully and in detail each of the elements claiming\npreponderance. When we examine them afterwards in their relations with\neach other, we will ascertain, as far as possible, where the truth lies\nin this shapeless mass. Every one of these three may be considered in\ntwo ways: 1. According to the ideas formed of them at the period we are\nspeaking of; 2. According to the interests these elements represent,\nand the part they play in society. We must lay particular stress upon\nthis distinction, without which we should expose ourselves to the\ncommission of serious errors. In fact, the ideas which were entertained\nupon such or such principles of government did not coincide with the\ninterest represented by this same element, and with the part it acted\nin society; and although it is clear that these two things must have\nhad very close relations with each other, and could not be disengaged\nfrom a real and reciprocal influence, yet it is most certain that they\ndiffer considerably, and that this difference, the source of very\nvarious considerations, shows the subject in points of view quite\ndissimilar.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LVIII.\n\nMONARCHY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.\n\n\nThe idea of monarchy has ever existed in the bosom of European society,\neven at the time when the least use was made of it; and it is worthy\nof remark, that at the time when its energy was taken away, and it\nwas destroyed in practice, it still retained its force in theory. We\ncannot say that our ancestors had any very fixed notions upon the\nnature of the object represented by this idea; nor can we wonder\nat it, since the continual variations and modifications which they\nwitnessed must have prevented them from forming any very correct\nknowledge of it. Nevertheless, if we peruse the codes in places where\nmonarchy is treated of, and if we consult the writings which have been\npreserved upon this matter, we shall find that their ideas on this\npoint were more fixed than might have been imagined. By studying the\nmanner of thinking of this period, we find that men in general were\nalmost destitute of analytical knowledge, being more erudite than\nphilosophical; so much so, that they scarcely ventured to express\nan idea without supporting it by a multitude of authorities. This\ntaste for erudition, which is visible at the first glance into their\nwritings--a mere tissue of quotations--and which must have been very\nnatural, since it was so general and lasting, had very advantageous\nresults; not the least of which was the uniting of ancient with\nmodern society, by the preservation of a great number of records and\nmemorials, which, had it not been for this public taste, must have been\ndestroyed, and by exhuming from the dust the remains of antiquity about\nto perish. But, on the other hand, it produced many evils; amongst\nothers, a sort of stifling of thought, which could no longer indulge in\nits own inspirations, although they may have been more happy than the\nancient ones on some points.\n\nHowever it may be, such is the fact: on examining it in relation to the\nmatter under discussion, we find that monarchy was represented at that\ntime as one single picture, in which there appeared at the same time\nthe kings of the Jews and the Roman emperors, whose features had been\ncorrected by the hand of Christianity. That is to say, the principles\nof monarchy were composed of the teachings of Scripture and the Roman\ncodes. Seek every where the idea of emperor, king, or prince, you\nwill always find the same thing, whether you look for the origin of\npower, its extent, its exercise, or its object. But what ideas were\nentertained of monarchy? What was the acceptation of this word? Taken\nin a general sense, abstractedly from the various modifications which\na variety of circumstances gave to its signification, it meant, _the\nsupreme command over society, vested in the hands of one man, who was\nto exercise it according to reason and justice_. This was the leading\nidea, the only one fixed, as a sort of pole, round which all other\nquestions revolved. Did the monarch possess in himself the faculty\nof making laws without consulting general assemblies, which, under\ndifferent names, represented the different classes of the kingdom? From\nthe moment that we propose this question we come upon new ground. We\nhave descended from theory to practice; we have brought our ideas into\ncontact with the object to which they are to be applied. From that\nmoment, we must allow, every thing vacillates and becomes obscure; a\nthousand incoherent, strange, and contradictory facts pass before our\neyes; the parchments upon which are inscribed the rights, liberties,\nand laws of the people give rise to a variety of interpretations, which\nmultiply doubts and increase difficulties. We see, in the first place,\nthat the relations of the monarch with the subject, or, more properly\nspeaking, the mode in which government should be exercised, was not\nvery well defined. The confusion from which society was emerging was\nstill felt, and was inevitable in an aggregation of heterogeneous\nbodies, in a combination of rival and hostile elements; that is, we\ndiscover an embryo, and consequently it is impossible as yet to find\nregular and well-defined forms.\n\nDid this idea of monarchy contain any thing of despotism, any thing\nthat subjected one man to the dominion of another by setting aside the\neternal laws of reason and justice? No; from the moment that we touch\nupon this point we discover a new horizon, clear and transparent, upon\nwhich objects present themselves distinctly, without a shade of dimness\nor obscurity. The answer of all writers is decisive: Rule ought to be\nconformable to reason and justice; if it is not, it is mere tyranny.\nSo that the principle maintained by M. Guizot, in his _Discours sur la\nDemocratie moderne_, and in his _History of Civilisation in Europe_,\nviz. that the will alone does not constitute a right; that laws, to\nbe laws, should accord with those of eternal reason, the only source\nof all legitimate power;--that this principle, I say, which we might\nimagine to be newly applied to society, is as ancient as the world.\nAcknowledged by ancient philosophers, developed, inculcated, and\napplied by Christianity, we find it in every page of jurists and\ntheologians.\n\nBut we know what this principle was worth in the monarchies of\nantiquity, and also in our own days in countries where Christianity has\nnot yet been established. Who, in such countries, presumes continually\nto remind kings of their obligation to be just? Observe, on the\ncontrary, what is the case among Christians: the words 'reason' and\n'justice' are constantly in the mouth of the subject, because he knows\nthat no one has a right to treat him unreasonably or unjustly; and this\nhe knows, because Christianity has impressed him with a profound idea\nof his own dignity, because it has accustomed him to look upon reason\nand justice, not as vain words, but as eternal characters engraven on\nthe heart of man by the hand of God, perpetually reminding man that,\nalthough he is a frail creature, subject to error and to weakness,\nhe is, nevertheless, stamped with the image of eternal truth and of\nimmutable justice. If any one should question the truth of what I\nhave advanced, it will suffice, to convince him, to remind him of the\nnumerous texts previously cited in this work, and in which the most\neminent Catholic writers bear testimony to their manner of thinking on\nthe origin and faculties of civil power.\n\nSo much for ideas; as for facts, they vary according to times and\ncountries. During the incursions of the barbarians, and so long as the\nfeudal system prevailed, monarchy remained much beneath its typical\nidea; but during the course of the sixteenth century, matters assumed\na different aspect. In Germany, France, England, and Spain, powerful\nmonarchs were reigning, who filled the world with the fame of their\nnames; in their presence aristocracy and democracy bowed with humility;\nor if by chance they ventured to raise their heads, it was only to\nsuffer still greater degradation. The throne, it is true, had not yet\nattained that ascendency of power and importance which it acquired in\nthe following century; but its destiny was irrevocably fixed--power\nand glory awaited it. Aristocracy and democracy might have labored to\ntake part in future events; but it would have been labor in vain for\nthem to attempt to appropriate them. A fixed and powerful centre was\nessential to European society, and monarchy completely satisfied this\nimperative necessity. The people understood and felt it; hence we find\nthem eagerly grasping at this saving principle, and placing themselves\nunder the safeguard of the throne.\n\nThe question is not, therefore, whether or not the throne ought to\nexist, or whether it ought to preponderate over aristocracy and\ndemocracy: these two questions have been already resolved. At the\ncommencement of the sixteenth century, its existence and preponderance\nwere already necessary. The question to be resolved is, whether the\nthrone ought so decisively to have prevailed, that the two elements,\naristocracy and democracy, should be erased from the political world;\nwhether the combination which had hitherto existed was still to exist:\nor, whether these two elements should disappear; whether monarchical\npower should be absolute. The Church resisted royal power when it\nattempted to lay hands upon sacred things; but her zeal never carried\nher so far as to depreciate, in the eyes of the people, an authority\nwhich was so essential to them. On the contrary, besides continually\ngiving to the power of kings a more solid basis, by her doctrines\nfavorable to all legitimate authority, she endeavored to give them\na still more sacred character by the august ceremonies displayed at\ntheir coronations. The Church has been sometimes accused of anarchical\ntendencies, for having energetically struggled against the pretensions\nof sovereigns; by some, on the contrary, she has been reproached with\nfavoring despotism, because she preached up to the people the duty\nof obedience to the _lawful_ authorities. If I mistake not, these\naccusations, so opposite to each other, prove that the Church has\nneither been adulatory nor anarchical; she has maintained the balance\neven, by telling the truth both to kings and their subjects.\n\nLet the spirit of sectarianism seek, on all sides, historical facts,\nto prove that the Popes have attempted to destroy civil monarchy by\nconfiscating it to their own profit. But let us bear in mind what the\nProtestant M\u00fcller says, that the Father of the faithful was, during the\nbarbarous ages, a tutor sent by God to the European nations; and let\nus not be astonished to find that differences have sometimes occurred\nbetween him and his pupils. To discover the intention which dictated\nthese reproaches against the Court of Rome, relative to monarchy, we\nneed only reflect upon the following question. All writers consider as\na great benefit the creation of a strong central authority, and yet\ncircumscribed within just limits that it may not abuse its power; they\nlaud to the skies every thing tending, directly or indirectly, among\nall the nations of Europe, to establish such an authority. Why, then,\nwhen speaking of the conduct of Popes, do they attribute to a pretended\ntaste for despotism the support which they give to royal authority,\nwhilst they qualify with anarchical usurpation their efforts to\nrestrain, upon certain points, the faculties of sovereigns? The answer\nis not difficult.[34]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LIX.\n\nTHE ARISTOCRACY OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.\n\n\nThe aristocracy, as including the privileged portion of society,\ncomprehended two classes very distinct in their origin and nature,\nthe nobility and the clergy. Both abounded in power and riches; both\nwere placed far above the people, and were important wheels in the\npolitical machine. There was, however, this remarkable difference\nbetween them, that the principal basis of the power and grandeur of\nthe Clergy was religious ideas--ideas which circulated throughout\nsociety, which animated it, gave it life, and consequently insured\nfor a long time the preponderance of the ecclesiastical power; whilst\nthe grandeur and influence of the nobles rested solely upon a fact\nnecessarily transient, viz. the social organization of the epoch--an\norganization which was becoming rapidly modified, since the people were\nthen struggling to liberate themselves from the bonds of feudalism. I\ndo not mean, that the nobles did not possess legitimate rights to the\npower and influence which they exercised; but merely that the principal\nportion of these rights, even supposing them founded upon the most just\nlaws and titles, was not necessarily connected with any of the great\nconservative principles of society--those principles which invest with\nan immense force and ascendency the person or class which in any way\nrepresents them. But we touch here upon a subject little investigated,\nand upon the explanation of which depends the comprehension of great\nsocial facts. It is well, therefore, to develop it fully, and to\nexamine it attentively.\n\nOf what was monarchy the representative? Of a principle eminently\nconservative of society--a principle which has withstood all the\nattacks of theories and revolutions, and to which have been attached,\nas the only anchor of safety, those very nations in the bosom of which\ndemocratical ideas were diffused, and in which liberal institutions\noriginated. This is one of the causes why monarchy, even in its most\ncalamitous times, triumphed over its disasters. Feudal pride, and the\nunsettled state of the times, with the agitation of rising democracy,\nunited to oppress it; scarcely was its power distinguishable amid\nthe troubled waves of society, like the broken mast of a shipwrecked\nvessel. But, even at this time, we find the ideas of force and power\nbound to those of monarchy. Regal dignity was trampled under foot and\noutraged in various ways, but still held sacred and recognised as\ninviolable. Theory was not in accordance with practice; the idea was\nmore forcible than the fact which it expressed: but we need not be\nastonished at this phenomenon, since such is always the character of\nideas producing great changes. They are, at first, merely visible in\nsociety; they spread, take root, and penetrate into all institutions;\ntime continues to prepare the way; and if the idea is just and moral,\nif it point to the satisfaction of a want, the moment at length comes\nin which facts give way, the idea triumphs, and bends and humbles\nall before it. This was the case, in the sixteenth century, with\nregard to monarchy; under one form or another, with greater or less\nmodifications, it was actually essential to the people, as it is still;\nand for this reason it naturally prevailed over all its adversaries,\nand survived all accidents.\n\nWith respect to the clergy, we need not attempt to show that they were\nthe representatives of the religious principle--a real social necessity\nfor all the nations of the earth, when taken in its general sense; and\na real social necessity for the nations of Europe, when taken in its\nChristian sense.\n\nWe have already seen that the nobility could not be compared either\nto monarchy or to the clergy, since they were destitute of the high\nprinciples represented by each of these bodies. Extensive privileges,\nand the ancient possession of great estates, with the guarantee of the\nlaws and customs of the time; glorious traditions of military feats,\npompous names, titles, and escutcheons of illustrious ancestors; such\nwere the insignia of the lay aristocracy. But nothing of all this had\nany direct and essential relation with the great wants of society.\nThe nobility depended upon a particular organization, necessarily\ntransient; they were too nearly allied to a law purely positive and\nhuman, to be able to reckon upon a long duration, or to flatter\nthemselves with success in all their pretensions and exigencies. It\nwill be objected, perhaps, that the existence of an intermediate\nclass between the monarch and the people is an essential necessity,\nacknowledged by all publicists, and founded upon the very nature of\nthings. In fact, we have seen that in nations from which the ancient\naristocracy has disappeared, a new one has been formed, either by the\ncourse of events or by the action of governments. But this objection\nis not applicable to the question in the point of view under which I\nconsider it. I do not deny the necessity of an intermediate class;\nI merely affirm that the ancient nobility, such as it was, did not\ncontain elements to ensure its duration, since it was liable to be\nreplaced by another, as it has been in effect. The classes of the\nlaity acquire their political and social importance from a superiority\nof intellect and force; this superiority no longer existing in the\nnobility, its fall was inevitable. At the beginning of the sixteenth\ncentury the throne and the people daily acquired a greater ascendency;\nthe former became the centre of all social forces, and the people were\nconstantly enriching themselves by industry and commerce. With regard\nto learning, the discovery of printing, as it became general, prevented\nit from being henceforth the exclusive patrimony of any particular\nclass.\n\nIt was evident, therefore, that the nobility perceived, at this\nepoch, their ancient power escaping, and possessed no other means of\npreserving a part of it than to struggle to preserve the titles which\nit had given them. Unfortunately for them, their wealth was daily\ndecreasing, not only from the dilapidations occasioned by luxury,\nbut also from the extraordinary increase of non-territorial riches;\nthe profound changes wrought in the value of every thing by means of\nthe reorganization of society and the discovery of America caused\nimmovable property to lose much of its importance. If the force of\nlanded property was gradually diminishing, the rights of jurisdiction\nwere marching still more rapidly towards their ruin. On one hand,\nthese rights were opposed by the power of kings; and, on the other, by\nmunicipalities and other centres of action possessed by the popular\nelement; so that, in spite of the most profound respect for acquired\nrights, and merely by allowing things to take their ordinary course,\nthe ancient nobility was inevitably sunk to that point of depression in\nwhich it now exists. This could not happen to the clergy. Despoiled of\ntheir wealth, entirely or partially deprived of their privileges, there\nstill remained for them the ministry of religion. No one could exercise\nthis ministry without them; which was sufficient to insure them great\ninfluence in spite of all commotions and changes.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LX.\n\nON DEMOCRACY.\n\n\nSuch was the situation of Europe during the centuries preceding\nthe sixteenth, that it appears difficult to find for democracy a\nwell-defined place in political theories. Stifled by the established\npowers, deprived as yet of the resources which, in time, gave it\nthe ascendency, it was natural it should be almost unobserved by\npoliticians. It was in reality very feeble; and it was not, therefore,\nsurprising that, owing to the influence of reality over ideas,\ntheorists should regard the people merely as an abject portion of\nsociety, unworthy of honors or happiness, and fit only to labor and\nto serve. It is, however, worthy of remark, that ideas from that time\ntook a new direction; it may even be affirmed that they were infinitely\nmore elevated and more generous than facts. This is one of the most\nconvincing proofs of the intellectual development that Christianity\nhad operated amongst men--one of the most unexceptionable testimonies\nin favor of that profound sentiment of reason and justice which it\nhad deposited in the heart of society. Now these elements were not to\nbe stifled by events the most unfavorable, nor by the rudest shocks;\nfor they were supported upon the very dogmas of religion, which still\nremain firm, in spite of all commotion, as an immovable axis remains\nfixed in the midst of broken machinery.\n\nIn perusing the writings of this epoch, we find established, as an\nindubitable fact, the right of the people to the administration of\njustice; they were not to be irritated by any vexatious regulations;\nthe public imposts were to be equally divided; no one was to be forced\nto do any thing contrary to reason or the well-being of society:\nthat is to say, these writers acknowledged and established all those\nprinciples upon which were to be based the laws and customs destined\none day to produce civil liberty. This is so true, that, in proportion\nas circumstances permitted, these principles were rapidly and\nextensively developed; vast and numerous applications were immediately\nmade of them; and civil liberty took such deep root among the people\nof modern Europe, that it has never been erased from their bosoms; and\nwe see it preserved in forms of absolute government as well as in the\nmixed forms.\n\nTo complete my demonstration, that the ideas in favor of the people\nproceeded from Christianity, I will adduce a reason which appears to me\ndecisive. The philosophy adopted by the schools of that period was that\nof Aristotle. Aristotle's authority was of great weight; he was called\nby an autonomasia, _the Philosopher_; a good commentary of his works\nwas considered the highest point to be attained in these matters. And\nyet, so far as the relations of society were concerned, the doctrines\nof the Stagyrite were not adopted; Christian writers took a higher and\nmore generous view of mankind. Aristotle's degrading doctrines upon man\nborn to servitude, destined to this end even by nature, anterior to all\nlegislation; his horrible doctrines upon infanticide; his theories,\nwhich at one blow deprived all those who professed the mechanical arts\nof the title of citizen; in a word, those monstrous systems, which\nthe ancient philosophers unconsciously learned from the society which\nsurrounded them, were utterly rejected by Christian philosophers. The\nman who had just perused Aristotle's work on Politics took up his\nBible, or the works of the Fathers: the authority of Aristotle was\ngreat, but that of the Church was still greater; the works of the\npagan philosopher must be interpreted piously, or abandoned; in either\ncase the rights of humanity were saved, and this was an effect of the\npreponderating force of the Catholic faith.\n\nThe system of castes most forcibly contributes to arrest the\ndevelopment of the popular element, by condemning the majority of the\npeople of a country to a state of perpetual abjection and slavery. In\nthis system, honors, riches, and command are confined and transferred\nfrom father to son; a barrier separates men from each other, and\nends in causing the most powerful to be considered as belonging to a\nsuperior class of beings. The Church has ever opposed the introduction\nof so fatal a system, and to apply the word _caste_ to the clergy\nwould betray an ignorance of its meaning. On this subject M. Guizot\nhas done ample justice to the cause of truth. He expresses himself in\nthe following manner in the fifth lecture of his _Histoire g\u00e9n\u00e9rale\nde la Civilisation en Europe_: \"With regard to the mode of formation\nand transmission of power in the Church, there is a word,\" says\nhe, \"much used in speaking of the Christian clergy, and which I am\nunder the obligation of discarding; it is the word _caste_. The body\nof ecclesiastical magistrates has often been called a caste. This\nexpression is not correct; the idea of heirship is inherent in that\nof _caste_. Travel over the world; take all those countries in which\nthe system of _castes_ exists, in India, in Egypt, you will find\neverywhere the _caste_ essentially hereditary; it is the transmission\nof the same situation, of the same power, from father to son. Where\nheirship does not exist, there is no caste, there is a corporation;\nthe spirit of corporate bodies has its inconveniences, but it is very\ndifferent from that of castes. The word caste cannot be applied to\nthe Christian Church. The celibacy of the clergy has prevented them\nfrom becoming a caste. You perceive already the consequences of this\ndifference. A system of _caste_, and the existence of hereditary\nsuccession, inevitably involve the idea of privileges. The very\ndefinition of a _caste_ implies privileges. When the same functions,\nthe same powers, become hereditary in the same families, it is evident\nthat privileges follow, and that no one can acquire such functions and\npowers unless he is born to them. This, in fact, is what has taken\nplace: wherever religious government has fallen into the hands of a\ncaste, it has become a privilege; no one has been permitted to enter\nit but the members of families belonging to the caste. Nothing of this\nhas ever occurred in the Christian Church; on the contrary, she has\never maintained the equal admissibility of all men, whatever their\norigin, to all her functions, to all her dignities. The ecclesiastical\nstate, particularly from the fifth to the twelfth century, was open\nto all. The Church was recruited from all ranks, from the inferior as\nwell as from the superior,--more commonly even from the inferior. She\nalone resisted the system of castes; she alone maintained the principle\nof equality of competition; she alone called all legitimate superiors\nto the possession of power. This is the first grand result naturally\nproduced by the fact that she was a corporation, and not a caste.\"\n\nThis splendid passage of the French writer completely vindicates\nthe Catholic Church from the reproach of exclusiveness with which\nit had been attempted to stain her; it presents to me also the\nopportunity of making some reflections upon the beneficial effects\nof Catholicity upon the development of civilization in favor of the\nplebeian classes. We are not ignorant of the numerous declamations\nagainst religious celibacy which have proceeded from the mouths of\nthe pretended defenders of the rights of humanity; but is it not\nstrange that they forget, as M. Guizot justly observes, that celibacy\nis exactly what has prevented the Christian clergy from becoming a\ncaste? Let us examine, in fact, what would have been the case on the\ncontrary supposition. At the time to which we refer, the ascendency\nof religious power was unlimited, and the wealth of the Church\nconsiderable; that is to say, she possessed every thing necessary\nfor enabling a caste to establish its preponderance and stability.\nWhat further was needful, therefore? Hereditary succession, nothing\nmore; and this would have been established by the marriage of the\nclergy. What I here affirm is no vain conjecture, it is a positive\nfact, which I can render evident by bringing forward historical proof.\nFrom certain remarkable regulations in ecclesiastical legislation,\nwe learn that it required all the energy of pontifical authority to\nprevent this succession from being introduced. Every thing, in fine,\ntended to such an end; and if the Church preserved itself from such\na calamity, it was owing to the horror which she always entertained\nof this fatal custom. Read the 17th chapter of the first book of the\nDecretals of Gregory IX.; the pontifical regulations therein contained\nprove that the evil here spoken of presented alarming symptoms. The\npope makes use of the strongest terms possible to be found: \"_Ad\nenormitatem istam eradicandam_,\" \"observato Apostolici rescripti\ndecreto _quod successionem in Ecclesia Dei hereditariam detestatur_.\"\n\"_Ad extirpandas successiones a sanctis Dei Ecclesiis studio totius\nsollicitudinis debemus intendere._\" \"Quia igitur in Ecclesia\nsuccessiones, et in pr\u00e6laturis et dignitatibus ecclesiasticis _statutis\ncanonicis damnantur_.\" These expressions, and others of a like\nnature, clearly show that the danger was already considered serious,\nand justify the prudence of the Holy See in reserving to itself the\nexclusive right of granting dispensations on this point.\n\nIt required the continual vigilance of the pontifical authority to\nprevent this abuse from making daily progress, for it was urged on\nby the most powerful feelings of nature. Four centuries had elapsed\nsince these measures had been taken, and yet we find that, in 1533,\nPope Clement VII. was obliged to restrict a canon of Alexander III.\nin order to prevent grave scandals, grievously lamented by the pious\nPontiff. Suppose that the Church had not opposed such an abuse with all\nher force, and that the custom had become general; bear in mind also,\nthat in those ages of the grossest ignorance, the privileged classes\nwere every thing, and the people had scarcely a civil existence; and\nsee whether there would not have been formed an ecclesiastical caste\nalong with that of the nobility, and whether both, united by the bonds\nof family and common interest, would not have opposed an invincible\nobstacle to the ulterior development of the plebeian class, plunging\nEuropean society into that degradation in which Asiatic society now\nexists. Such would have been the consequence of the marriage of the\nclergy, if the pretended reform had been realized a few centuries\nsooner. When it came, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, it\nfound European society in a great measure formed; it had to contend\nagainst an adult, who could not easily be made to forget his ideas and\nchange his habits. What has actually taken place may lead us to infer\nwhat would have taken place. In England, a close alliance was formed\nbetween the lay aristocracy and the Protestant clergy; and what is very\nremarkable, we have seen, and we still see, in that country, something\nresembling castes, with the modifications which must necessarily ensue\nfrom the great development of a certain kind of civilization and\nliberty at which Great Britain has arrived.\n\nIf the clergy in the middle age, establishing their perpetuity by\nhereditary succession, had constituted themselves an exclusive class,\nwould not the aristocratic alliance of which we are speaking have\nbeen a natural consequence? And who would thenceforth have been able\nto break this alliance? The enemies of the Church interpret all her\ndiscipline, and even some of her dogmas, by imputing to her ulterior\ndesigns; and hence they consider the law of celibacy as the result\nof an interested design. It was easy to see, however, that if the\nChurch had entertained worldly views, she might have selected as a\nmodel those priests of other religions who have formed a separate,\npreponderating, and exclusive class, for which the severity of duty\ndid not form a brazen wall against the enjoyments of nature. Europe,\nit will be objected, is not Asia. This is true; but the Europe of our\ndays, and even that of the sixteenth century, is no longer the Europe\nof the middle ages. In those centuries, in which none but the clergy\ncould read and write, and in which knowledge was exclusively in their\npossession, had they wished to plunge the world into darkness, they\nhad only to extinguish the torch with which they were enlightening it.\nIt is also very certain, that celibacy has given to the clergy a moral\nforce and ascendency which they could not have attained by any other\nmeans. But this only proves that the Church has preferred moral to\nphysical power, and that the spirit of her institutions is to act by\nexercising a direct influence upon the intelligence and heart of man.\nNow, is it not eminently praiseworthy to use all possible moral means\nfor the direction of mankind? Is it not an honor to the Catholic clergy\nto have accomplished, by institutions severe against themselves, what\nthey might have realized in part by systems indulgent to their own\npassions and degrading to others? Oh, we see here the work of Him who\nwill remain with His Church till the end of the world.\n\nWhatever may be the value of these reflections, it cannot be contested,\nthat where Christianity has not existed, the people have been the\nvictims of a small number, whose contempt and insults have been the\nonly recompense of their labors. Consult history and experience;\nthe fact is general and constant; there is not an exception even in\nthose ancient republics so vaunted for their liberty. Under liberal\nforms, slavery existed; a slavery properly so called for some men;\na slavery glossed over with fine appearances for that turbulent\nmultitude who served the caprice of the Tribunes, and believed they\nwere exercising their sublime rights by condemning to ostracism or\nto death the most virtuous citizens. It has sometimes happened that,\namong the Christians, appearances were not in favor of liberty, but\nthings were so in reality, if we understand by the word liberty the\nempire of just laws, aiming at the well-being of the multitude, and\nfounded upon the consideration and profound respect due to the rights\nof mankind. Observe the grand phases of European society at the time\nwhen Catholicity exclusively predominated. With various forms, distinct\norigins, different inclinations, they all follow the same course; all\ntend to favor the cause of the multitude; whatever has this for its\naim, endures; whatever has not, perishes. Whence comes it that this was\nnot the case in other countries? If evident reasons and palpable facts,\nmoreover, did not manifest the salutary influence of the religion of\nJesus Christ, so remarkable a coincidence would suffice to suggest\ngrave reflections to those, who meditate upon the cause and character\nof the events which change or modify the destiny of mankind. Let those\nwho represent Catholicity as the enemy of the people, point out to us\na single doctrine of the Church sanctioning the abuses under which the\npeople were suffering, or the injustice which oppressed them. Let them\nshow us whether, at the commencement of the sixteenth century, when\nEurope was under the exclusive domination of the Catholic religion,\nthe people were not as far advanced as they could be, considering the\nordinary course of things. They certainly did not possess so much\nwealth as they have since acquired, and their knowledge was not so\nextensive as in modern times; but is the progress which has been made\nin this respect attributable to Protestantism? Was not the sixteenth\ncentury commenced under more favorable auspices than the fifteenth, and\nthe latter under better auspices than the fourteenth? This proves that\nEurope, under the shield of Catholicity, continued in a progressive\nmarch; that the cause of the multitude suffered no prejudice from the\ninfluence of Catholicity; and that if great ameliorations have since\nbeen effected, they have not been a consequence of what is called the\nReformation.\n\nIt is the development of industry and commerce that has most\npowerfully contributed to elevate modern democracy, by diminishing\nthe preponderance of the aristocratic classes. I do not touch upon\nthe events which took place in Europe before the appearance of\nProtestantism; but I see at a glance that, far from impeding such\na movement, Catholic doctrines and institutions must have favored\nit, since, under their shield and protection, the manufacturing and\nmercantile interests were surprisingly developed. No one is ignorant\nof their astonishing success in Spain: and we cannot attribute this\nprogress to the Moors; for Catalonia, subject exclusively to the\nCatholic influence, evinced such activity, prosperity, and intelligence\nin industry and commerce, that we could scarcely believe to what a\nstate of perfection they had arrived, did not unexceptionable documents\nbear ample testimony to the fact. Read the _Historical Memoirs of\nthe Marine, Commerce, and Arts of the ancient City of Barcelona_, by\nour celebrated Capmany. May we not account it an honor to belong to\nthis Catalonian nation, whose ancestors displayed such zeal in all\nthings, never allowing other nations to surpass them in the march of\ncivilization and improvement? Whilst this phenomenon was advancing in\nthe south of Europe, the association of the Hanseatic towns, the origin\nof which is lost in the centuries of the middle ages, was created in\nthe north. It obtained in time such an amount of power as to measure\nits force with that of kings. Its rich factories, established all over\nEurope, and favored with many advantageous privileges, elevated it to\nthe rank of a real power. Not satisfied with the power which it enjoyed\nin its own country, and in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, it extended\nit to England and Russia. London and Novogorod admired the splendid\nestablishments of those intrepid merchants, who, by means of their\nwealth, obtained exorbitant privileges; who had their own magistrates,\nand formed an independent state in the centre of foreign countries.\n\nIt is very remarkable that the Hanseatic league selected religious\ncommunities as their model, in all that concerned the system of life\nof the clerks in their counting-houses. Their clerks ate in common,\nhad common dormitories, and none of them were allowed to marry. Any\none of them transgressing this law, forfeited his rights to remain a\nmember or a citizen of the Hanseatic Confederation. In France, the\nmanufacturing classes were also organized, the better to resist the\nelements of dissolution existing in their bosom; and this change, so\nfruitful in results, is entirely due to a king venerated upon the\naltars of the Catholic Church. _The Establishment for the Trades of\nParis_ gave a powerful impetus to the industrial classes, by augmenting\ntheir intelligence and improving their morals; and whatever were the\nabuses that crept into that organization, it cannot be denied that\nSt. Louis satisfactorily supplied a great want, by organizing the\ntrades in the best manner possible, considering how little progress\nhad at that time been made. What shall we say of Italy, containing\nwithin its bosom the powerful republics of Venice, Florence, Genoa,\nand Pisa? It is difficult to conceive what progress industry had made\nin this peninsula, and, as a natural consequence, what a development\nthe democratical element received. Had the influence in itself been\nso oppressive, had the breath of the Roman court been fatal to the\nprogress of the people, is it not evident that its effects would have\nbeen particularly felt in those countries which were the scene of its\nactions? Whence comes it, then, that whilst a great part of Europe was\ngroaning under feudal oppression, the middle class, whose only title\nto nobility was the fruit of their intelligence and labor, appeared in\nItaly so powerful, so brilliant and flourishing? I will not contend\nthat this development was attributable to the Popes; but, at least, we\nmust grant that they never opposed it.\n\nNow, if we observe a similar phenomenon in Spain, and particularly in\nAragon, where the Pontifical influence was great; if the same thing is\nobservable in the north of Europe, inhabited by people whom Catholicity\nalone has civilized; if, in fine, the same phenomenon is realized, with\ngreater or less rapidity, in all countries exclusively subject to the\nbelief and authority of the Church, we may conclude that Catholicity\ncontains nothing opposed to the movement of civilization, and that it\nis not opposed to a just and legitimate development of the popular\nelement.\n\nI cannot think how it is possible for any one who has read history to\naccord to Protestantism the honor of being favorable to the interests\nof the multitude. Its origin was essentially aristocratic; and in those\ncountries in which it has succeeded in taking root, it has established\naristocracy upon such firm foundations, that the revolutions of three\ncenturies have not been able to overturn it. Witness, for a proof of\nthis, what has taken place in Germany, England, and all the north\nof Europe. It has been said that Calvinism is more favorable to the\ndemocratical element; and that if it had prevailed in France it would\nhave established a system of federative republic in place of monarchy.\nWhatever may be the value of this conjecture upon a change which\nwould certainly not have been very beneficial to the future prospects\nof that nation, it is perfectly certain that no other system than\nthat of aristocracy would have been found practicable in France; for\ncircumstances at that period would admit of nothing else; and the\naristocrats who were at the head of religious innovation, would admit\nof no other organization. Had Protestantism triumphed in France, it is\nprobable that the poor of that country, in imitation of their brethren\nin Germany, would have claimed a share in the rich booty; but they\ncertainly would not have found Calvin's proverbial harshness more\nadvantageous to them than the furious rashness of Luther was to the\nGermans. It is probable that these wretched villagers, who, according\nto contemporary writers, had nothing to eat but rye-bread, with no\nanimal food, and slept upon a bundle of straw, with a board for their\npillow, would not have felt themselves more comfortable than their\nbrethren in Germany, had they thought proper to participate in the\neffects of the new doctrines. In this case, they would not have been\npunished, but exterminated, like their brethren beyond the Rhine.\nIn England, the sudden disappearance of the monasteries produced\npauperism. Their property having fallen into the hands of laymen,\nthe religious being driven from their abodes, the poor who subsisted\nupon the alms of these holy establishments were left without the\nmeans of subsistence. And observe, that the evil was not temporary;\nit has continued to our own days, and is now one of the greatest\nevils afflicting Great Britain. I am aware that almsgiving is said\nto encourage indolence; but it is very certain that England, with\nher poor-laws and her legal charity, contains a far greater number\nof destitute poor than Catholic countries. It will be difficult to\nconvince me, that to let people die of hunger is a good means of\ndeveloping the popular element. Protestantism must have contained\nsomething very repulsive to the democrats of that period, since we\nfind it rejected in Spain and Italy, the two countries in which the\npeople enjoyed the greatest share of prosperity and rights. And this\nbecomes still more worthy of attention, when we remark that religious\ninnovation took root wherever the feudal aristocracy predominated.\nLook, it will be said, at the United Provinces; but this example only\nproves that Protestantism, determined to find supporters, willingly\ntook part with the mal-contents. If Philip II. had been a zealous\nProtestant, the United Provinces would probably have alleged that they\nwere unwilling to remain any longer subject to an heretical prince.\nThese provinces were for a long time under the exclusive influence of\nCatholicity, and yet they were prosperous; the popular element was\ndeveloped in their bosom, without meeting any obstacle on the part of\nreligion. Exactly at the beginning of the sixteenth century they made\nthe discovery, that they could no longer prosper without abjuring the\nfaith of their ancestors. Observe the geographical position of the\nUnited Provinces; see them surrounded by reformists offering to assist\nthem; and you will find in political considerations the reason which\nyou may seek in vain in imaginary affinity between the Protestant\nsystem and the interests of the people.[35]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXI.\n\nON THE VALUE OF THE DIFFERENT POLITICAL FORMS--CHARACTER OF MONARCHY IN\nEUROPE.\n\n\nThe enthusiasm enkindled in Europe in latter times, has cooled down\nby degrees; experience has shown that a political organization not\nin accordance with the social organization is of no advantage to a\nnation, but rather overwhelms it with evil. Men also understand, and\nnot without difficulty, simple as the matter is, that political systems\nshould be regarded solely as a means of ameliorating the condition\nof the people, and that political liberty, to be at all rational,\nmust be made a medium for the acquisition of civil liberty. Amongst\nenlightened men, these are ordinary ideas; fanaticism for such or such\npolitical forms, considered abstractly from their civil results, is\nnow abandoned as a thing denoting ignorance, or as a discreditable\nmeans hypocritically made use of by the ambitious, devoid of real\nmerit, whose only way to fortune is disturbance and revolution. It\ncannot, however, be denied that, considered as simple instruments,\ncertain political forms, such as mixed, moderate, constitutional,\nor representative governments, or whatever they be designated, have\nacquired in some countries consideration and solidity; and that, in\nmany countries, any principle which might be considered opposed to\nrepresentative forms, and only favorable to absolute ones, would be\nrepudiated beforehand. Civil liberty has become necessary to the\npeople of Europe; and in some nations the idea of this liberty is so\nidentified with that of political liberty, that it is difficult to\nexplain how civil liberty can exist under an absolute monarchy. We\nmust therefore examine what are the tendencies of the Catholic and\nthose of the Protestant religions. I will proceed so as to discover\nthese tendencies by an impartial analysis of historical facts. Never,\nperhaps, as M. Guizot felicitously observes, were the natural course of\nthings, and the hidden ways of Providence, less understood. Wheresoever\nwe meet not with assemblies, elections, urns, and votes, we imagine\npower must be absolute, and liberty unprotected. I have an express\ndesign in making use of the word tendencies, because it is clear that\nCatholicity has no dogma on this point--it does not pronounce upon the\nadvantages of any particular form of government. The Roman Pontiff\nacknowledges equally as his son the Catholic seated upon the bench of\nan American Assembly, and the most humble subject of the most powerful\nmonarch. The Catholic religion is too prudent to descend upon any such\nground. Emanating from heaven itself, she diffuses herself, like the\nlight of the sun, over all things, enlightens and strengthens all, and\nis never obscured or tarnished. Her object is to conduct man to heaven,\nby furnishing him on his passage with great assistance and consolation\nupon earth; she ceases not to point out to him eternal truths; she\ngives him in all his affairs, salutary counsels; but the moment we come\nto mere details, she has no obligation to impose, no duty to enjoin.\nShe impresses upon his mind her sacred maxims of morality, admonishing\nhim never to depart from them; like a tender mother speaking to her\nson, she says to him, \"Provided you depart not from my instructions, do\nwhat you consider most expedient.\"\n\nBut is it true that there is in Catholicity at least a tendency to\nobstruct liberty? What has been the result of Protestantism in Europe\nwith regard to political forms? In what has it corrected or ameliorated\nthe work of Catholicity? In the centuries preceding the sixteenth, the\norganization of European society was so complicated, the development\nof all the intellectual faculties had arrived at such a point, the\ncontention of interests was so lively, in fine, every nation was\nso enlarged by the successive agglomeration of provinces, that a\ncentral, forcible, energetic power, predominating over all individual\npretensions and those of classes, was indispensable to the peace and\nprosperity of the people. Europe had no other hope for peace; for\nwherever there exists a great number of various, opposite, and all\npowerful elements, a regulating action is necessary to prevent violent\nshocks, to calm excessive ardor, to moderate the rapidity of motion, to\nprevent a continual war, which would necessarily lead to destruction\nand chaos. This immediately gave to the monarchical principle a fresh\nand irresistible impulse; and as this impulse was felt in every\nEuropean country, even in those possessing republican institutions, it\nevidently resulted from causes that lay deep in the social condition\nof the times. At the present day there is not a publicist of any note\nwho would question these truths. During the last half century, in fact,\nevents have occurred well calculated to demonstrate that in Europe\nmonarchy is something more than _usurpation_ and _tyranny_. In the\nvery countries in which democratical ideas have taken root, it has\nbeen found necessary to modify them, and in some degree to depart from\nthem, in order to preserve the throne, which is regarded as the best\nsafeguard of the great interests of society.\n\nIt is the infirmity of all things human, however good and salutary they\nmay be, always to bring with them an accompaniment of inconveniences\nand evils. Monarchy could not evidently be exempt from this general\nrule; in other words, the great extension of force and power was\nsure to produce abuse and excess. The European nations are not of\na sufficiently patient character, nor of a sufficiently moderate\ntemperament, to endure with resignation all sorts of disorders. The\nEuropean entertains so profound an idea of his dignity, that he cannot\ncomprehend the quietism of the Oriental nations, living in the midst of\ndegradation, bowing their slavish heads before the despot who despises\nand oppresses them. Hence, whilst we in Europe acknowledge and feel\nthe necessity of a very strong power, we have always endeavored to\ntake measures for restraining and preventing the abuse of this power.\nNothing exalts so much the grandeur and dignity of the European nations\nas the comparison of them with those of Asia. The latter have no better\nmeans of delivering themselves from oppression than the assassination\nof their sovereigns. Whilst the blood of one monarch is still warm,\nanother ascends his throne, trampling with a disdainful foot on the\nheads of nations as cruel as they are degraded. Not so in Europe;\nwe have always recourse to intellectual means; we have established\ninstitutions which lastingly protect the people from oppression and\nexcesses. We cannot deny that our efforts have cost torrents of blood,\nor affirm that we have always adopted the most expedient means; but on\nthis point Europe, guided by the same spirit as in all other matters,\nhas become anxious to substitute right in the place of mere might.\nThis is no recent problem; it existed when European society was in its\ninfancy, and in these latter times has been overlooked. Great efforts\nwere made many centuries ago to resolve it. Observe how Count de\nMaistre states his opinions on this difficult problem:\n\n\"Although the greatest and most general interest of sovereignty\nconsists in its being just, and although the cases in which it\ntransgresses this condition are incomparably fewer than the others,\nunfortunately it does, however, frequently transgress it; and the\nparticular character of certain sovereigns may so far augment these\ninconveniences, that in order to render them supportable, it is\nnecessary to compare them with those which would exist if there were\nno sovereign. It was therefore impossible that men should not, from\ntime to time, make efforts to secure themselves against the excess of\nthis enormous prerogative; but on this point the world has adopted\ntwo widely different systems. _The daring tribe of Japheth has at all\ntimes been gravitating_ (if we may use the expression) _towards what is\ntermed liberty_; that is, towards that social condition in which the\ninfluence of the governing powers is least sensibly felt. Ever jealous\nof his rights and liberties, the European has sought to preserve them,\nsometimes by expelling his rulers, and at other times by opposing to\nthem the barrier of law. He has tried every thing, every imaginable\nform of government, to set himself free from his rulers, or to restrain\ntheir power.\n\n\"The _immense posterity of Shem and Cham_ have pursued another course.\nFrom the earliest ages down to our own time they have always said to\ntheir fellowmen, _Do whatever you please, and when we are tired we\nwill put you to death_. Besides, they have never been able or willing\nto comprehend the nature of a republic; the balance of power, all those\nprivileges, all those fundamental laws of which we are so proud, are\ntotally unknown to them. Among them, the richest and most independent\nman, the possessor of immense movable wealth, absolutely at liberty to\ntransport it whither he pleases, sure, moreover, of entire protection\nupon European ground, and threatened at home with the rope or the\ndagger, prefers them, nevertheless, to the misery of dying of ennui\namong us. But no one will ever think of recommending to Europe the\npublic law of Asia and Africa, so short and clear; but as power in\nEurope is always so much feared, discussed, attacked, or transferred,\nsince nothing so much wounds our pride as despotic government, the\nmost general European problem is to know _how sovereign power may be\nrestrained without being destroyed_.\" (_Du Pape_, liv. ii. chap. 2.)\n\nThis spirit of political liberty, this desire of limiting power by\nmeans of institutions, did not originate with the French philosophers;\nbefore their time, and long before the appearance of Protestantism,\nit was circulating in the veins of the European people. History has\nleft us irrefragable testimonies of this truth. What institutions\nwere deemed suitable for the accomplishment of this object? Certain\nassemblies, in which the voice of the nation's interests and opinions\nmight be heard--assemblies formed in various ways, and meeting from\ntime to time around the throne to make their complaints and assert\ntheir claims. As it was impossible for these assemblies to constitute\nthe government without destroying the monarchy, it was necessary,\nin one way or another, to secure their influence in state affairs;\nand I do not see that anything better has hitherto been devised for\nattaining this object than the right of intervention in the enactment\nof laws, a right guaranteed to them by another, that may be justly\ntermed the right arm of national representation,--the right of voting\nthe supplies. Much has been written respecting constitutions and\nrepresentative governments, but this is the essential point. Many and\nvarious modifications may be introduced, but in reality all consists in\nthe establishment of the throne as the centre of power and of action,\nsurrounded by assemblies that shall deliberate upon the laws and the\ntaxes.\n\nDoes political liberty in this point of view originate in Protestant\nideas? Is it under any obligation to them? Has it, in fine, any\nreproach against Catholicity? I open the works of Catholic writers\nanterior to Protestantism, in order to ascertain their sentiments on\nthis subject, and I find that they take a clear view of the problem to\nbe solved. I examine rigidly whether they teach anything opposed to the\nprogress of the world, to the dignity or the rights of man; I examine,\nagain, whether they bear any affinity to despotism or to tyranny, and\nI find them full of sympathy for the progress of enlightenment and of\nmankind, inflamed with noble and generous sentiments, and zealous for\nthe happiness of the multitude. I remark, indeed, that their hearts\nswell with indignation at the mere names of tyranny and despotism. I\nopen the records of history; I study the opinions and customs of the\nnations, and the predominating institutions; I behold on all sides\nnothing but _fueros_, privileges, liberty, cortes, states-general,\nmunicipalities, and juries. All this appears in the greatest confusion,\nbut I see it; and I am not astonished to discover an absence of order,\nfor it is a new world just arisen from chaos. I ask myself if the\nmonarch possesses in himself the faculty of making laws; and upon this\nquestion I very naturally find variety, uncertainty, and confusion; but\nI observe that the assemblies representing the different classes of\nthe nation take part in the enactment of the laws. I ask whether they\nhave any interference in the great affairs of the state; and I find\nit stated in the codes that they are to be consulted on all grave and\nimportant affairs: I see monarchs frequently observing this precept. I\nask whether these assemblies possess any guarantees for their existence\nand their influence; and the codes inform me by the most decisive\ntexts, and a thousand facts are at hand to convince me, that these\ninstitutions were deeply rooted in the customs and manners of the\npeople.\n\nNow what was then the predominating religion? Catholicity. Were the\npeople much attached to religion? So much so that the spirit of\nreligion predominated over all. Did the clergy possess great influence?\nVery great. What was the power of the Popes? It was immense. Where do\nyou find the clergy attempting to extend the power of kings to the\nprejudice of the people? Where are the pontifical decrees against\nsuch or such forms? Where are the measures and plans of the Popes\nfor the restriction of one single legitimate right? No reply. Then I\nsay indignantly, Europe, under the influence of Catholicity, arose\nfrom chaos to order, civilization advanced at a firm and steady pace,\nthe grand problem of political forms engaged the attention of men\nof wisdom, questions of morality and laws were receiving a solution\nfavorable to liberty, and yet the influence of the clergy was never\ngreater even in temporal matters, and the power of the Popes was in\nevery sense quite colossal.\n\nWhat! one word from the Sovereign Pontiff would have smitten unto death\nevery form of popular government; and yet such forms were receiving\na rapid development. Where, then, is the tendency of the Catholic\nreligion to enslave the people? Where the infamous alliance between\nkings and Popes to oppress and harass the people, to establish on the\nthrone a ferocious despotism, and to rejoice under its gloomy shades\nover the misfortune and tears of mankind? When the Popes had a quarrel\nwith any kingdom, was it usually with the king or the people? When it\nwas necessary to oppose a firm front against tyranny and oppression,\nwho stood forward more promptly or more firmly than the Sovereign\nPontiff? Does not Voltaire himself admit that the Popes restrained\nprinces, _protected the people_, put an end to the quarrels of the time\nby a wise intervention, reminded both kings and people of their duties,\nand hurled anathemas against those enormities which they could not\nprevent? (Quoted by M. de Maistre, _Du Pape_.)\n\nIt is very remarkable that the Bull In _C\u0153na Domini_, which created\nso much alarm, contains in its fifth article an excommunication\nagainst \"_those who should levy new taxes upon their estates, or\nshould increase those already existing beyond the bounds marked out by\nright_.\" The spirit of deliberation, so common even at this period,\nand which formed so singular a contrast with the tendency to violent\nmeasures, arose in a great measure from the example given by the\nCatholic Church during so many centuries. In fact, it is impossible to\npoint out a society in which more assemblies have been held, combining\nin them every thing distinguished by science and virtue. General,\nnational, provincial Councils and diocesan synods are to be met with\nin every page of the Church's history. Such an example, exposed during\ncenturies to the view of the people, could not fail to influence and\naffect customs and laws. In Spain the greatest part of the Councils of\nToledo were also national congresses; whilst the episcopal authority\nperformed its functions in them, watching over the purity of dogmas,\nand providing for the wants of discipline, the great affairs of the\nstate were also discussed in them in harmony with the secular power. In\nthem were enacted those laws which are still an object of admiration to\nmodern observers. The utopias of Rousseau are now fallen into complete\ndisrepute among the best publicists. Representative governments are\nno longer to be defended as a means of bringing the general will into\naction, but as an instrument, through the medium of which reason and\ngood sense may be consulted, which would otherwise remain dispersed\nthroughout the nation. Legislative assemblies are now represented\nto us, in works upon constitutional law, as the foci in which all\nknowledge serving to throw light on the difficulties of public affairs\nmay be concentrated; they are held up to us as the representatives of\nall legitimate interests, as the organ of all reasonable opinions, the\nvoice of all just complaints, a channel of perpetual communication\nbetween governors and their subjects, a measure of justice in the laws,\na means of rendering the laws respectable and venerable in the eyes\nof the people; in short, as a permanent guarantee that a government,\nnever consulting its own interests, should study only public utility\nand expediency. At a time when we are informed in such fine terms\nwhat these assemblies ought to be, not what they are, it will not be\nuninteresting to refer to the Councils; for we see at a glance that the\nCouncils must in a certain manner explain the nature and spirit, and\npoint out the motives and aim, of political assemblies.\n\nI am aware of the fundamental differences existing between these two\nassemblies; men who receive their powers from popular election cannot,\nin fact, be placed in the same rank as those who have been appointed by\nthe Holy Ghost to govern the Church of God; neither can the monarch,\nwho derives his right to the throne from the fundamental laws of the\nnation, be confounded with that rock upon which the Church of Christ is\nbuilt. I grant also that, whether with regard to the subjects discussed\nin the Councils, or with regard to the persons engaged in these\ndiscussions, and to the extension of the Church over the whole earth,\nthere must necessarily be a great dissimilarity between the Councils\nand political assemblies, with respect to the epoch of their being\nassembled, and the mode of their organization and of their proceedings.\nBut we are not here about to imagine an ingenious parallel, and to seek\nwith subtilty resemblances which do not exist; my only aim is to show\nthe influence which the lessons of prudence and maturity given for so\nlong a time by the Church must have exercised upon political laws and\ncustoms. If we consult the annals of the nations of antiquity, or those\nof modern times, we shall discover that all deliberative assemblies are\ncomposed of persons who have a right to sit in them by a regulation\nstated in the laws. But to admit into them a man of knowledge, simply\nbecause he is so, is to pay a noble tribute to merit--to proclaim in\nthe most solemn manner, that the care of ruling the world belongs\nproperly to intelligence. This the Church alone has done.\n\nI make this observation to prove that society is indebted mainly to the\nChurch for the progress it has made in this respect. I will adduce on\nthis point a fact that has not perhaps been sufficiently attended to,\nbut which clearly shows that the Catholic Church was the first to seek\nout men of talent wherever they were to be found, and unhesitatingly\nto allow them influence in public affairs. I will not speak of that\nspirit which forms one of her distinctive characteristics among all\nother societies, which has ever led her to seek merit, and nothing but\nmerit, and to raise it to the highest functions--a spirit which no one\ncan deny her, and which has eminently contributed to her splendor and\npreponderance. But it is very remarkable that the influence of this\nspirit has been felt where, at first sight, it might have been least\nexpected. In fact, it is well known that, according to the doctrines\nof the Church, no private individual has any right to interfere in the\ndecisions and deliberations of the Councils; hence, however learned a\ntheologian or jurist may be, his knowledge gives him no right whatever\nto take part in those august assemblies. Nevertheless, it is well\nknown that the Church has ever taken care to call to them men who,\nwhatever might be their titles, excelled most by their talents or their\nlearning. Who does not read with pleasure the list of learned men who,\nalthough not Bishops, were present at the Council of Trent?\n\nIn modern society, do not talent, wisdom, and genius carry the highest\nhead, command the greatest consideration and respect, and present the\nbest claims to the direction of public affairs, and to the exercise of\na preponderating influence? These should know that nowhere have their\nclaims been respected or their dignity acknowledged so well as in the\nChurch. What society, in fact, has ever sought, as the Church has,\nto elevate them, to consult them in the most important affairs, and\nto afford them an opportunity of shining in grand assemblies? In the\nChurch, birth and riches are of no importance. If you are a man of high\nmerit, untarnished by misconduct, and at the same time conspicuous by\nyour abilities and your knowledge, that is enough--she will look upon\nyou as a great man, will always show you extreme consideration, treat\nyou with respect, and listen to you with deference. And since your\nbrow, though sprung from obscurity, is radiant with fame, it will be\nheld worthy to bear the mitre, the Cardinal's hat, or the tiara. To\nspeak in the language of the day, I may remark, that the aristocracy of\nknowledge owes much of its importance to the ideas and discipline of\nthe Church.[36]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXII.\n\nTHE DEVELOPMENT OF MONARCHY IN EUROPE.\n\n\nA single glance at the state of Europe in the fifteenth century enables\nus to discover that such a state of things could not long exist, and\nthat of the three elements claiming preference, the monarchical must\nnecessarily prevail. And it could not be otherwise; for we have always\nseen that societies, after a long period of trouble and agitation,\nplace themselves at last under the protection of that power which\noffers them the greatest security and well-being. Beholding, on the one\nhand, those great feudatories, so proud, so exacting, so turbulent,\nenemies to each other, and rivals of the king as well as of the people;\non the other hand, the commons, whose existence appears under so many\ndifferent forms--whose rights, privileges, _fueros_ and liberties\npresent so various and complex an aspect--whose ideas have no constant\nand well defined direction;--we conclude at once, that neither were\npossessed of sufficient force to struggle against the royal power,\nalready acting by a fixed plan and a determinate system, seizing every\nopportunity which might serve to forward its views. Who is not aware\nof the sagacity displayed by Ferdinand the Catholic in developing and\nimplanting his prominent idea--that of centralizing power, giving\nit vigor, and rendering its action forcible and universal; that is,\nthe idea of founding a true monarchy? And why not acknowledge in the\nimmortal Ximenes a worthy and more eminent continuator of this policy?\nIt would be erroneous to consider this as an evil to nations. All\npublicists agree that it was necessary to give strength and stability\nto power, and prevent its action from becoming weak or intermittent;\nbut the only representative of real power at that time was the throne.\nHence, to fortify and aggrandize royal power was of real necessity;\nall plans and efforts of man would have failed to place an obstacle\nin its way. But it remains, nevertheless, to be seen, whether this\naggrandizement of royal power outstepped its due bounds; and this is\nthe place for contrasting Protestantism with Catholicity, that we may\nascertain which of them was culpable, if either, and to what extent.\nThis is a very important and curious subject, but at the same time one\nof difficulty and delicacy. In fact, such a change has taken place of\nlate in the meaning of words, the aversion which parties profess for\neach other is so profound, each one repels with such impetuosity every\nthing which bears the most remote resemblance to what is esteemed by\nhis adversaries, that it is an arduous undertaking to render the state\nof the question and the meaning of words comprehensible. I ask one\nthing of my readers of all opinions; that is, that they will suspend\ntheir judgment until they have read the whole of what I have to adduce\non this point. If they consent to this, and do not quarrel with the\nfirst word that shocks them--in a word, if they have sufficient\npatience to hear before they judge, I am confident that, if we do not\naltogether agree, which is impossible amid such a variety of opinions,\nthey will at least grant that I have taken an apparently reasonable\nview of the subject, and that my conjectures are not altogether\nunfounded.\n\nI shall commence, in the first place, by completely laying aside the\nquestion whether it was advantageous or not to society that, in the\ngreatest part of European monarchies, royal power should have any other\nlimits than those naturally imposed upon it by the state of ideas and\ncustoms. This question some will answer in the affirmative, others in\nthe negative; and I need not observe to what party they respectively\nbelong. To many people the word _liberty_ is a scandal, just as the\nterm absolute power is with others synonymous with despotism. But what\nis that liberty which the former repel with so much force? what meaning\nis attached to this word in their dictionaries? They have witnessed\nthe French Revolution, with its iniquities and frightful crimes, and\nthey have heard it continually crying out for liberty: they have\nwitnessed the Spanish Revolution, with its vociferations of death, and\nits sanguinary excesses--its injustice, its disdain for every thing\nthat Spaniards had been accustomed to esteem the most valuable and\nsacred; and yet they have heard the cries of this Revolution also for\n_liberty_. What was to be expected? Why, what we now witness. They\nconfounded the name of liberty with all sorts of impieties and crimes;\nand, in consequence, they hated it, they repelled it, they fought\nagainst it sword in hand. In vain were they informed that the cortes\nwas an ancient institution; they replied, that the ancient cortes was\nnot like that of their times. In vain were they reminded that our laws\nordained the nation's right of interference by its vote on the levying\nof taxes. They replied: \"We are well aware of it; but the nation is\nnot now represented by those who interfere in its affairs; they only\navail themselves of this pretended title to enslave both the king and\nthe people.\" They were told that the representatives of the different\nclasses had formerly the right of intervention in the important affairs\nof the state. \"What class do you represent,\" they replied; \"you who\ndegrade the monarch, insult and persecute the nobility, abuse and\nplunder the clergy, despising the people, and making their customs and\ntheir religious belief a subject for your sneers? What, then, do you\nrepresent? Is it the Spanish nation, when you trample on her religion\nand laws, when you excite social dissolution on all sides, and make\nblood flow in torrents? How can you call yourselves the restorers of\nour fundamental laws, when we find nothing either in you or in your\nacts which marks the true Spaniard; when all your theories, plans, and\nprojects are only miserable copies of foreign books but too well known,\nwhile you have forgotten your own language?\"\n\nI pray the reader will cast his eyes over the files of the journals,\nthe bulletins of the cortes, and other documents that remain of the\ntwo epochs of 1812 and 1820; let him also call to mind the events we\nhave recently witnessed; let him afterwards peruse the records and\nmemorials of anterior epochs,--our codes, our books, every thing, in\nfine, capable of throwing light upon the character, the ideas, and\nthe customs of the Spanish people; then let him lay his hand upon\nhis heart, and, whatever be his political opinions, let him tell us,\nupon his honor, if he finds the least resemblance between the past\nand the present; if he does not, at the very first glance, perceive\na striking and violent contrast between the two epochs--a chasm, in\nfact, to fill up which, I say it with grief, would require heaps of\nfresh ruins, ashes, dead bodies, and torrents of blood. Were we to\nplace the question beyond the influence of the empoisoned atmosphere\nof human passions and of bitter recollections, we might, it is true,\nvery well examine the expediency of allowing the royal authority\nto attain to a growth that set it free from every kind of check or\nrestraint, even in affairs of the most essential importance and in the\nvoting of the government supplies. The question would then have merely\na historico-political aspect, could not be confounded with actual\npractice, and, consequently, would not affect either the interests or\nthe opinions of our time. However that might be, I will not stop to\nconsider or to notice what has been thought and said upon the subject,\nbut will take up the hypothesis, that the disappearance from the body\npolitic, at that time, of every element save the monarchical, was a\nmisfortune to the people, and an obstacle to the progress of true\ncivilization. And whose was the fault? let me ask.\n\nIt is remarkable that the greatest increase of royal power in Europe\ndates precisely from the commencement of Protestantism. In England,\nfrom the time of Henry VIII., not only did monarchy prevail, but a\ndespotism so cruel that no vain appearances of impotent forms have\navailed to disguise its excesses. In France, after the Huguenot war,\nroyal power became more absolute than ever; in Sweden, Gustavus\nascended the throne, and from that time kings began to exercise an\nalmost unlimited power; in Denmark, monarchy continued, and became\nstronger; in Germany, the kingdom of Prussia was formed, and absolute\nforms generally prevailed; in Austria, the empire of Charles V. arose\nin all its power and splendor; in Italy, the small republics were fast\ndisappearing, and the people, under some title or another, became\nsubject to princes; in Spain, in fine, the ancient cortes of Castile,\nAragon, Valencia, and Catalonia fell into disuse: that is to say,\ninstead of seeing, by the accession of Protestantism, the people take\none step towards representative forms, we find, on the contrary, that\nthey rapidly advanced towards absolute government. This is a certain,\nincontestable fact. Sufficient attention has not perhaps been paid\nto so singular a coincidence; but it is not the less real, and is\ncertainly of a nature to suggest numerous and interesting reflections.\nWas this coincidence purely accidental? Was there any hidden connection\nbetween Protestantism and the development and definitive establishment\nof absolutism? I think there was; and I will even add, that, had\nCatholicism retained an exclusive sway in Europe, the power of the\nthrone would have been gradually diminished--that representative\nforms would probably not have disappeared altogether--that the people\nwould have continued to take part in national affairs--that we should\nhave been much farther advanced in civilization, much better fitted\nfor the enjoyment of true liberty--and that this liberty would not\nbe associated in our minds with scenes of horror. Yes, the fatal\nReformation has given a wrong direction to European society, injured\ncivilization, created necessities that previously had no existence,\nand opened chasms which it cannot close. It destroyed many elements of\ngood, and consequently produced a radical change in the conditions of\nthe political problem. This I think I can demonstrate.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXIII.\n\nTWO KINDS OF DEMOCRACY.\n\n\nThere is in the history of Europe one leading fact contained in all\nits pages, and still visible in our days, viz. the parallel march of\ntwo democracies, which, although sometimes apparently alike, are, in\nreality, very different in their nature, origin, and aim. The one is\nbased upon the knowledge and dignity of man, and on the right which\nhe possesses of enjoying a certain amount of liberty conformable\nto reason and justice. With ideas more or less clear, more or less\nuniform, upon the real origin of society and of power, it entertains\nat least very clear, precise, and fixed ones upon the real object and\naim of both. Whether the right of commanding proceeds directly and\nimmediately from God, or whether we suppose it communicated previously\nto society, and transmitted afterwards to those who govern, it always\ngrants that power is for the common weal, and that, if it does not\ndirect its actions to this end, it falls into tyranny. To privileges,\nhonors, and distinctions of every kind, it applies its favorite\ntouchstone--the public good; whatever is opposed to this, is rejected\nas noxious; whatever does not tend to promote it, is repudiated as\nsuperfluous. Convinced that knowledge and virtue are the only things\nof real worth, and deserving of consideration in the distribution\nof the social functions, this democracy requires them to be sought\nwithout ceasing, that they may be elevated to the summit of power and\nof glory; it goes to seek them in the midst of the deepest obscurity.\nA nobleman, proud of his titles and his heraldry, and boasting of the\nglorious deeds of his ancestors, without being able to imitate them,\nis, in its estimation, an object of ridicule; it will allow such a\nman to enjoy his riches, that the sacred right of property may not be\nviolated; but it will remove from his grasp, by all lawful means, the\ninfluence he might derive from the nobility of his blood. In fine, if\nit takes nobility, birth or riches into consideration, it is not for\nany intrinsic worth of these advantages, but because they are signs\nwhich lead us to expect a more accomplished education, more knowledge\nand probity.\n\nFull of generous ideas, this democracy, placing the dignity of man\nin the highest degree, reminding man of his rights, and also of his\nduties, is indignant at the very name of tyranny. It hates tyranny,\ncondemns it, repels it, and is perpetually employed in discovering\nthe best means for preventing it. Wise and calm, as the inseparable\ncompanion of reason and good sense must ever be, it agrees very well\nwith monarchy; but we may rest assured that its desires have generally\nbeen, that the laws of the country should, in one way or another,\nplace a restraint upon the excesses of kings. Aware that the rock\nagainst which they ran the risk of being wrecked, was the excess of\ncontributions levied upon the people, its favorite idea, which it has\nnever abandoned, even when it was impracticable, has been to restrain\nthe unlimited faculties of power with respect to contributions. Another\nof its predominating ideas has been to prevent the will of man from\nprevailing in the formation or application of the laws. It has ever\nsought to guarantee and secure in some way, that the will should not\nusurp the place of reason. Such has been the force of this universal\ndesire, that it has been indelibly stamped upon European manners, and\nthe most absolute monarchs have been compelled to gratify it. Hence\none thing very worthy of remark is, that the throne has ever been\nsurrounded by respectable counsellors, whose existence was insured\neither by the laws or by the national customs. These counsellors\ncertainly could not preserve, in all circumstances, the independence\nnecessary for the accomplishment of their object, but they did not\nfail to be of great service; for their mere existence was an eloquent\nprotest against unjust and arbitrary regulations; it was a noble\npersonification of reason and justice, pointing out the sacred limits\never to be regarded as inviolable by the most powerful monarch. This\nis also the reason why sovereigns in Europe never exercise themselves\nthe faculty of pronouncing judgment, differing in this respect from\nthe sultans. The laws and customs of Europe energetically repulse this\nfaculty, as fatal to the people as it is to the monarch; and the mere\nrecital of such an attempt would excite public indignation against its\nauthor.\n\nThe meaning of all this is, that this principle, so much extolled, that\nit is not the monarch but the law that commands, has been received in\nEurope for many centuries; it was in full force in all the European\nnations long before modern publicists emphatically enunciated it. It\nwill be said, perhaps, that if this was the case in theory, it was not\nso in practice. I do not deny that there were reprehensible exceptions,\nbut the principle was generally respected. As a case in point, let us\ntake the most absolute reign of modern times, with the most unlimited\nroyal power in all its splendor, in its apogee,--the reign in which\nthe king could exclaim with too much pride, but yet with truth, \"I am\nthe state\"--that of Louis the Fourteenth. It lasted more than half a\ncentury, with an astonishing variety and complication of events. How\nmany deaths, confiscations, and banishments took place in it, executed\nby the royal command, without any judicial ordeal! Perhaps some\narbitrary acts of this time may be cited; but let them be compared with\nwhat was passing under equivalent circumstances amongst the nations\nout of Europe: let any one recall to mind what took place at the time\nof the Roman empire, and the excesses of absolute royalty wherever\nChristianity did not exist, and he will see that the excesses committed\nin European monarchies are scarcely worthy of being mentioned. This\nis a proof that the distinction made between monarchical governments,\nwhether absolute or despotic, is not arbitrary and fictitious. Any one\nacquainted with the legislation and history of Europe must be well\naware that this distinction is correct, and he will be forced to smile\nat those boisterous declamations in which malice or ignorance endeavors\nto confound the two systems of government.\n\nThis limit imposed upon power, this circle of reason and justice which\nwe always find traced around it, derives its origin principally from\nthe ideas disseminated by Christianity, whether it have its guarantee\nin ideas and manners or in political forms. It is Christianity that\nhas proclaimed, \"Reason and justice, knowledge and virtue, are every\nthing; the mere will of man, his birth, his titles, are of no intrinsic\nvalue.\" These words have penetrated every where, from the palace of\nkings to the poor man's cottage; and, from the moment that the mind\nof an entire people became imbued with such ideas, Asiatic despotism\nbecame impracticable. In fact, in the absence of every political form\nlimiting the power of the monarch, a voice resounds in his ears on\nall sides, exclaiming, \"We are not thy slaves, we are thy subjects;\nthou art a king, but thou art a man, and a man who, like ourselves,\nmust appear one day before the Supreme Judge; thou hast the power of\nmaking laws, but merely for our interests; thou canst exact tributes\nfrom us, but only such as are necessary for the common weal; thou\ncanst not judge us according to thy caprice, but only conformably to\nthe laws; thou canst not seize our property without rendering thyself\nmore culpable than the common robber, nor make an attempt on our lives,\nof thy own will, without becoming an assassin; the power thou hast\nreceived is not for thy comfort or pleasure, nor for the gratification\nof thy passions, but solely for our happiness; thou art a person\nexclusively devoted to the public weal; if thou forgettest this, thou\nart a tyrant.\"\n\nUnfortunately, however, together with this spirit of lawful\nindependence, of rational liberty,--together with this just, noble, and\ngenerous democracy, there has ever been another accompanying it, and\nforming with it the most lively contrast. The latter has been extremely\ninjurious to the former, by preventing it from attaining the object of\nits just pretensions; erroneous in its principles and perverse in its\nintentions, violent and unjust in its mode of acting, its traces have\nbeen everywhere marked by a stream of blood. Instead of obtaining true\nliberty for the people, it has merely served to deprive them of that\nwhich they already possessed; or if it actually found them groaning\nunder the yoke of slavery, it has only served to rivet their chains.\nAllying itself on all occasions with the basest passions, it has\nattracted to its standard all that was most vile and abject in society,\nand gathered together the most turbulent and ill-disposed men. By\ncheating its miserable followers with delusive promises, and exciting\nthem with the prospect of plunder and pillage, it has been a perpetual\nsource of commotions, scandals, and bitter animosities, that have at\nlength produced their natural results--persecutions, proscriptions, and\nexecutions. Its fundamental dogma was the rejection of all authority of\nevery description, to overturn which was its constant aim; the reward\nit expected for its labors was to seat itself upon a throne established\namidst universal ruin, to glut itself with the blood of thousands of\nvictims, and to revel in the grossest orgies during the distribution\nof its blood-stained spoil. In all times, in all countries, riots,\npopular insurrections, and revolutions have taken place; but,\nfor the last seven centuries, Europe presents these scenes in so\nsingular a character, that it forms a most fitting subject for the\nreflection of philosophers. In fact, these tendencies towards social\ndissolution--tendencies, the origin of which it is not difficult to\ndiscover in the very heart of man--have not only existed in the bosom\nof Europe, but have been formed into a theory; as ideas, they have\nbeen defended with all the obstinacy and infatuation of a sectarian\nspirit; and, wherever an opportunity occurred, reduced to practice\nwith unyielding pertinacity and unbridled fury. The system was made up\nof folly and fanaticism, and carried out with obstinacy, a spirit of\nproselytism, and monstrous crimes. In every page of its history this\ntruth is attested in characters of blood. Happy our nation, had she not\ntried the experiment!\n\nEurope may be compared to those men of great capacity and of active and\nintrepid characters, who are either the very best or the very worst\nof men. Scarcely can a single fact of any weight remain isolated in\nEurope: there is not a truth that is not useful, nor an error that is\nnot fatal. Ideas have a tendency to become realized, and facts, in\ntheir turn, incessantly call in the aid of ideas. If virtues exist,\nthey are explained, and their foundation is sought for in elevated\ntheories. If crimes are met with, their vindication is attempted on\nthe authority of perverse theories. Nations do not rest satisfied with\nthe practice either of good or evil--they strive to propagate it, and\nare restless till they have induced their neighbors to imitate them.\nNay, there is something beyond a mere spirit of proselytism limited\nto a few countries--ideas, in our times, aim at nothing short of\nuniversal empire. The spirit of propagandism does not date from the\nFrench Revolution, nor even from the sixteenth century; from the very\ndawn of civilization, from the times when the minds of men began to\nevince symptoms of activity, this phenomenon is apparent, and in a very\nstriking manner. In the agitated Europe of the twelfth and thirteenth\ncenturies, we behold the Europe of the nineteenth century, just as the\nimperfectly defined lineaments of the germ contain forms of the future\nbeing.\n\nA great part of the sects which assailed the Church, dating from the\ntenth century, were decidedly revolutionary; they either proceeded\nfrom the fatal democracy which I have just mentioned, or derived\ntheir support from it. Unfortunately this democracy, restless, unjust\nand turbulent, having compromised the tranquillity of Europe in the\ncenturies anterior to the sixteenth, found in Protestantism its most\nfervent propagators. Among the numerous sects into which the pretended\nreform was immediately divided, some opened the way for it, and others\nadopted it as their standard. And what must have been the result\nin the political organization of Europe? I will say it candidly:\nthe disappearance of those political institutions which enabled the\ndifferent classes of the state to take part in its affairs, was\ninevitable. Now, as it was very difficult for the European people,\nconsidering their character, ideas and customs, to submit for ever to\ntheir new condition, as their predominant inclination must have urged\nthem to place bounds upon the extension of power, it was natural that\nrevolutions should ensue; it was natural that future generations should\nhave to witness great catastrophes, such as the English Revolution of\nthe seventeenth century and the French Revolution of the eighteenth.\nThere was a time when it might have been difficult to comprehend these\ntruths; that time is past. The revolutions in which for some centuries\nthe different nations of Europe have been successively involved, have\nbrought within the reach of the least intelligent that social law so\nfrequently realized, viz. that anarchy leads to despotism, and that\ndespotism begets anarchy. Never, at any time, in any nation (history\nand experience prove the fact), have anti-social ideas been inculcated,\nthe minds of the people been imbued with the spirit of insubordination\nand rebellion, without almost immediately provoking the application\nof the only remedy at the command of nations in such conflicts, the\nestablishment of a very strong government, which justly or unjustly,\nlegally or not, lifts up its iron arm over every one, and makes all\nheads bend under its yoke. To clamor and tumult succeeds the most\nprofound silence; the people then easily become resigned to their new\ncondition, for reflection and instinct teach them that although it is\nwell to possess a certain amount of liberty, the first want of society\nis self-preservation.\n\nWhat was the case in Germany, after the introduction of Protestantism\nby a succession of religious revolutions? Maxims destructive of\nall society were propagated, factions formed, insurrections took\nplace; upon the field of battle and upon the scaffolds blood flowed\nin torrents; but no sooner did the instinct of social preservation\nbegin to operate, than, instead of popular forms being established\nand taking root, every thing tended towards the opposite extreme.\nAnd was not this the country in which the people had been flattered\nby the prospect of unrestrained liberty, of a repartition and even a\ncommunity of property; in fine, by the promise of the most absolute\nequality in every thing. Yet, in this same country, the most striking\ninequality prevailed, and the feudal aristocracy preserved its full\nforce. In other countries, in which no such hopes of liberty and\nequality had been held out, we can scarcely discover the limits which\nseparated the nobility from the people. In Germany, the nobility still\nretained their wealth and their preponderance, were still surrounded by\ntitles, privileges, and distinctions of every description. In that very\ncountry, in which there were such outcries against the power of kings,\nin which the name of king was declared synonymous with tyrant, the most\nabsolute monarchy was established; and the apostate of the Teutonic\norder founded that kingdom of Prussia, from which representative forms\nare still excluded.[C] In Denmark, Protestantism was established, and\nwith it absolute power immediately took deep root; in Sweden we find,\nat the very same time, the power of Gustavus established.\n\n [C] When this was written.--Tr.\n\nWhat was the case in England? Representative forms were not introduced\ninto that country by Protestantism; they existed centuries before,\nas well as in other nations of Europe. But the monarch who founded\nthe Anglican Church was distinguished for his despotism, and the\nParliament, which ought to have restrained him, was most shamefully\ndegraded. What idea can we form of the liberty of a country whose\nlegislators and representatives debased themselves so far as to\ndeclare, that any one obtaining a knowledge of the illicit amours of\nthe Queen is bound, under pain of high treason, to bring an accusation\nagainst her? What can we think of the liberty of a country, in\nwhich the very men who ought to defend that liberty, cringe with so\nmuch baseness to the unruly passions of the monarch, that they are\nnot ashamed, in order to flatter the jealousy of the sovereign, to\nestablish that any young female who should marry a king of England,\nshould, under a pain of high treason, be compelled before her marriage\nto reveal any stain there might be on her virtue? Such ignominious\nenactments are certainly a stronger proof of abject servility than\nthe declaration of that same Parliament, establishing that the mere\nwill of the monarch should have the force of law. Representative forms\npreserved in that country at a time when they had disappeared from\nalmost every other nation of Europe, were not, however, a guarantee\nagainst tyranny; for the English cannot assuredly boast of the liberty\nthey enjoyed under the reigns of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth. Perhaps in\nno country in Europe was less liberty enjoyed, in no country were the\npeople more oppressed under popular forms, in no country did despotism\nprevail to a greater extent. If there be anything which can convince\nus of these truths, in case the facts already cited should be found\ninsufficient, it is undoubtedly the efforts made by the English to\nacquire liberty. And if the efforts made to shake off the yoke of\noppression are to be regarded as a sure sign of its galling effects,\nwe are justified in thinking that the oppression under which England\nwas groaning must have been very severe, since that country has passed\nthrough so long and terrible a revolution, in which so many tears and\nso much blood has been shed.\n\nWhen we consider what has taken place in France, we remark that\nreligious wars have always given an ascendency to royal power. After\nsuch long agitations, so many troubles and civil wars, we see the reign\nof Louis XIV., and we hear that proud monarch exclaim, \"_I am the\nstate._\" We have here the most complete personification of the absolute\npower which always follows anarchy. Have the European nations had to\ncomplain of the unlimited power exercised by monarchs? have they had\nto regret that all the representative forms which could ensure their\nliberties perished under the ascendency of the throne? Let them blame\nProtestantism for it, which spreading the germs of anarchy all over\nEurope, created an imperious, urgent, and inevitable necessity for\ncentralizing rule, for fortifying royal power: it was necessary to\nstop up every source from which dissolvent principles might flow, and\nto keep within narrow bounds all the elements which, by contact and\nvicinity, were ready to ignite and produce a fatal conflagration.\n\nEvery reflecting man will agree with me on this point. Considering the\naggrandizement of absolute power, they will discover in it nothing\nbut the realization of a fact already long ago everywhere observed.\nAssuredly, the monarchs of Europe cannot be compared, either by the\nfact of their origin or the character of their measures, to those\ndespots who, under different titles, have usurped the command of\nsociety at the critical moment when it was near its dissolution; but\nit may be said with reason, that the unlimited extent of their power\nhas been caused by a great social necessity, viz. that of one sole and\nforcible authority, without which the preservation of public order was\nimpossible. We cannot without dismay take a view of Europe after the\nappearance of Protestantism. What frightful dissolution! What erroneous\nideas! What relaxation of morals! What a multitude of sects! What\nanimosity in men's minds! What rage, what ferocity! Violent disputes,\ninterminable debates, accusations, recriminations without end;\ntroubles, rebellion, intestine and foreign wars, sanguinary battles,\nand atrocious punishments. Such is the picture that Europe presents;\nsuch are the effects of this apple of discord thrown among men who are\nbrethren. And what was sure to be the result of this confusion, of\nthis retrograde movement, by which society seemed returning to violent\nmeans, to the tyranny of might over right? The result was sure to be\nwhat it has in fact been: the instinct of preservation, stronger than\nthe passions and the frenzy of man, was sure to prevail; it suggested\nto Europe the only means of self-preservation; royal power, already in\nthe ascendant, and verging towards its highest point, was sure to end\nby attaining it in reality; there to become isolated and completely\nseparated from the people, and to impose silence on popular passions.\nWhat ought to have been effected by a wise direction of ideas, was\naccomplished by the force of a very powerful institution; the vigor\nof the sceptre had to neutralize the impulse given to society towards\nits ruin. If we consider attentively, we shall find that such is the\nmeaning of the event of 1680 in Sweden, when that country was subjected\nto the fierce will of Charles XI.; such the meaning of the event of\n1669 in Denmark, when that nation, wearied with anarchy, supplicated\nKing Frederick III. to declare the monarchy hereditary and absolute,\nwhich he in fact did; such, in fine, is the meaning of what took place\nin Holland in 1747, and of the creation of an hereditary stadtholder.\nIf we require more convincing examples, we have the despotism of\nCromwell in England after such terrible revolutions, and that of\nNapoleon in France after the republic.[37]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXIV.\n\nSTRUGGLE BETWEEN THE THREE SOCIAL ELEMENTS.\n\n\nWhen once these three elements of government, monarchy, aristocracy,\nand democracy, began each to contend for the ascendency, the most\ncertain means of securing the victory to monarchy, to the exclusion\nof the other two elements, was to drive one of these latter into acts\nof turbulence and outrage; for it thus became absolutely necessary to\nestablish one sole, powerful, unfettered centre of action, that would\nbe able to awe the turbulent and to insure public order. Now, just\nat this time, the position of the popular element was full of hope,\nbut also beset with dangers; and hence, to preserve the influence\nit had already acquired, and to increase its ascendency and power,\nthe greatest moderation and circumspection were requisite. Monarchy\nhad already acquired great power, and, having obtained it in part by\nespousing the cause of the people against the lords, it came to be\nregarded as the natural protector of popular interests. It certainly\nhad some claims to this title, but no less certainly did it find in\nthis circumstance a most favorable opportunity for extending its power\nto an unlimited degree, at the expense of the rights and liberties of\nthe people.\n\nThere existed a germ of division between the aristocracy and the\ncommons, which afforded the monarchs an opportunity of curtailing the\nrights and powers of the lords, convinced, moreover, as they were, that\nany measure tending to such an object would be well received by the\nmultitude. But, on the other hand, the monarch might rest assured that\nthe lords would hail with delight any act tending to humble the people,\nwho already had raised their heads so high when the feudal aristocracy\nwas to be resisted; and, in this case, if the people committed any\nexcesses, if they adopted maxims and doctrines subversive of public\norder, no one could prevent the monarch from putting a stop to their\nproceedings by all possible means. The lords, who were powerful enough\nto repress such disorders themselves, would very naturally be glad to\nleave such a work to the monarch, fearing lest the people, in their\nexasperation against them, might deprive them of their prerogatives,\ntheir honors, their property, and even of their lives; or from the\nsecret satisfaction they would naturally feel at seeing that rival\npower brought down which had recently humbled themselves, and whose\nrivalry had been maintained through so many and such ferocious\nstruggles. In such an undertaking, the lords would naturally bring\nthe whole weight of their influence to the support of the monarch,\nthus taking advantage of the false direction given to the popular\nmovement to revenge themselves upon the people, whilst veiling their\nvengeance under the pretext of public utility. The people, it is true,\npossessed various means of defence; but when isolated and opposed to\nthe throne, they found these means too weak to afford them any hope of\nvictory. Learning, indeed, was no longer the exclusive patrimony of any\nprivileged class, but knowledge had not had time to become diffused so\nfar as to form a public opinion strong enough to exercise any direct\ninfluence upon the affairs of government. The art of printing was\nalready producing its results, but was not yet sufficiently developed\nto produce that rapid and extensive circulation of ideas which has\nsubsequently been attained. Notwithstanding the efforts everywhere\nmade at that time to promote the diffusion of knowledge, we need only\nunderstand correctly the nature and character of the knowledge of the\nperiod, to be convinced that neither in substance nor in form was\nit calculated to become, to any general extent, the property of the\npopular classes. Thanks to the progress of commerce and the arts, there\narose, it is true, a new description of wealth, destined of necessity\nto become the patrimony of the people. But commerce and the arts were\nthen in their infancy, and did not possess either the extent or the\ninfluence which, at a later period, connected them intimately with\nevery branch of society. Except in some few countries of very little\nimportance, the position of the merchant and the artizan could not\nsecure them any great amount of influence of itself.\n\nConsidering the course of events, and the elevation which royal power\nhad acquired on the ruins of feudalism, the only means for restricting\nmonarchical power, until the democratic element should have acquired\nsufficient force to be respected, was the union of the aristocracy\nwith the people. But such a coalition was not easily to be obtained,\nsince between the aristocracy and the people there existed so much\nanimosity and rivalry--a rivalry which, to a certain extent, was\ninevitable, owing to the opposition of their respective interests.\nWe must bear in mind, however, that the nobility were not the only\naristocracy; there was another much more powerful and influential than\nthey--the clergy. This latter class was at that time possessed of all\nthe ascendency and influence which both moral and material means can\nconfer; in fact, besides the religious character, which insured the\nrespect and veneration of the people, they were possessed, at the same\ntime, of abundant riches; which easily secured to them, on the one\nhand, gratitude and influence; and, on the other, made them feared by\nthe great, and respected by monarchs. Now, here is one of the leading\nmistakes of Protestantism: to crush the power of the clergy at such a\ntime, was to accelerate the complete victory of absolute monarchy, to\nleave the people defenceless, the monarch unrestrained, aristocracy\nwithout a bond of union, without a vital principle; it was to prevent\nthe three elements--monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy--from uniting\nto form a limited government, towards which almost all the European\nnations appeared to be inclining. We have already seen that it was\nnot at that time expedient to isolate the people, for their political\nexistence was still feeble and precarious; and it is no less evident\nthat the nobility, as a means of government, ought not to have been\nleft to themselves. This class, possessing no other vital principle\nthan that derived from their titles and privileges, were incapable of\nresisting the attacks continually aimed at them by the royal power. In\nspite of themselves, the nobility were under the necessity of yielding\nto the monarch's will, of abandoning their inaccessible castles,\nto resort to the sumptuous palaces of kings, and play the part of\ncourtiers.\n\nProtestantism crushed the power of the clergy, not only in the\ncountries in which it succeeded in implanting its errors, but also in\nothers. In fact, where it could not fully introduce itself, its ideas,\nwhen not in open opposition to the Catholic faith, exercised a certain\ndegree of influence. From that time the power of the clergy lost its\nprincipal support in the political influence of the Popes, for whilst\nkings assumed a tone of greater boldness against the pretensions of the\nHoly See, the Popes, on their side, that they might give no pretext, no\noccasion for the declamations of Protestants, were obliged to act with\ngreat circumspection in every thing relating to temporal affairs. All\nthis has been regarded as the progress of European civilization,--as\none step towards liberty; however, the rapid sketch which I have just\ngiven of the political condition of that period, clearly proves that,\ninstead of taking the surest way to the development of representative\nforms, the road to absolute monarchy was chosen. Protestantism,\ninterested in crushing by all possible means the power of the Popes,\nexalted that of kings even in spiritual matters. By thus concentrating\nin their hands the spiritual and temporal powers, it left the throne\nwithout any sort of counterpoise. By destroying the hope of obtaining\nliberty by peaceable means, it led the people to have recourse to\nforce, and opened the crater of those revolutions which have cost\nmodern Europe so many tears.\n\nIn order that the forms of political liberty should take root and\nattain to perfection, they were not to be forced prematurely from\nthe atmosphere which gave them birth; for in this atmosphere existed\ntogether the monarchical, aristocratical, and popular elements,\nall strengthened and directed by the Catholic religion; under the\ninfluence of this same religion, these elements were being gradually\ncombined, politics were not to be separated from religion. Instead\nof regarding the clergy as a fatal element, it was important to look\nupon them as a mediator among all classes and powers, ready to calm\nthe ardor of strife, to place bounds against excess, to prevent the\nexclusive preponderance of the monarch, the nobility, or the people.\nWhenever powers and interests of different natures are to be combined,\na mediator is essential, or some sort of intervention to prevent\nviolent shocks; if this mediator does not exist in the very nature of\nthe circumstances, recourse must be had to the law for the creation\nof one. From this it is evident what an evil Protestantism inflicted\nupon Europe; since its first act was completely to isolate the temporal\npower, to place it in rivalship and hostility to the spiritual, and\nto leave no mediator between the monarch and the people. The lay\naristocracy at once lost their political influence; for they had now\nlost their force and bond of union, which they derived from their\nconnection with the ecclesiastical aristocracy. When once the nobles\nwere reduced to mere courtiers, the power of the throne was entirely\nwithout a counterpoise.\n\nI have said it, and I repeat it, that the strengthening of the royal\npower, even at the expense of the rights and liberties of the lords\nand of the commons, tended powerfully to the maintenance of public\norder, and consequently to the progress of civilization; but, at the\nsame time, the extreme preponderance obtained by this power is much to\nbe lamented; and it may be well to reflect, that one of the principal\ncauses of this preponderance was the removal of the clergy from the\nsphere of politics. At the commencement of the sixteenth century, the\nquestion no longer was, whether those numerous castles should be left\nstanding, from the heights of which proud barons gave the law to their\nvassals, and held themselves justified in despising the ordinances of\nthe monarch; nor whether that long list of communal liberties should be\npreserved, which had no connection with each other, which were opposed\nto the pretensions of the great, and at the same time embarrassed the\naction of the sovereign, by preventing the formation of a central\ngovernment capable of insuring order, of protecting legitimate\ninterests, of giving an impulse to the movement of civilization, which\nhad everywhere commenced with so much activity. This was no longer\nthe question; on all sides the castles were being levelled, the great\nlords were descending from their fortresses, and becoming more humane\ntowards the people; they were giving up their exactions, and beginning\nto show respect to the power of the monarch; and the commons, obliged\nto submit to an amalgamation of the multitude of petty states, to form\nextensive monarchies, were forced to part with so much of their rights\nand liberties as was opposed to the system of general centralization.\n\nThe question was, to discover whether there existed any means of\nlimiting power, and yet securing to the people the benefits of its\ncentralization and augmentation; whether it was possible, without\nembarrassing or weakening the action of power, to secure to the people\na reasonable amount of influence over the progress of affairs, and,\nabove all, the right they had already acquired of watching over the\npublic revenues. That is, at once to prevent the sanguinary horrors\nof revolutions, and the abuses and disorders of court favorites. The\npeople alone were incapable of preserving this influence, unless\nthey had been furnished with a knowledge of the public affairs; an\nindispensable resource in such a case, but of which they were in\ngeneral completely destitute. I do not mean to deny the existence of\na certain kind of knowledge amongst the commons; but we must bear\nin mind that the term _public affairs_ had acquired an extensive\nsignification; for it was not merely applied to a municipality or\na province; centralization becoming everywhere more general and\ntriumphant, caused this term to be applied to whole kingdoms, not\nmerely considered as isolated, but in the whole of their relations with\nother nations. From that time European civilization began to assume\nthat character of _generality_, which still distinguishes it: from that\ntime, to understand aright the private affairs of any one kingdom, it\nwas necessary to look abroad over the whole of Europe, sometimes over\nthe whole world. Men capable of such elevated views could not be very\ncommon in society; moreover, as the most exalted part of society was\nattracted by the splendor of the throne of the monarch, a focus of\nintelligence was sure to be formed there, with exclusive pretensions to\nthe government. Compare with this centre of action and intelligence,\nthe people alone, still weak and ignorant, and the result may be\neasily guessed. Weakness and ignorance never prevailed over force and\nintelligence. But, what remedy was there for this difficulty? The\npreservation of the Catholic religion all over Europe, and consequently\nthe influence of the clergy; for it is well known that the clergy were\nstill considered at this epoch as the centre of learning.\n\nThose who have extolled Protestantism for having weakened the influence\nof the Catholic clergy, have not sufficiently reflected upon the\nnature of that influence. It would have been difficult to discover at\nthat epoch a class of citizens connected with the three elements of\npower by common interests with each, and yet not exclusively allied\nto any. Monarchy had nothing to fear from the clergy. In fact, how\ncan we imagine that the ministers of a religion regarding power as an\nemanation from Heaven would declare themselves the enemies of royal\npower, which was acknowledged to be at the head of all others? Neither\nhad the aristocracy any thing to apprehend on the part of the clergy,\nso long as they did not outstep the bounds of reason. The titles, by\nvirtue of which they claimed the possession of riches, their rights to\na certain degree of consideration and of precedence were not likely to\nbe combated by a class whose principles and interests were necessarily\nfavorable to every thing within the bounds of reason, of justice, and\nof the laws. The democracy, comprising the generality of the people,\nfound support and most generous protection in the Church. How could the\nChurch, which had labored so much to emancipate them from the ancient\nslavery, and at a later period from feudal chains, declare herself\nthe enemy of a class which might be considered as her creature? If\nthe people experienced an amelioration in their civil condition, it\nwas owing to the efforts of the clergy; if they acquired political\ninfluence, it was owing to the amelioration of their condition--another\nfavor obtained through the influence of the clergy; and if the clergy\nhad any where a sure support, it was natural to look for it in that\npopular class which, continually in contact with them, received from\nthem their inspirations and instructions.\n\nBesides, the Church selected her members indiscriminately from all\nclasses. To elevate a man to the sacred ministry she required neither\ntitles of nobility nor riches, and this alone was sufficient to insure\nintimate relations between the clergy and the people, and to prevent\nthe latter from regarding them with aversion and estrangement. Hence\nthe clergy, united to all classes, were an element perfectly adapted\nto prevent the exclusive preponderance of any of these classes, to\nmaintain all social elements in a certain gentle and productive\nfermentation, which in time would have produced and matured a natural\ncombination. I do not mean to assert that there would not have arisen\ndifferences, disputes, perhaps conflicts, inevitable occurrences so\nlong as men shall be men; but who does not see that the terrible\neffusion of blood in the wars of Germany, in the revolutions of England\nand France, would have been impossible? It will be said, perhaps, that\nthe spirit of European civilization necessarily tended to diminish the\nextreme inequality of classes; I grant it, and will even add, that this\ntendency was conformable to the principles and maxims of the Christian\nreligion, continually reminding men of their equality before God,\nof their common origin and destination, of the emptiness of honors\nand riches, and proclaiming that virtue is the only thing solid upon\nearth, the only thing capable of rendering us pleasing in the eyes of\nGod. But to reform is not to destroy; to cure the disease, we must not\nkill the patient. It was deemed better to overthrow at one blow what\nmight have been corrected by legal means; European civilization having\nbeen corrupted by the fatal innovations of the sixteenth century,\nlegitimate authority having been disregarded even in matters within its\nexclusive sphere, its mild and beneficent action has been replaced by\nthe disastrous expedients of violence. Three centuries of calamity have\nmore or less opened the eyes of nations, by teaching them how perilous\nit is, even for the success of an enterprise, to confide it to the\ncruel hazard of the employment of force; but it is probable that if\nProtestantism, like an apple of discord, had not been thrown into the\nmiddle of Europe, all these great social and political questions would,\nat the present time, be much nearer being solved in a safe, peaceable,\nand certain manner, if, indeed, they had not been already solved long\nsince.[38]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXV.\n\nPOLITICAL DOCTRINES BEFORE THE APPEARANCE OF PROTESTANTISM.\n\n\nIn matters appertaining to representative government, modern political\nscience boasts of its great progress: we hear it continually asserting\nthat the school in which the deputies of the Constituent Assembly\nimbibed their lessons was totally ignorant of political constitutions.\nNow when we compare the doctrines of the predominating school of the\npresent day with those of the preceding school, what difference do we\ndiscover between them? On what points do they differ? Where is this\nboasted progress?\n\nThe school of the eighteenth century said: \"The king is the natural\nenemy of the people; his power must either be totally destroyed, or at\nleast so far restrained and limited, that he may only appear with his\nhands tied on the summit of the social edifice, merely invested with\nthe faculty of approving the measures of the representatives of the\npeople.\" And what says the modern school, which boasts of its progress,\nof the advantage it has derived from experience, and of having hit the\nexact point marked out by reason and good sense? \"Monarchy,\" says this\nschool, \"is essential to the great European nations; the attempts at\nrepublicanism made in America, whatever may be their results, require,\nas yet, the test of time; besides, they were made under circumstances\nvery different from those in which we are placed, and consequently,\nare not to be imitated by us. The king should not be regarded as the\nenemy of the people, but as their father; instead of presenting him to\npublic view with his hands tied, he should be represented surrounded\nwith power, grandeur, and even with majesty and pomp; without which it\nis impossible for the throne to fulfil the high functions with which\nit is invested. The king should be inviolable--not nominally, but\nreally and effectually, so that his power cannot, under any pretext,\nbe attacked. He should be placed in a sphere beyond the whirlwind of\npassion and party, like a tutelar divinity, a stranger to mean views\nand base passions; he ought to be, as it were, the representative of\nreason and justice.\" \"Fools,\" exclaims this school to its adversaries,\n\"can you not see that it would be better to have no king at all than\nsuch a one as you would have? Your king would always be an enemy to the\nconstitution, for he would find this constitution always attacking,\nembarrassing, restricting, and humiliating him.\"\n\nWe will now compare this progress with the doctrines predominating in\nEurope long before the appearance of Protestantism. This comparison\nwill enable us to show clearly that every thing reasonable, just, and\nuseful, contained in these doctrines, was already known and generally\npropagated in Europe when society was under the exclusive influence of\nthe Catholic Church.\n\n_A king is essential_, says the modern school; and, thanks to the\ninfluence of the Catholic religion, all the great nations of Europe had\na king: _the king must not be regarded as the enemy, but as the father\nof the people_; and he was already called the father of the people:\n_the power of the king should be great_; that power was great: _the\nking should be inviolable, his person sacred_; his person was sacred,\nand his prerogative insured to him by the Church from the earliest\nages, in an august and solemn ceremony, that of his coronation. \"The\npeople are supreme,\" said the school of the last century; \"the law is\nthe expression of the general will, the representatives of the people\nare alone, therefore, invested with legislative faculties; the monarch\ncannot resist this will. The laws are submitted to his sanction through\nmere formality; if the king refuses this sanction, the laws are to\nundergo another examination; but if the will of the representatives of\nthe people still remains the same, it shall be raised to the dignity\nof law; and the monarch who, by the refusal of his sanction, shall show\nthat he regards this general will as detrimental to the public good,\nshall be compelled, at the expense of his dignity and independence, to\ngive effect to it.\"\n\nIn reply to this, the modern school says: \"The supremacy of the\npeople is either unmeaning, or has a dangerous sense; the law should\nnot be the expression of will, but of reason; mere will does not\nconstitute a law; for this purpose, reason, justice, and public\nexpediency are required.\" These ideas were general long before the\nsixteenth century, not only amongst educated men, but even among the\nmost simple and ignorant classes. A doctor of the thirteenth century\nadmirably expressed it in his habitual laconic language: \"_It is a\nrule dictated by reason, and having the common weal for its aim._\"\n\"Would you,\" continued the modern school, \"have royal power a truth,\nyou must assign it the first place among legislative powers; you must\nentrust it with an absolute _veto_. In the ancient cortes, in the\nancient states-general and parliaments, the king did occupy this place\namong the legislative powers; nothing was done without his consent; he\npossessed _an absolute veto_.\"\n\n\"Away with classes!\" exclaims the Constituent Assembly; \"away with\ndistinctions! The king face to face with the people, directly\nand immediately; the rest is an attempt against imprescriptible\nrights.\" \"You are rash,\" replies the modern school; \"if there are\nno distinctions, they must be created. If there are not in society\nclasses forming in themselves a second legislative body a mediator\nbetween the king and the people, there must be artificial ones;\nthrough the medium of the law must be created what does not exist in\nsociety; if reality is wanting, recourse must be had to fiction.\" Now\nthese classes existed in ancient society, they took part in public\naffairs, they were organized as active instruments, they formed the\nfirst legislative bodies. I ask now, whether this parallel does not\nshow, as clear as the light of day, that what is now termed progress\nin matters of government, is, in fact, a true return towards what was\nevery where taught and practised under the influence of the Catholic\nreligion before the appearance of Protestantism? In addressing\nmyself to men endowed with the least intelligence upon social and\npolitical questions, I may assuredly dispense with the differences\nwhich must necessarily result from the two epochs. I grant that the\ncourse of events would of itself have caused important modifications;\npolitical institutions were to be accommodated to the fresh wants\nto be satisfied. But I maintain, at the same time, that, so far as\ncircumstances permitted, European civilization was advancing on the\nright road to a better state, containing within itself the means\nnecessary for reforming without destroying. But for this purpose a\nspontaneous development of events was necessary to bear in mind that\nthe mere action of man is of little avail, that sudden attempts are\ndangerous; that the great productions of society are like those of\nnature, both requiring an indispensable element, _time_.\n\nThere is one fact which appears to me to have been too little reflected\nupon, although including the explanation of some strange phenomena\nof the last three centuries. This fact is, that Protestantism has\nprevented civilization from becoming homogeneous, in spite of a\nstrong tendency urging all the nations of Europe to homogeneity. The\ncivilization of the nations without doubt receives its nature and\nits characteristics from the principles that have given it life and\nmovement; now these principles being the same, or very nearly so,\nin all the nations of Europe, these nations must have borne a close\nresemblance to each other. History and philosophy agree on this\npoint; therefore, so long as the European nations did not receive\nthe inculcation of any germ of division, their civil and political\ninstitutions were developed with a very remarkable similarity. True,\ncertain differences were observable in them, which were the inevitable\nconsequences of a variety of circumstances; but we see that they\nwere becoming more and more alike and forming Europe into one vast\nwhole, of which we can scarcely form a correct idea, accustomed as we\nare to ideas of disunion. This homogeneity would have arrived at its\nperfection through the effect of the rapidity which the increase and\nprosperity of commerce and the arts gave to intellectual and material\ncommunications; the art of printing would have contributed to it more\nthan anything else, for the ebb and flow of ideas would have dispersed\nthe inequalities separating the nations one from another.\n\nBut unfortunately, Protestantism appeared and separated the European\npeople into two great families, which, since their division, have\nprofessed a mortal hatred towards each other. This hatred has been the\ncause of furious wars, in which torrents of blood have been shed. One\nthing yet more fatal than these catastrophies was the germ of civil,\npolitical, and literary schism, introduced into the bosom of Europe\nby the absence of religious unity. Civil and political institutions,\nand all the branches of learning, had appeared and prospered in Europe\nunder the influence of religion; the schism was religious; it affected\neven the root, and extended to the branches. Thus arose among the\nvarious nations those brazen walls which kept them separate; the spirit\nof suspicion and mistrust was everywhere spread; things which before\nwould have been deemed innocent or without importance, from that time\nwere looked upon as eminently dangerous.\n\nWhat uneasiness, disquietude, and agitation must have been the result\nof these fatal complications! We may say that in this detestable germ\nis contained the history of the calamities with which Europe was\nafflicted during the last three centuries. To what may we attribute the\nAnabaptist wars in Germany, those of the empire, and the Thirty-years\nwar; those of the Huguenots in France, and the bloody scenes of the\nLeague; and that profound source of division, that uninterrupted series\nof discord, which beginning with the Huguenots, was continued by the\nJansenists, and then by philosophers, terminating in the Convention?\nHad England not contained in her bosom that nest of sects engendered\nby Protestantism, would she have had to suffer the disasters of a\nrevolution which lasted so many years? Had Henry VIII. not seceded from\nthe Catholic Church, Great Britain would not have passed two-thirds of\nthe sixteenth century in the most atrocious religious persecutions,\nand under the most brutal despotism; she would not have been drowned\nduring the greater part of the seventeenth in torrents of blood, shed\nby sectarian fanaticism. Had it not been for Protestantism, would\nEngland have been in the fatal position in which she is placed by the\nIrish question, scarcely leaving her a choice between a dismemberment\nof the empire and a terrible revolution? Would not nations of brethren\nhave found the means of coming to an amicable understanding, if, during\nthe last three centuries, religious discords had not separated them by\na lake of blood? Those offensive and defensive confederations between\nnation and nation, which divided Europe into two parties, as inimical\nto each other as the Christians to the Mussulmans, that traditional\nhatred between the North and the South, that profound separation\nbetween Protestant and Catholic Germany, between Spain and England,\nbetween that country and France, were sure to have an extraordinary\neffect in retarding communications between European nations; and what\nwould have been obtained much sooner by moral means, could only be\nobtained by material ones. Steam tends to convert Europe into one vast\ncity; if men who were one day to live under the same roof hated one\nanother for three centuries, what was the cause of it? If people's\nhearts had been united long before in mutual affection, would not the\nhappy moment in which they were to join hands have been hastened?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXVI.\n\nPOLITICAL DOCTRINES IN SPAIN.\n\n\nMy explanation of this matter would be incomplete, were I to leave the\nfollowing difficulty unresolved: \"In Spain, Catholicity has prevailed\nexclusively, and under it an absolute monarchy was established, a\nsufficient indication that Catholic doctrines are inimical to political\nliberty.\" The great majority of men never look deeply into the real\nnature of things, nor pay due attention to the true meaning of words.\nPresent them with something in strong relief that will make a vivid\nimpression on their imagination, and they take facts just as they\nappear at the first glance, thoughtlessly confounding _causality_ with\n_coincidence_. It cannot be denied that the empire of the Catholic\nreligion _coincided_ in Spain with the final _preponderance_ of\nabsolute monarchy; but the question is, _Was the Catholic religion\nthe true cause of this preponderance?_ Was it she that overturned the\nancient cortes, to establish the throne of absolute monarchs on the\nruins of popular institutions?\n\nBefore we commence our examination into the cause that destroyed the\ninfluence of the nation on public affairs, it may be well to remind the\nreader that in Denmark, Sweden, and Germany, absolutism was established\nand upheld in juxtaposition with Protestantism. Hence the argument of\ncoincidence is very little worth, as, owing to the exact identity of\ncircumstances in the two cases, it could just as well be proved that\nProtestantism leads to absolutism. I will just observe here, that\nin my endeavors to demonstrate in the foregoing chapters that the\npseudo-Reformation tended to the overthrow of political liberty, I\nhave not rested my arguments upon coincidences only, however careful\nI may have been to point them out to the reader. I have said that\nProtestantism, by diffusing dissolvent doctrines, had occasioned a\nnecessity for an extension of temporal power; that by destroying the\npolitical influence of the clergy and the Popes, it had destroyed the\nequilibrium between the social classes, left no counterpoise to the\nthrone, and further augmented the power of the monarch, by granting him\necclesiastical supremacy in Protestant countries, and exaggerating his\nprerogatives in Catholic nations.\n\nBut we will dismiss these general considerations, and fix our attention\nupon Spain. This nation has the misfortune to be one of those that\nare least known; its history is not properly studied, nor are sound\nviews taken of its present condition. Its troubles, its rebellions,\nits civil wars, proclaim that it has not yet received its true system\nof government, which proves that the nation to be governed is but\nimperfectly understood. Its history is, if possible, still less\nperfectly understood. The present influence of events already very\nremote, works secretly and almost imperceptibly; and hence the eye\nof the observer is satisfied with a superficial view of affairs,\nand he forms his opinions too hastily--opinions which too often, in\nconsequence, take the place of facts and reality. In treating of the\ncauses that have deprived Spain of her political liberty, almost all\nauthors fix their attention principally or exclusively upon Castile,\ngiving monarchs infinitely more credit for sagacity than the course\nof events would seem to justify. They generally select the war of the\n_Communeros_ as their point of view, and, according to certain writers,\nbut for the defeat at Villalar, the liberties of Spain would have been\nforever secure. I admit that the war of the _Communeros_ affords an\nexcellent point of view for the study of this matter; in fact, the\nfield of Villalar was in some measure witness to the conclusion of\nthe drama. Castile should be regarded as the centre of events; and it\nis here that the Spanish monarchs gave proof of great sagacity in the\nmanner in which they brought the enterprise to a close. Nevertheless,\nI do not deem it just to give an exclusive preference to one of these\nconsiderations, and it does appear to me that the real state of the\nquestion is generally misconceived: effects are taken for causes,\naccessories for principals.\n\nIn my opinion, the ruin of free institutions resulted from the\nfollowing causes:--1st, the premature and immoderately extensive\ndevelopment of these institutions; 2dly, the formation of the Spanish\nnation out of a successive reunion of very heterogeneous parts, all\npossessing institutions extremely popular; 3dly, the establishment of\nthe centre of power in the middle of the provinces where these forms\nwere most restricted, and where the authority of the crown was the\ngreatest; 4thly, the extreme abundance of wealth, the power and the\nsplendor which the Spanish people saw everywhere around them, and which\nlulled them to sleep in the arms of prosperity; 5thly, the exclusively\nmilitary position of the Spanish monarchs, whose armies were everywhere\nvictorious, their military power and prestige being at their height\nprecisely at the critical time when the quarrel had to be decided. I\nwill take a rapid view of these causes, although the nature of this\nwork does not permit me to devote to them the space which the gravity\nand importance of the subject demand. The reader will pardon me this\npolitical digression on account of the close connection existing\nbetween this subject and the religious question.\n\nAs regards popular forms of government, Spain has been in advance\nof all monarchical nations. This is an indubitable fact. In Spain,\nthese forms received a premature and extreme development; and this\ncontributed to their ruin, as a child sickens and dies, if, in its\ntender years, its growth is too rapid, or its intellect too precocious.\nThis active spirit of liberty, this multitude of _fueros_ and of\nprivileges, these impediments everywhere placed in the way of power,\nchecking the rapidity and energy of its action--this great development\nof the popular element, in its very nature restless and turbulent,\nexisting simultaneously with the wealth, the power, and the pride\nof the aristocracy, very naturally gave rise to many commotions.\nElements so numerous, so various, and so opposite to each other, which,\nmoreover, had not time to be combined so as to form a peaceable and\nharmonious whole, were not likely to work tranquilly together. Order is\nthe prime necessity of society; it is essential to the growth of the\nideas, the manners, and the laws of a nation. Wherever there exists\na germ of continual disorder, how deep soever it may have struck its\nroots, it is sure to be extirpated, or at least crushed, so as no\nlonger to keep public tranquillity in perpetual danger. The municipal\nand political organization of Spain had this inconvenience, and hence\nan imperative necessity for its modification. But the ideas and the\nmanners of the time were such, that matters could not be expected to\nstop at a simple modification. The system of constituencies, which so\neasily creates numerous assemblies, either to enact new fundamental\ncodes or to reform the old ones, was not then understood as it is in\nour days; neither were men's ideas at that time so generalized as to\nplace them above all that exclusively and particularly relates to a\npeople, at a point of elevation whence they could no longer observe\nevery petty local object, but had their attention wholly engrossed\nby mankind, society, the nation, or the government. It was not so at\nthat time: a charter of liberty granted by a king to a city or a town;\nan immunity wrested from a feudal lord by his armed vassals; some\nprivilege obtained in reward of warlike achievements, or sometimes\ngranted as a recompense for the bravery of a man's ancestors; a\nconcession to the cortes, made by the monarch in exchange for the grant\nof a contribution, or, as it was then termed, of a _service_,--a law or\ncustom, the antiquity of which lay hidden in the depths of the past, or\nconfounded with the infancy of monarchy: such, to give a few instances,\nwere the titles of which they were proud, and which they maintained\nwith jealous ardor.\n\nLiberty now-a-days is more vague, and sometimes less positive, owing\nto the generalization and elevation which men's ideas have assumed;\nbut then it is far less liable to destruction. Speaking a language\nwell understood by the people, and appearing as the common cause of\nall nations, it awakens universal sympathies, and is in a position to\nfound more extensive associations as a guarantee against the attacks\nof power. The words liberty, equality, rights of man, intervention\nof the people in public affairs, ministerial responsibility, public\nopinion, liberty of the press, toleration, and other similar ones, do\nundoubtedly contain a great diversity of meanings, which it would be\ndifficult to determine and to classify when we come to make a specific\napplication of them; and yet these words present to the mind certain\nideas which, although complicated and confused, have a false appearance\nof clearness and simplicity. On the other hand, these words represent\ncertain striking objects that dazzle the mind by their vivid and\nflattering colors, and hence they cannot be uttered without exciting\na lively interest; they are understood by the masses, and hence every\nself-constituted champion of the ideas they convey is at once regarded\nas a defender of the rights of all mankind. But imagine yourself\nliving among the people of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and\nyour position will be found very different. Take for your subject the\nfranchises of Catalonia or of Castile, and address yourself to the\nAragonese, who were so intractable on the subject of their _fueros_,\nand you will produce no effect--will not succeed in awakening either\ntheir zeal or their interest; a charter that does not contain the\nname of one of their towns or cities is, in their eyes, a thing of\nno importance, and foreign to their wishes. This inconvenience,\noriginating in the ideas of the times, which were naturally confined\nto local circumstances, became very great in Spain, where, under the\nsame sceptre, there was formed an amalgamation of people differing most\nwidely in their manners, in their municipal and political organization,\nand divided, moreover, by rivalries and animosities. In such a state\nof things it was comparatively easy to curtail the liberties of one\nprovince without giving umbrage to the others, or exciting their\napprehensions for their own liberties. If, at the period of the\ninsurrections of the _Communeros_ in Castile against Charles V., there\nhad existed that communication of ideas and sentiments, and those\nlively sympathies, which at the present time unite people together,\nthe defeat of Villalar would have been a simple defeat and nothing\nmore; the cry of alarm, resounding throughout Aragon and Castile, would\ncertainly have given more trouble to the young and ill-advised monarch.\nBut such was not the case; all the efforts of the people were isolated,\nand consequently barren of results. The royal power, proceeding upon a\nfixed and steady plan, was able to beat down piecemeal these scattered\nforces, and the result was not doubtful. In 1521, Padilla, Bravo, and\nMaldonado perished on the scaffold; in 1591, D. Diego de Heredia, D.\nJuan de Luna, and the Justiciary himself, D. Antonio de Lanuza, met the\nsame fate; when, in 1640, the Catalonians rose in insurrection for the\ndefence of their rights, notwithstanding the manifestos they issued to\nattract supporters, they found no one to assist them. There were then\nno flying sheets, coming every morning to fix the attention of the\npeople upon all sorts of questions, and to stir up alarm at the least\nappearance of danger to their liberties. The people, warmly attached\nto their customs and usages, satisfied with the nominal confirmations\nwhich their monarchs were daily giving to their _fueros_, proud also of\nthe respect shown to their ancient liberties, were little aware that\nthey were confronted by a sagacious adversary, who never resorted to\nforce but to effect a decisive blow, yet constantly held his powerful\narm ready to crush them. An attentive study of the history of Spain\nwill show that the concentration of the whole governing power in the\nhands of the monarch, to the exclusion, as far as was possible, of\npopular influence, dates from the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella. Nor\nis this surprising; for there was then a greater necessity for such\na course, and it could be more easily adopted. There was a greater\nnecessity; for, from that time, the action of government began to\nextend from one common center over the whole of Spain, the various\nportions of which differed so widely in their laws, their manners, and\ntheir customs; hence the central action naturally felt more sensibly\nthe embarrassment occasioned by so great a diversity of cortes, of\nmunicipalities, of codes, and of privileges; and, as every government\nwishes its action to be rapid and efficacious, the idea of simplifying,\nuniting, and centralizing their power naturally took possession of the\nkings of Spain. It is, in fact, easy to understand that a monarch at\nthe head of numerous armies, with magnificent fleets at his disposal,\nwho had, on a hundred occasions, humbled his most powerful foes, and\nwon the respect of foreign nations, would not like to be continually\ngoing to preside over the cortes in Castile, in Aragon, in Valencia,\nand in Catalonia. It would undoubtedly cost him dear to be constantly\nrepeating the oath binding him to protect the rights and liberties of\nhis subjects, and listening to the perpetual strain re-echoed in his\nears by the _procuradores_ of Castile, and the _brazos_ of Aragon,\nValencia, and Catalonia. It was hard for him to be obliged humbly to\nsolicit from the cortes assistance for the expenses of the state,\nand particularly for almost continual wars. If he submitted to this,\nit was only from the dread of those resolute men, real lions in the\nbattle-field when fighting in defence of their religion, their country,\nand their king, and who would have fought with no less intrepidity in\ntheir streets and houses, had an attempt been made to despoil them of\nthose rights and franchises which they inherited from their forefathers.\n\nThe union of the crowns of Aragon and Castile alone so far prepared\nthe way for the ruin of popular institutions, that it followed almost\nnecessarily. From that time, in fact, the throne had obtained too great\na preponderance for the _fueros_ of the kingdoms recently united to\noppose it with success. To imagine the existence at that period of a\npolitical power capable of resisting the crown, we must suppose all the\nassemblies held from time to time in the different kingdoms under the\nname of cortes united into one grand national representative body, with\na power analogous to that of the king; we must suppose this central\nassembly actuated by a zeal equal to that of the ancient assemblies for\nthe preservation of their _fueros_ and privileges, ready to sacrifice\nall their rivalries to the public good, and advancing towards their\nobject with a firm step, in one compact mass, and never giving an\nadvantage to their adversary. In other words, we must suppose what was\nutterly impossible at that period; impossible, on account of the ideas,\nthe habits, and the rivalries of the people; impossible, at a time when\nthe people were incapable of comprehending the question in so lofty a\nsense; impossible, owing to the resistance which it would have met with\nfrom the monarchs; to the embarrassment and complication, arising from\nthe municipal, social, and political organization. In a word, it was\nsomething impossible to effect or even to conceive.\n\nEvery circumstance was in favor of the aggrandizement of the royal\npower. The monarch being no longer merely king of Aragon or of Castile,\nbut of Spain, the ancient kingdoms dwindled into insignificance before\nthe majesty and the splendor of the throne, and sank by degrees to\nthe rank which alone suited them, that of provinces. From that moment\nthe action of the monarch became more extensive and complicated,\nand consequently he could not come so frequently into contact with\nhis vassals. The celebration of the cortes in each of the recently\nunited kingdoms, would have occasioned long delays; for the king was\noftentimes engaged at another part of the empire. When sedition was to\nbe chastised, abuses to be checked, or excesses to be repressed, he\nwas no longer obliged to have recourse to the forces of the particular\nkingdom in which these things occurred, as he could employ the arms\nof Castile to subdue insurrection in the kingdom of Aragon, and\nthose of Aragon to put down the rebels of Castile. Grenada lay at\nhis feet; Italy yielded to one of his victorious captains; in his\nfleet was Columbus, who had just discovered a new world; under these\ncircumstances, it was in vain to listen for the murmurs of the cortes\nand of _ayuntamientos_,--these were no longer heard, they had totally\ndisappeared.\n\nHad the national manners had a peaceable tendency, had not Spain been\nhabituated to war, democratic institutions would probably have been\npreserved with less difficulty. Had the attention of the people been\nfixed exclusively upon their municipal and political affairs, they\nwould have better understood their real interests; kings themselves\nwould not have been so ready to rush into war, and the throne would\nin some degree have lost the prestige it obtained from the splendor\nand success of its armies; the administration would not have been\nimbued with that blunt harshness for which military habits are always\nmore or less remarkable; and the ancient _fueros_ would thus have\nmore easily retained some consideration. But precisely at that period\nSpain was the most warlike nation in the world; it was in its element\non the battle-field; seven centuries of combats had made it a nation\nof soldiers. Its recent victories over the Moors; the exploits of its\narmies in Italy; the discoveries of Columbus; every thing, in fine,\ncontributed to its exaltation, and to inspire it with that spirit of\nchivalry which, for so long a time, was one of its distinguishing\ncharacteristics. It was necessary for the king to be a captain; and\nhe was certain to captivate the minds of Spaniards, so long as he won\nrenown by brilliant feats of arms. Now, arms are the bane of popular\ninstitutions. After a victory on the field of battle, the order and\ndiscipline of the camp are usually transferred to the city.\n\nFrom the time of Ferdinand and Isabella, the throne rose to such a\nheight of power that liberal institutions were almost lost sight of.\nThe people and the grandees, it is true, reappeared upon the scene\nafter the death of Isabella; but this was entirely owing to the\nmisunderstanding between Ferdinand the Catholic and Philip le Bel,\nwhich impaired the unity, and consequently the strength of the throne;\nand hence, as soon as these circumstances disappeared, the throne again\nresumed its full preponderance, and that not only during the last\ndays of Ferdinand, but even under the regency of Ximenes. The men of\nCastile, exasperated by the excesses of the Flemish, and encouraged\nperhaps by the hope, that the rule of a young monarch would be, as it\nusually is, only feeble, again raised their voices; their remonstrances\nand complaints speedily ended in commotions and in open insurrection.\nNotwithstanding many circumstances highly favorable to the\n_Communeros_, and the probability that their conduct would be followed\nby all the provinces of the monarchy, we find that the insurrection,\nalthough considerable, did not assume either the importance or extent\nof a national movement; a great portion of the Peninsula preserved a\nstrict neutrality, and the rest inclined to the cause of monarchy. If\nI am not mistaken, this fact indicates that the throne had already\nobtained an immense prestige, and was regarded as the highest and most\npowerful institution. The entire reign of Charles V. was extremely well\ncalculated to perfect this beginning. Commenced under the auspices of\nthe battle of Villalar, this reign continued through an uninterrupted\nseries of wars, in which the treasures and the blood of Spain were\nspent with incredible profusion in all the countries of Europe,\nAfrica, and America. The nation was not allowed time even to think of\nits affairs: almost always deprived of the presence of its king, it\nhad become a province at the disposal of the Emperor of Germany, the\nruler of Europe. True, the cortes of 1538 boldly gave Charles a severe\nlecture instead of the succor he demanded. But it was already too\nlate; the clergy and the nobility were expelled from the cortes, and\nthe representation of Castile was restricted for the future to the\n_procuradores_ alone; that is, it was doomed to be no more than the\nshadow of what it had been--a mere instrument of the royal will.\n\nMuch has been said against Philip II.; but, in my opinion, this monarch\nmerely kept his place, and allowed things to take their natural course.\nThe crisis was already past; the question already decided; the Spanish\nnation could not regain its lost influence, save by the regenerating\naction of centuries. Still, we must not imagine that absolute power\nwas so fully and completely established as to leave not a vestige of\nancient liberty; but this liberty could do nothing from its asylum in\nAragon and Catalonia against the giant that held it in check from the\nmidst of a country entirely subject to his sway, from the capital of\nCastile. The monarchs might probably, by one bold and heavy blow, have\nstruck down every thing that opposed them; but whatever probabilities\nof success they had in the vast means at their disposal, they were very\ncareful not to make the attempt, but left the inhabitants of Navarre,\nthe subjects of the crown of Aragon, in the tranquil enjoyment of\ntheir franchises, rights, and privileges. At the same time, they were\ncareful to prevent the contagion spreading to the other provinces. By\nmeans of partial attacks, and more especially by leading the people to\nallow their ancient liberties to fall into desuetude, they gradually\ndiminished their zeal for them, and insensibly brought them to a habit\nof tamely bending under the action of a central power.[39]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXVII.\n\nPOLITICAL LIBERTY AND RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.\n\n\nIn the sketch I have here drawn, the rigorous accuracy of which no\none can question, we have not discovered any thing like oppression\nin Catholicity, nor any alliance between the clergy and the throne\nfor the destruction of liberty: what we _have_ discovered is merely\nthe regular and natural order of things,--a successive development of\nevents contained in each other, as the plant is contained in the germ.\nAs for the Inquisition, I think I have said enough respecting it in\nthe chapters that treat of it: in this place I will merely observe,\nthat it was not a political instrument in the hands of kings, ready\nto be used at their beck. Religion was its object; and as we have\nseen, far from losing sight of this object to suit the wishes of the\nsovereign, it unhesitatingly condemned the doctrines that would have\nunjustly extended the powers of the monarch. Shall I be told, that the\nInquisition was in its very nature intolerant, and consequently opposed\nto the growth of liberty? I answer, that toleration, as now understood,\nhad at that time no existence in any European country. Besides, it was\nunder the direct and full influence of religious intolerance that the\npeople were emancipated, municipalities organized, the system of large\nrepresentative assemblies established, which, under different names,\nand more or less directly, interfered in public affairs.\n\nMen's ideas were not yet so far perverted as to lead them to believe\nthat religion was favorable and conducive to the oppression of the\npeople; on the contrary, we observe in the hearts of these people a\nvehement desire for liberty and progress, whilst at the same time they\nclung with enthusiasm to a faith, in the sight of which it appeared to\nthem just and salutary to refuse toleration to any doctrine at variance\nwith the teaching of the Church of Rome. Unity of faith does not fetter\nthe people--does not impede their movements in any direction--as well,\nindeed, might it be said, that the mariner is fettered by the compass\nthat guides him in safety through the wide expanse of waters. Was the\nancient unity of European civilization wanting in grandeur, in variety,\nor in beauty? Did Catholic unity, presiding over the destinies of\nsociety, arrest its progress, even in the ages of barbarism? Let us\nfix our eyes upon the grand and delightful spectacle exhibited in the\ncenturies preceding the sixteenth, and pause a moment to reflect; we\nshall all the better understand in what manner Protestantism has given\na wrong direction to the course of civilization.\n\nThe immense agitation occasioned by the gigantic enterprise of the\nCrusades shows in what a state of fermentation were the elements\ndeposited in the bosom of society. The shock excited them to\nactivity--union augmented their force--every where, and in every sense,\nwas to be seen a vigorous and active movement, a sure presage of the\nhigh degree of civilization and refinement which Europe was about to\nattain. The arts and sciences, as if called into life by some powerful\nvoice, reappeared, loudly asserting their claim to protection and an\nhonorable reception. On the feudal castles, those heirlooms of the\nmanners of the period of conquest, a ray of light suddenly gleamed,\nthat illuminated with the rapidity of lightning all climates and all\npeople. Those masses of men, who had hitherto bent in painful toil\nfor the benefit of their masters, now lifted up their heads, and,\nwith bold hearts and enfranchised lips, demanded a share in social\nadvantages. Addressing each other with a look of intelligence, they\ncombined together, and insisted in common that the law should be\nsubstituted for caprice. Then towns sprang up, increased in size and\nimportance, and were surrounded with ramparts; municipal institutions\narose, and began to develop themselves; kings, till then the sport of\nthe pride, ambition or stubbornness of the feudal lords, seized upon\nan opportunity so favorable, and made common cause with the people.\nThreatened with destruction, feudalism entered valiantly into the\ncontest, but in vain; and, restrained by a power even more irresistible\nthan the weapons of its adversaries, and, as if oppressed by the air\nit breathed, it felt its action impeded, its energies enfeebled, and,\ndespairing of victory, it gave itself up to the enjoyment to be found\nin the patronage of the arts.\n\nTo the coat of mail now succeeded elegance of dress; to the powerful\nshield, the pompous escutcheon; to the bearing and address of the\nwarrior, the manners of the courtier:--thus was the whole power of\nfeudalism undermined; the popular element was left completely at\nliberty to develop itself; and the powers of monarchs became every\nday more extensive. Royalty thus strengthened, municipal institutions\nin full vigor, and feudalism undermined, the remnants of barbarism\nand oppression still existing in the laws fell one by one beneath\nthe attacks of so many adversaries; and, for the first time in the\nworld's history, there was seen a considerable number of great nations\npresenting the peaceful spectacle of many millions of men living in\nsocial union, and enjoying together the rights of men and of citizens.\nUntil this period, public tranquillity, and even the very existence\nof society, had to be secured by carefully excluding from the working\nof the political machine a great number of individuals by means of\nslavery--a system that proved at once the intrinsic inferiority and\nweakness of the governments of antiquity. The Christian religion,\nwith the courage inspired by the consciousness of strength, and with\nan ardent love for humanity, had never doubted that she held in her\nhands other means of restraining men than a recourse to degradation\nand violence, and had, in fact, resolved the problem in a manner the\nmost noble and generous. She had said to society: \"Dost thou dread this\nimmense multitude, that have no sufficient titles to thy confidence? I\nwill stand security for them. Thou enslavest them; thou puttest chains\naround their necks; I will subdue their hearts. Leave them free; and\nthis multitude, before which thou tremblest as before a herd of wild\nbeasts, will become a class of men serviceable to themselves and to\nthee.\" This voice had been heard, and all men were freed from the yoke\nof slavery--all entered upon this noble struggle, which was to place\nsociety in equilibrium, without destroying or shaking its foundations.\nWe have already said above, that there existed powerful adversaries.\nShocks more or less violent were inevitable; but there was no cause for\nanticipating any serious catastrophe, unless some fatal combination of\ncircumstances arose to overthrow the only power capable of moderating\nthe inflamed, and sometimes exasperated, passions of men--to impose\nsilence upon that powerful voice, ever ready to say to the combatants,\n_That is enough_. That voice--the voice of Christianity--might have\nbeen heard with greater or less docility; but it would always have\nsufficed to calm down the fury of the passions, to moderate the\nfierceness of their conflicts, and thus to prevent scenes of bloodshed.\n\nIf we take a glance at Europe at the end of the fifteenth and beginning\nof the sixteenth centuries, with a view to discover the social\nelements, whose struggle seemed likely to disturb public tranquillity,\nwe shall find the power of the throne already far superior to that of\nthe lords and of the people; we shall see it endeavoring to please its\nrivals, lending its aid to one for the subjugation of the others: but\nalready this power was evidently indestructible. Held more or less\nin check by the proud remnants of feudalism, and by the ever-growing\nand encroaching power of the people, monarchy nevertheless maintained\nits position as a central force for the protection of society against\nviolence and excess. This tendency was so strong, that we every\nwhere meet with the same phenomenon, manifested with more or less\ndistinctness, and with characters of greater or less identity. The\nnations of Europe were great both in numbers and extent; the abolition\nof slavery gave a sanction to the principle, that man ought to live\nfree in the midst of society, enjoying its most essential advantages,\nand with sufficient room to enable him to take a more or less elevated\nrank, according to the means he employs to gain it. Thus society had\nsaid to each individual: \"I acknowledge thee as a man and a citizen;\nfrom this moment I guarantee to thee the possession of these titles. If\nthou desirest to lead a quiet life in the bosom of thy family--labor\nand be careful; no one shall wrest from thee the rewards of thy labors,\nnor trammel the free exercise of thy faculties. Dost thou aspire to\nthe possession of wealth--consider how others have acquired it, and\ndisplay a similar activity and intelligence. Art thou ambitious of\nfame, of rising to an elevated rank, to splendid titles--the sciences\nand the military profession are before thee. If thou hast inherited an\nillustrious name, thou mayest still increase its lustre; if thou art\nnot in possession of such a name, thou art free to acquire one.\"\n\nSuch was the condition of the social problem at the end of the\nfifteenth century. Every thing was made public, all the great means\nof action were openly developing themselves with rapidity; the art\nof printing already transmitted men's thoughts from one end of the\nworld to the other with the speed of lightning, and insured their\npreservation for the benefit of future generations. The frequent\nintercourse between nations, the revival of literature and the arts,\nthe cultivation of the sciences, the inclination for travelling and\ncommerce, the discovery of a new passage to the East Indies, the\ndiscovery of America, the preference given to political negotiations\nfor effecting the arrangements of international relations,--every thing\ncombined to give to the minds of men that strong impulse, that shock\nwhich at once arouses and develops all their faculties, and gives new\nlife. It is difficult to understand by what process of reasoning,\nin the face of facts so positive and certain,--facts that stand so\nprominently forward in every page of history, any man could ever\nseriously maintain that Protestantism aided human progress. If previous\nto Luther's reform society had been found stationary, and still\nsubmerged in the chaos into which it had been plunged by the irruptions\nof the barbarians; if the people had not succeeded, previously to that\nreform, in forming themselves into great nations, and in providing\nthemselves with systems of government more or less perfectly organized,\nbut all unquestionably superior to any that had hitherto existed,--the\nassertion might carry with it a degree of plausibility, or, at all\nevents, it would not stand, as it unfortunately does, in direct\nopposition to the most authentic and notorious facts. But what, on\nthe contrary, was the actual state of Europe at the time of Luther's\nappearance? The administration of justice, exercised with more or less\nperfection, already possessed a highly moral, rational, and equitable\nsystem of legislation for the guidance of its decisions; the people\nhad in great part shaken off the yoke of feudalism, and had acquired\nabundant resources for the preservation and defence of their liberties;\nthe executive had made immense progress, owing to the establishment,\nextension, and amelioration of municipalities; the royal authority,\nenlarged, fortified, and consolidated, formed in the midst of society\na central force powerful to work good, to prevent evil, to restrain\nthe passions, to preserve the balance of interests, to prevent ruinous\nsocial contests, and to watch over the general welfare of society by\nconstant protection and effectual encouragement; in fine, at that\nperiod, nations were seen to fix a look of great foresight and sagacity\non the rock upon which the vessel of society is in danger of being\nwrecked, whenever the power of royalty is left without any sort of\ncounterpoise. Such was already the condition of Europe before the\nreligious revolution of the sixteenth century.\n\nI promptly concede that great progress has been made since that period\nin all matters of a social, political and administrative nature;\nbut does it follow that this progress is owing to the Protestant\nReformation? To prove that it is, it would be necessary to produce\ntwo societies absolutely similar in position and circumstances, but\nseparated by a long space of time, that would render all reciprocal\ninfluence between them impossible, and subjected, one to the influence\nof the Catholic, the other to the Protestant principle; then each of\nthe two religions might come forward and say to the world, \"This is my\nwork.\" But it is absurd to compare, as is often done, times so widely\ndifferent, circumstances so utterly dissimilar and exceptional with\nordinary cases; it should also be remembered, that, in every thing,\nthe first step is always the most difficult, and the greatest merit\nis always due to invention; in a word, after so many other violations\nof the rules of logic, our opponents should not obstinately persist\nin deducing from one single fact all other facts, simply because the\nlatter happen to be posterior to the former, otherwise they will fall\nunder suspicion of insincerity in their search after truth, and of a\nwish to falsify history.\n\nThe organization of European society, such as Protestantism found it,\nwas, assuredly not perfect, but it was, at all events, as perfect as\nwas possible. Unless Providence had vouchsafed to govern the world\nby prodigies, Europe, at this period, could not have attained to a\nmore advantageous position. The elements of progress, of happiness,\nof civilization and refinement, were in her bosom; they were numerous\nand powerful; time was developing them by degrees in a manner truly\nwonderful; and as mournful experience is every day lessening the\nprestige and credit of destructive doctrines, the time is perhaps not\nfar distant, when philosophers, examining dispassionately this period\nof history, will agree that society had even then received the most\nfortunate impulse. It will be seen that Protestantism, by giving a\nwrong direction to the march of society, only precipitated it upon\na perilous route, where it has been on the brink of ruin; and would\nperhaps have been ruined altogether, had not the hand of the Most\nHigh been stronger than the feeble arm of man. Protestants boast of\nhaving rendered great service to society by having destroyed in some\ncountries, and impaired in others, the power of the Popes. As regards\nthe Papal supremacy in relation to matters of faith, what I have\nelsewhere said will suffice to demonstrate the disastrous consequences\nof the exercise of private judgment; as to discipline, I am unwilling\nto enter upon questions that would indefinitely extend the limits of\nthis work. I will merely ask my opponents, whether they deem it prudent\nto leave a society co-extensive with the world without a legislator,\nwithout a judge, without an arbitrator, without a counsellor, without a\nchief?\n\n_Temporal power._--This term has long been the bugbear of kings--the\nwatchword of the anti-Catholic party--a snare into which many upright\nmen have fallen--a butt for the shafts of discontented statesmen,\ndisappointed writers, and snarling canonists; and nothing more natural,\nseeing that the subject afforded them an opportunity of pouring\nout their resentments, and of giving currency to their suspicious\ndoctrines, well assured that, by affecting zeal for the power of the\nmonarch, they would find, in case of danger, a ready asylum in the\npalaces of kings. The present is not the place for the discussion of\na question that has been the subject of so many vehement and learned\ndisputes; and it would be the more inopportune, as, in the existing\nstate of things, assuredly no power apprehends the least temporal\nusurpation on the part of the Holy See, which, whatever its enemies\nmay say, has evinced at all times, and even humanly speaking, more\nprudence, tact, patience, and wisdom than any other power upon earth;\nand amidst the extreme difficulties of modern times, has taken up a\nposition that enables it to yield to the various exigencies of the\ntimes without any compromise of its high dignity, without any deviation\nfrom its sublime obligations. It is certain that the temporal power of\nthe Popes had risen in the course of time to such a height, that the\nsuccessor of St. Peter had become a universal counsellor, arbitrator,\nand judge, from whose sentence it was dangerous to appeal, even in\npurely political matters. The general movement throughout Europe had\nsomewhat weakened this power; but yet, at the moment when Protestantism\nmade its appearance, it still had such an ascendency over the minds of\nmen, it commanded so much veneration and respect, and was possessed of\nsuch vast means for defending its rights, enforcing its pretensions,\nsupporting its decisions, and making its counsels respected, that the\nmost powerful monarchs of Europe considered it a very serious matter\nto have the Court of Rome opposed to them in any affair whatever; and\nconsequently they eagerly sought on all occasions, to secure its favor\nand friendship. Rome had thus become a general centre of negotiation,\nand no affair of importance could escape its influence.\n\nSuch have been the outcries raised against the colossal power, against\nthis pretended usurpation of rights, that one might suppose the\nPopes to have been a succession of deep conspirators, who, by their\nintrigues and artifices, aimed at nothing short of universal monarchy.\nAs our opponents plume themselves on their spirit of observation\nand historical analysis, I felt it necessary to observe, that the\ntemporal power of the Popes was strengthened and extended at a time\nwhen no other power was as yet really constituted. To call that\npower usurpation therefore, is not merely an inaccuracy--it is an\nanachronism. In the general confusion brought upon all European society\nby the irruptions of the barbarians, in that strange medley of races,\nlaws, manners, and traditions, there remained only one solid foundation\nfor the structure of the edifice of civilization and refinement,\nonly one luminous body to shine upon the chaos, only one element\ncapable of giving life to the germ of regeneration that lay buried in\nblood-stained ruins--Christianity, predominant over and annihilating\nthe remains of other religions, arose, in this age of desolation, like\na solitary column in the center of a ruined city, or like a bright\nbeacon amid darkness.\n\nBarbarians, and proud of their triumphs as they were, the conquering\npeople bowed their heads beneath the pastoral staff that governs the\nflock of Jesus Christ. The spiritual pastors, a body of men quite new\nto these barbarians, and speaking a lofty and divine language, obtained\nover the chiefs of the ferocious hordes from the north a complete\nand permanent ascendency, which the course of ages could not destroy.\nSuch was the foundation of the temporal power in the Church; and it\nwill be easily conceived that as the Pope towered above all the other\npastors in the ecclesiastical edifice, like a superb cupola above the\nother parts of a magnificent temple, his temporal power must have risen\nfar higher than that of ordinary bishops; and must also have had a\ndeeper, more solid, and more lasting foundation. All the principles\nof legislation, all the foundations of society, all the elements of\nintellectual culture, all that remained of the arts and sciences, all\nwas in the hands of religion; and all very naturally sought protection\nfrom the pontifical throne, the only power acting with order, concert,\nand regularity, and the only one that offered any guarantee for\nstability and permanence. Wars succeeded to wars, convulsions to\nconvulsions, the forms of society were continually changing; but the\none great, general, and dominant fact, the stability and influence of\nreligion, remained still the same: and it is ridiculous in any man to\ndeclaim against a phenomenon so natural, so inevitable, and, above\nall, so advantageous, designating it, \"A succession of usurpations of\ntemporal power.\"\n\nPower, ere it can be usurped, must exist; and where, I pray, did\ntemporal power then exist? Was it in kings?--the sport, and frequently\nthe victims of the haughty barons? In the feudal lords?--continually\nengaged in contests amongst themselves, with kings, and with the\npeople? In fine, was it in the people?--a troop of slaves, who, thanks\nto the efforts of religion, were slowly working out their freedom?\nThe people, it is true, united against the lords--they raised their\nvoices to demand protection from the monarch, or to solicit the aid\nof the Church against the vexations and outrages inflicted on them by\nboth; still, however, they as yet formed but an unorganized embryo of\nsociety, without any fixed rule, without government, and without laws.\nCould we honestly compare modern times with these? Could we apply to\nthese bygone ages restrictions and distinctions of authority that are\nadmissible only in a state of society in which the elements of life\nand civilization have been developed, in which solid and permanent\nfoundations have been laid, in which, consequently, the functions of\nsocial authority could be, and have in effect been, regulated, after\na minute analysis of the limits of their respective jurisdictions? To\nreason otherwise, would be to seek order in chaos, smoothness on the\nsurface of a tempest-tossed ocean. We should not forget, either, a\ngeneral and unvarying fact, founded on the very nature of things,--a\nfact, moreover, to which the history of all times and all countries is\ncontinually calling our attention, and which has received a striking\nconfirmation from the revolutions of modern times,--viz. that whenever\nsociety is deeply diseased, there is always at hand a principle of life\nto stay the progress of the malady. A contest takes place--collisions\noccur one after another--they become more frequent and more violent;\nbut ultimately the principle of order prevails over that of disorder,\nand continues long afterwards to predominate in society. This principle\nmay be more or less just, more or less rational, more or less violent,\nmore or less adequate to attain its object; but whatever it be in these\nrespects, it always prevails in the end, unless, during the struggle,\nanother, a better and more powerful principle takes its place.\n\nNow, in the middle ages, this principle was the Christian Church. She\nalone could be this principle, for she had truth in her doctrines,\njustice in her laws, and regularity and prudence in her government.\nShe was the only element of life that existed at this period--the only\ndepository of the grand idea upon which the reorganization of society\ndepended; and this idea was not vague and abstract, but positive and\npracticable, for it proceeded from the lips of Him whose word calls\nforth worlds out of nothing, and makes light to shine forth in the\nmidst of darkness. When once the sublime doctrines of the Church\nhad penetrated into the heart of society, her pure, fraternal, and\nconsoling morality necessarily influenced its manners. Forms of\ngovernment also, and systems of legislation were, in like manner,\nmore or less affected by her mild and powerful influence. These are\nfacts--undeniable facts. Now, the Roman Pontiffs were the center of\nthis happy preponderance which religion so legitimately obtained and so\njustly deserved; hence it is clear that the power of the Holy See very\nnaturally rose above all other powers.\n\nAfter having contemplated this sublime picture, drawn from the plain\nand authentic records of history, why dwell on the defects or the vices\nof some few individuals? Why drag to light the excesses, the errors,\nthe disorders ever incident to humanity? Why maliciously seek out facts\nthrough a long succession of obscure ages, collecting them together\nand placing them in a light most calculated to make an impression, and\nto mislead the ignorant? Why, in fine, urge, exaggerate, disfigure,\nand paint these facts in the darkest possible colors? To do so, is\nto betray a very shallow understanding of the philosophy of history,\na spirit of great partiality, low views, grovelling sentiments,\nand miserable spleen. It should be loudly proclaimed to the whole\nworld, and a thousand times repeated, that it may never be forgotten,\nthat limits which have no existence cannot be respected--that to\ncreate power is not to usurp it--that to make laws is not to violate\nthem--that to reduce to order the chaos in which society is overwhelmed\nis not to disturb society. Now this was the work of the Church--this is\nwhat was done by the Popes.[40]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXVIII.\n\nUNITY IN FAITH NOT ADVERSE TO POLITICAL LIBERTY.\n\n\nThe supposed incompatibility of unity in faith with political liberty\nis an invention of the irreligious philosophy of the last century.\nWhatever political opinions be adopted, it is of extreme importance\nthat we be on our guard against such a doctrine. We must not forget\nthat the Catholic religion occupies a sphere far above all forms of\ngovernment--she does not reject from her bosom either the citizen\nof the United States, or the inhabitant of Russia, but embraces all\nmen with equal tenderness, commanding all to obey the legitimate\ngovernments of their respective countries. She considers them all as\nchildren of the same father, participators in the same redemption,\nheirs to the same glory. It is very important to bear in mind that\nirreligion allies itself to liberty or to despotism, according as\nits interests incline; lavish of its applause when an infuriated\npopulace are burning temples and massacring the ministers of the\naltar, it is ever ready to flatter monarchs, to exaggerate their\npower beyond measure, whenever they win its favor by despoiling the\nclergy, subverting discipline, and insulting the Pope. Caring little\nwhat instruments it employs, provided it accomplishes its work, it\nis royalist when in a position to sway the minds of kings, to expel\nthe Jesuits from France, from Spain, from Portugal, to pursue them to\nthe four quarters of the globe without allowing them either respite\nor repose; liberal in the midst of popular assemblies that exact\nsacrilegious oaths from the clergy, and send into exile or to the\nscaffold the ministers of religion who remain faithful to their duty.\n\nThe man who cannot see that what I have advanced is strictly true,\nmust have forgotten history, and paid little attention to very recent\noccurrences. With religion and morality, all forms of government are\ngood; without them, none can be good. An absolute monarch, imbued\nwith religious ideas, surrounded by counsellors of sound doctrines,\nand reigning over a people amongst whom the same doctrines prevail,\nmay make his subjects happy, and will be sure to do so as far as\ncircumstances of time and place permit. A wicked monarch, or one\nsurrounded by wicked counsellors, will do mischief in proportion to\nthe extent of his powers; he will be even more to be dreaded than\nrevolution itself, because better able to arrange his plans, and to\ncarry them out more rapidly, with fewer obstacles, a greater appearance\nof legality, more pretensions to public utility, and consequently\nwith more certainty of success and of permanent results. Revolutions\nhave undoubtedly done great injury to the Church; but persecuting\nmonarchs have done equally as much. A freak of Henry VIII. established\nProtestantism in England; the cupidity of certain other princes\nproduced a like result in the nations of the north; and in our own\ndays, a decree of the Autocrat of Russia drives millions of souls into\nschism. It follows that an unmixed monarchy, if it be not religious, is\nnot desirable; for irreligion, immoral in its nature, naturally tends\nto injustice, and consequently to tyranny. If irreligion be seated\non an absolute throne, or if she hold possession of the mind of its\noccupant, her powers are unlimited; and, for my part, I know nothing\nmore horrible than the omnipotence of wickedness.\n\nIn recent times, European democracy has signalized itself lamentably\nby its attacks upon religion; a circumstance which, far from favoring\nits cause, has injured it extremely. We can indeed form an idea of a\ngovernment more or less free, when society is virtuous, moral, and\nreligious; but not when these conditions are wanting. In the latter\ncase, the only form of government that remains is despotism, the rule\nof force, for force alone can govern men who are without conscience\nand without God. If we attentively consider the points of difference\nbetween the revolution of the United States and that of France, we\nshall find that one of the principal points of difference consists\nin this, that the American revolution was essentially democratic,\nthat of France essentially impious. In the manifestos by which the\nformer was inaugurated, the name of God, of Providence, is every where\nseen; the men engaged in the perilous enterprise of shaking off the\nyoke of Great Britain, far from blaspheming the Almighty, invoke his\nassistance, convinced that the cause of independence was the cause of\nreason and of justice. The French began by deifying the leaders of\nirreligion, overthrowing altars, watering with the blood of priests the\ntemples, the streets, and the scaffolds--the only emblem of revolution\nrecognized by the people is Atheism hand in hand with liberty. This\nfolly has borne its fruits--it communicated its fatal contagion to\nother revolutions in recent times--the new order of things has been\ninaugurated with sacrilegious crimes; and the proclamation of the\nrights of man was begun by the profanation of the temples of Him from\nwhom all rights emanate.\n\nModern demagogues, it is true, have only imitated their predecessors\nthe Protestants, the Hussites, the Albigenses; with this difference,\nhowever, that in our days irreligion has manifested itself openly, side\nby side with its companion, the democracy of blood and baseness; whilst\nthe democracy of former times was allied with sectarian fanaticism.\nThe dissolving doctrines of Protestantism rendered a stronger power\nnecessary, precipitated the overthrow of ancient liberties, and obliged\nauthority to hold itself continually on the alert, and ready to strike.\nWhen the influence of Catholicity had been enfeebled, the void had to\nbe filled up by a system of espionage and force. Do not forget this,\nyou who make war upon religion in the name of liberty; do not forget\nthat like causes produce like effects. Where moral influences do not\nexist, their absence must be supplied by physical force: if you take\nfrom the people the sweet yoke of religion, you leave governments no\nother resource than the vigilance of police, and the force of bayonets.\nReflect, and choose. Before the advent of Protestantism, European\ncivilization, under the \u00e6gis of the Catholic religion, was evidently\ntending towards that general harmony, the absence of which has\nrendered necessary an excessive employment of force. Unity of faith\ndisappeared, opening the way to an unrestrained liberty of opinion and\nreligious discord; the influence of the clergy was in some countries\ndestroyed, in others weakened: thus was the equilibrium between\ndifferent classes put an end to, and the class naturally destined\nto fill the office of mediator rendered powerless. By abridging the\npower of the Popes, both people and governments were let loose from\nthat gentle curb which restrained without oppressing, and corrected\nwithout degrading; kings and people were arrayed against each other,\nwithout any body of men possessed of authority to interpose between\nthem in case of a conflict; without a single judge, who, the friend\nof both parties, and disinterested in the quarrel, might have settled\ntheir differences with impartiality, governments began to place their\nreliance upon standing armies, and the people upon insurrections.\n\nAnd it is of no avail to allege that in countries where Catholicity\nprevailed, a political phenomenon arose similar to that which we\nobserve in Protestant nations; for I maintain that amongst Catholics\nthemselves events did not follow the course which they naturally would\nhave followed, had not the fatal Reformation intervened. To attain\nits complete development, European civilization required the unity\nfrom which it had sprung; it could not by any other means establish\nharmony amongst the diverse elements which it sheltered in its bosom.\nIts homogeneity was gone the moment unity of faith disappeared. From\nthat hour no nation could adequately effect its organization without\ntaking into account, not only its own internal wants, but also the\nprinciples that prevailed in other countries, against the influence of\nwhich it had to be on its guard. Do you suppose, for instance, that the\npolicy of the Spanish government, constituted as it was the protector\nof Catholicity against powerful Protestant nations, was not powerfully\ninfluenced by the peculiar and very dangerous position of the country?\n\nI think I have shown that the Church has never been opposed to the\nlegitimate development of any form of government; that she has taken\nthem all under her protection, and consequently that to assert that she\nis the enemy of popular institutions is a calumny. I have also placed\nit equally beyond a doubt, that the sects hostile to the Catholic\nChurch, by encouraging a democracy either irreligious or blinded\nby fanaticism, so far from aiding in the establishment of just and\nrational liberty, have, in fact, left the people no alternative between\nunbridled licentiousness and unrestrained despotism. The lesson thus\nfurnished by history is confirmed by experience; and the future will\nserve only to corroborate its truth. The more religious and moral men\nare, the more deserving they are of liberty; for they have then less\nneed of external restraints, having a most powerful one in their own\nconsciences. An irreligious and immoral people stand in need of some\nauthority to keep them in order, otherwise they will be constantly\nabusing their rights, and will consequently deserve to lose them. St.\nAugustine perfectly understood these truths, and explains briefly and\nbeautifully the conditions necessary for all forms of government. The\nholy Doctor shows that popular forms are good where the people are\nmoral and conscientious; where they are corrupt, they require either an\noligarchy or an unmixed monarchy.\n\nI have no doubt that an interesting passage, in the form of a dialogue,\nthat we meet with in his first book on Free Will, chap. vi., will be\nread with pleasure.\n\n\"_Augustine._ You would not maintain, for instance, that men or people\nare so constituted by nature as to be absolutely eternal, and subject\nneither to destruction nor change?--_Evodius._ Who can doubt that they\nare changeable, and subject to the influence of time?--_Augustine._\nIf the people are serious and temperate; and if, moreover, they have\nsuch a concern for the public good that each one would prefer the\npublic interest to his own, _is it not true that it would be advisable\nto enact that such a people should choose their own authorities the\nadministration of their affairs?_--_Evodius._ Certainly.--_Augustine._\nBut, in case these same people become so corrupt that _the citizens\nprefer their own to the public good; if they sell their votes; if,\ncorrupted by ambitious men, they intrust the government of the state\nto men as criminal and corrupt as themselves_; is it not true that,\nin such a case, if there be amongst them a man of integrity, and\npossessing sufficient power for the purpose, he will do well to take\nfrom these people the power of conferring honors, and concentrate it\nin the hands of a small number of upright men, or even in the hands of\none man?--_Evodius._ Undoubtedly.--_Augustine._ Yet, since these laws\nappear very much opposed to each other, the one granting the people the\nright of conferring honors, the other depriving them of that right;\nsince, moreover, they cannot both be in force at once, _are we to\naffirm that one of these laws is unjust, or that it should not have\nbeen enacted?_--_Evodius._ By no means.\"[D]\n\n [D] _Aug._ Quid ipsi homines et populi, ejusne generis rerum sunt,\n ut interire mutarive non possint, \u00e6ternique omnino sint?--_Evod._\n Mutabile plane atque tempori obnoxium hoc genus esse quis\n dubitet?--_Aug._ Ergo, si populus sit bene moderatus et gravis,\n communisque utilitatis diligentissimus custos, in quo unusquisque\n minoris rem privatam quam publicam pendat, nonne recte lex fertur, qua\n huic ipsi populo liceat creare sibi magistratus, per quos sua res, id\n est publica, administretur?--_Evod._ Recte prorsus.--_Aug._ Porro, si\n paulatim depravatus idem populus rem privatam reipublic\u00e6 pr\u00e6ferat,\n atque habeat venale suffragium, corruptusque ab eis qui honores\n amant, regimen in se flagitiosis consceleratisque committat, nonne\n item recte, si quis tunc extiterit vir bonus, qui plurimum possit,\n adimat huic populo potestatem dandi honores, et in paucorum bonorum\n vel etiam unius redigat arbitrium?--_Evod._ Et id recte.--_Aug._ Cum\n ergo du\u00e6 ist\u00e6 leges ita sibi videantur esse contrari\u00e6, ut una earum\n honorum dandorum populo tribuat potestatem, auferat altera, et cum\n ista secunda ita lata sit, ut nullo modo amb\u00e6 in una civitate simul\n esse possint, num dicemus aliquam earum injustam esse et ferri minime\n debuisse?--_Evod._ Nullo modo.\n\nThe whole question is here comprised in a few words: Can monarchy,\naristocracy, and democracy, be one and all legitimate and proper? Yes.\nBy what considerations are we to be guided in our decision as to which\nof these forms is legitimate and proper in any given case? By the\nconsideration of existing rights, and of the condition of the people\nto whom such form is to be applied. Can a form once good become bad?\nCertainly it may; for all human things are subject to change. These\nreflections, as solid as they are simple, will prevent all excessive\nenthusiasm in favor of any particular form of government. This is not\na mere question of theory, but one of prudence also. Now, prudence\ndoes not decide before having attentively considered and weighed all\ncircumstances. But there is one predominant idea in this doctrine of\nSt. Augustine: this idea I have already indicated, viz. that great\nvirtue and disinterestedness are required under a free government.\nThose who are laboring to establish political liberty on the ruins of\nall religious belief would do well to reflect upon the words of the\nillustrious doctor.\n\nHow would you have people exercise extensive rights, if you disqualify\nthem by perverting their ideas and corrupting their morals? You say\nthat under representative forms of government reason and justice\nare secured by means of elections; and yet you labor to banish this\nreason and justice from the bosom of that society in which you talk of\nsecuring them. You sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind; instead of\nmodels of wisdom and prudence, you offer the people scandalous scenes.\nDo not say that we are condemning the age, and that it progresses\nin spite of us: we reject nothing that is good; but perversity and\ncorruption we must reprobate. The age progresses--true; but neither\nyou nor we know whither. Catholics know one thing--a thing which it\nneeds not a prophet to tell, viz. that a good social condition cannot\nbe formed out of bad men; that immoral men are bad; that where there\nis no religion, morality cannot take root. Firm in our faith, we shall\nleave you to try, if you choose, a thousand forms of government, to\napply your palliatives to your own social patient, to impose upon\nhim with deceitful words; his frequent convulsions--his continued\nrestlessness--are evidences of your incapacity; and well is it for your\npatient that he still feels this anxiety: it is a sure sign that you\nhave not entirely succeeded in securing his confidence. If ever you do\nsecure it--if ever he fall asleep quietly in your arms--\"all flesh will\nthen have corrupted its way;\" and it may also be feared lest God should\nresolve to sweep man from the face of the earth.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXIX.\n\nOF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY.\n\n\nIt has been abundantly proved in the course of this work, that the\npseudo-Reformation has not in any way contributed to the perfection\neither of individuals or of society; from which we may naturally infer\nthat the case is the same as regards the development of the intellect.\nI am unwilling, however, to let this truth stand merely as a corollary,\nand I believe it to be susceptible of a special elucidation. We may\nfreely examine what advantage Protestantism has conferred upon the\nvarious branches of human learning, without any fear of the result as\nregards Catholicity. When we are to examine objects naturally embracing\na great many different relations, it is not enough merely to pronounce\ncertain conspicuous names, or to cite with emphasis one or two facts.\nThis is not the way to place a question in its proper light; and to\ntreat it adequately, much more is required. A discussion, either\nconfined within limits too narrow to admit of its full development,\nor allowed an indefinite range, carries with it, in the eyes of an\nobserver of only slight penetration, an air of universality, elevation,\nand boldness, whilst in reality it is all uncertainty and vagueness,\nand is liable to be involved in endless contradictions.\n\nTo investigate this question satisfactorily, we must, it seems to me,\ngrasp the Catholic and Protestant principles respectively, subject\nthem to a most rigid scrutiny, and seize upon every point that appears\nfavorable or inimical to the development of the human mind. Further,\nwe should survey, in its widest range, the history of the intellect;\npausing here and there at the epochs where the influence of the\nprinciple whose tendencies and effects we are studying has been most\neffectively exerted; then, rejecting anomalous exceptions, as proving\nnothing either one way or the other, and facts too insignificant\nand isolated to affect in any way the course of events, the mind,\nsufficiently elevated, and observing attentively, and with a sincere\ndesire to know the truth, will be enabled to discover how far its\nphilosophical deductions are in accordance with facts; and thus will it\ncomplete the solution of the problem.\n\nOne of the fundamental principles of Catholicity, one of its\ndistinctive characteristics, is the submission of the intellect to\nauthority in matters of faith. This is the point against which the\nattacks of Protestants have ever been and still are directed: and\nthis is quite natural, seeing that Protestants profess resistance\nto authority as a fundamental and constituent principle. From this\nfatal source flow all their other errors. If there be in Catholicity\nany thing capable of arresting the march of the mind or of lowering\nits flight, it must unquestionably be the principle of submission to\nauthority. With this principle must rest all the blame in this respect,\nif indeed the Catholic religion be chargeable with any.\n\n_Submission of the intellect to authority._ These words, it cannot\nbe denied, do, unless we have seized upon their true meaning, and\nascertained the precise objects to which this submission is applicable,\nat first sight, convey an idea of antagonism to intellectual\ndevelopment. If you cherish an ardent affection for the dignity of our\nnature; if you are an enthusiastic advocate of scientific progress,\nand behold with delight the brilliant efforts of a bold, vigorous,\nand accomplished genius; you will discover something repulsive in a\nprinciple which appears to invoke slavery, since it checks the flight\nof the mind, clips the wings of the intellect, and casts it into the\ndust. But if you examine this principle in its essence, apply it to\nthe various branches of learning, and observe what are the points of\ncontact which it offers with the methods adopted for the cultivation\nof the mind, will you discover any foundation for these suspicions and\napprehensions? What truth will you find in the reproaches of which\nCatholicity has been made the object? How vain and puerile will appear\nall the declamation published on this subject!\n\nWe will now enter fully into the examination of this difficulty; we\nwill take the Catholic principle, and analyze it with the eye of\nimpartial philosophy. With this principle before us, we will survey the\nwhole field of science, and consult the testimony of the greatest men.\nIf we find that it has ever been opposed to the genuine development\nof any one branch of learning; if, on visiting the tombs where repose\nthe most illustrious, they tell us that the principle of submission to\nauthority chained down their intellects, obscured their imaginations,\nand withered their hearts,--we will then acknowledge that Protestants\nare right in the reproaches which they are constantly directing against\nthe Catholic religion on this subject. God, man, society, nature,\nthe entire creation--such are the objects on which our minds can be\noccupied; beyond the sphere of these objects we cannot reach, for\nthey embrace infinity--there is nothing beyond them. Well, then, the\nCatholic principle opposes no obstacle to the mind's progress. Whether\nas regards God or man, society or nature, it imposes no shackles,\nplaces no obstacle in the way of the human mind; instead of checking\nthis progress, it rather serves as a lofty beacon, which, far from\ninterfering with the mariner's liberty, guides him in safety amid the\nobscurity of night.\n\nHow does the Catholic principle oppose the freedom of the human mind\nin anything relating to the Divinity? Protestants surely will not tell\nus that there is anything at all wrong in the idea which the Catholic\nreligion gives of God. Agreeing with us on the idea of a being eternal,\nimmutable, infinite, the Creator of heaven and earth, just, holy, full\nof goodness, a rewarder of the good, and a punisher of the wicked,\nthey admit this to be the only reasonable idea of God that can be\npresented to the mind of man. To this idea the Catholic religion unites\nan incomprehensible, profound, and ineffable mystery, veiled from the\nsight of weak mortals,--the august mystery of the Trinity; but on this\npoint Protestants cannot reproach us, unless they are prepared to avow\nthemselves Socinians. The Lutherans, the Calvinists, the Anglicans,\nand many other sects, condemn, as well as we do, those who deny this\naugust mystery. We may remark here, that Calvin had Michael Servetus\nburned at Geneva for his heretical doctrines on the Trinity. I am well\naware of the ravages that Socinianism has made among the separated\nChurches, where the spirit and the right of private judgment in matters\nof faith have converted Christians into unbelieving philosophers; but,\nnotwithstanding this, the mystery of the Trinity was long respected by\nthe leading Protestant sects, and is so yet, externally at least, by\nthe greater part of them.\n\nIn any case, I cannot see how this mystery shackles human reason in\nits contemplation of the Divinity. Does it prevent it from going\nforth into immensity? What limit does it fix to the infinite ocean\nof light and being implied in the word _God_? Does it in the least\nobscure this splendor? When the mind of man, soaring above the regions\nof creation, and detaching itself from the body that would bear it\ndown, abandons itself to the delights of sublime meditation on the\ninfinite Being, Creator of heaven and earth, does this august mystery\nstop him in his heavenward flight? Ask the innumerable volumes\nwritten on the Divinity, eloquent and irrefragable testimonies of\nliberty enjoyed by the human mind wherever Catholicity prevails. The\ndoctrines of Catholicity relative to the Divinity may be considered\nunder two aspects; either as having reference to mysteries above our\ncomprehension, or as touching what is within the reach of reason.\nAs regards mysteries, their abode is in a region so sublime, they\nappertain to an order of things so superior to any created thought,\nthat the mind, even after the most extensive, most profound, and, at\nthe same time, most free investigations, is unable, without the aid\nof revelation, to form even the most remote idea of these ineffable\nwonders. How can things that never meet, which are of a totally\ndistinct order, and which are an immense distance apart, interfere\nwith each other? The intellect can fix upon one of them by means of\nmeditation, can lose itself in contemplating it, without even thinking\nof the other. Can the moon's orbit come into contact with the remotest\nof the fixed stars?\n\nDo you fear that the revelation of a mystery may limit the sphere of\nyour reason's operations? Are you apprehensive lest, in wandering\nthrough immensity, you may be smothered in the narrowness of your\nreason? Was space wanted for the genius of Descartes, of Gassendi,\nof Mallebranche? Did these men complain that their intellects were\nlimited, imprisoned? Why, indeed, should they complain (I speak not of\nthem only, but of all the great minds of modern times who have treated\nof the Divinity), when they cannot but own that they are indebted to\nCatholicity for the most splendid and sublime ideas that enrich their\nwritings? The philosophers of antiquity, in their treatises on the\nDivinity, are at an immense distance below the least eminent of our\nmetaphysical theologians. What would Plato himself be compared to Lewis\nof Granada, Louis de L\u00e9on, F\u00e9n\u00e9lon, or Bossuet? Before Christianity\nappeared upon earth, before the faith of the Chair of Peter had taken\npossession of the world, the primitive ideas on the Divinity having\nbeen effaced, the human mind wandered amongst a thousand errors,\na thousand monstrous fancies; feeling the necessity of a God, man\nsubstituted for the Supreme Being the creation of his own imagination.\nBut ever since the ineffable splendor, descending from the bosom of the\nFather of light, has shone upon the whole earth, ideas of the Divinity\nhave remained so fixed, clear, and simple, and at the same time so\nlofty and sublime, that human reason has obtained a wider range; the\nveil which concealed the origin of the universe has been withdrawn;\nthe world's destiny has been marked out, and man has received the key\nthat explains the wonders which fill and surround him. Protestants have\nfelt the force of this truth; their aversion for every thing Catholic\nwas almost fanatical; yet, generally speaking, they may be said to have\nrespected the idea of the Divinity. On this point, of all others, the\nspirit of innovation has been felt the least. How, indeed, could it be\notherwise? The God of the Catholics was too great to be replaced by\nany other. Newton and Leibnitz, embracing heaven and earth in their\nspeculations, could say nothing new of the Author of so many wonders,\nnothing but what had already been taught by the Catholic religion.\n\nWell had it been for Protestants if, whilst in the midst of their\nwanderings they preserved this precious treasure, they had faithfully\nfollowed the example of their predecessors, and had rejected that\nmonstrous philosophy which threatens us with the revival of all errors,\nancient and modern, beginning with the substitution of a monstrous\npantheism for the sublime Deity of Christianity. Let those Protestants\nwho are friends of truth, jealous of the honor of their communion,\ndevoted to their country's welfare, and interested in the future\nprospects of mankind, be warned in time. If pantheism should prevail,\nit will not be the spiritualist but the naturalist philosophers who\nwill triumph. The German philosophers may in vain seek refuge in\nabstraction and enigmas, in vain condemn the sensualist philosophy\nof the last century; a God confounded with nature is not God, a God\nidentified with every thing is nothing; pantheism is a deification of\nthe universe, that is, a denial of God.\n\nWhat sorrowful reflections suggest themselves to us when we consider\nthe direction now taken by the minds of men in different parts of\nEurope, and more especially in Germany! Catholics long since told them\nthey would begin with resistance to authority by denying a dogma, but\nwould end by a denial of all, and fall into atheism; and the course of\nideas during the last three centuries has fully confirmed the truth\nof the prediction. Strange, that German philosophy should aim at\nproducing a reaction against the materialist school, and with all its\nspiritualism end in pantheism! Providence, it would seem, has ordained\nthat the soil which has produced so many errors should be barren of\ntruth. Out of the Church all is unsteadiness and confusion; materialism\nending in atheism, wild idealism and fantastic spiritualism resulting\nin pantheism! Verily, God still abhors pride, and repeats the terrible\nchastisement of the confusion of tongues. Catholicity triumphs the\nwhile; but mourns in the midst of her triumphs. I do not see either how\nit can be that Catholicity impedes the operation of the intellect as\nregards the study of man. What does the Church require of us on this\npoint? What does she teach on the subject? How far extends the circle\nembracing the doctrines we are forbidden to call in question?\n\nPhilosophers are divided into two schools, the materialists and\nthe spiritualists. The former assert that the human soul is only a\nportion of matter, which, by a certain modification, produces in us\nwhat we call thought and will; the latter maintains that the energy\naccompanying thought and will is incompatible with the inertness\nof matter; that what is divisible, composed of divers parts, and\nconsequently of divers entities, could not harmonize with the simple\nunity essential to a being that thinks, wills, reasons, with itself\nupon every thing, and possesses the profound consciousness of\nindividuality. For these reasons they assert that the contrary opinion\nis false and absurd; and they ground their opinion upon a variety of\nconsiderations. The Catholic Church intervenes in the dispute, and\nsays: \"The soul of man is not corporeal, it is a spirit; you cannot\nbe both a Catholic and a materialist.\" But ask the Catholic Church\nby what systems you are to explain the ideas, the sensations, the\nacts of the will, and human feelings,--and she will tell you that on\nthese matters you are perfectly free to hold what you consider most\nin accordance with reason; that faith does not descend to particular\nquestions appertaining to the affairs of this world, which God himself\ndelivered to the consideration of men. Before the light of the Gospel\nshone upon the world, the schools of philosophy were in the most\nprofound ignorance on the subject of our origin and our destiny; none\nof the philosophers could explain the profound contradictions that are\nfound in man; none of them succeeded in pointing out the cause of that\nstrange mixture of greatness and littleness, of goodness and malice,\nof knowledge and ignorance, of excellence and baseness. But religion\ncame forth, and said: \"Man is the work of God; his destiny is to be for\nevermore united with God; for him the earth is a place of exile only;\nman is no longer what he was when he came forth from the hands of his\nCreator; the whole human race is subjected to the consequences of a\ngreat fall.\" Now I would defy all philosophers, ancient and modern, to\nshow wherein the obligation of believing these things militates in the\nslightest degree against the progress of true philosophy.\n\nSo far, indeed, are the doctrines of Catholicity from checking\nphilosophical progress, that they are, on the contrary, a most fruitful\nsource of this progress in every respect. If we wish to make progress\nin any of the sciences, it is no slight advantage for the intellect\nto have a safe and firm axis around which it may revolve; it is a\nfortunate thing to be enabled to avoid at the very outset in the\nintellectual race, a multitude of questions which would entangle us\nin inextricable labyrinths, or from which we could not escape without\nfalling into most lamentable absurdities; in a word, when we approach\nthe investigation of these questions, we ought to consider ourselves\nhappy in finding them resolved beforehand in their most important\npoints, and in knowing where the truth lies, and where the danger of\nfalling into error. The philosopher's position is then that of a man\nwho, sure of the existence of a mine in a certain spot, does not waste\nhis time in searching after it, but, knowing his ground, his researches\nand labors are profitable from the first. This is the cause of the\nvast advantage which in these matters modern philosophers possess over\nthose of antiquity: the ancients had to grope in the dark; the moderns,\npreceded by brilliant lights, advance with a firm and sure step, and\nmarch straight to their destination. They may boast incessantly that\nthey set aside revelation, that they hold it in disdain, perhaps that\nthey even openly attack it. Even in this case religion enlightens them,\nand often guides their steps; for there are a thousand splendid ideas\nfor which they are indebted to religion, and which they cannot erase\nfrom their minds; ideas which they have found in books, learned in\ncatechisms, and imbibed with their milk; ideas which they hear uttered\nby every one around them, which are spread everywhere, and which\nimpregnate with their vivifying and beneficent influence the atmosphere\nthey breathe. In repudiating religion, these same moderns are carrying\ningratitude to great lengths; for at the very moment they insult her,\nthey are profiting by her favors.\n\nThis is not the place to enter into details on this matter, or\nnumerous proofs might easily be adduced in support of the foregoing\nobservations; a comparison between the first works of modern philosophy\nthat came to hand and the works of the ancients would be decisive; but\nsuch a labor would still be incomplete for those who are not versed\nin these matters; and for those who are so, it would be superfluous.\nI leave the question with entire confidence to the perspicacity and\nimpartiality of my readers; it will, I think, be acknowledged that\nwhenever our modern philosophers have spoken of man with truth and\ndignity, their language has borne the impress of Christian ideas. Such\nis the influence of Catholicity upon those sciences which, confined to\na purely speculative order, allow the genius of the philosopher the\nwidest range and the greatest freedom possible; but if, as regards\nthose sciences, the influence of Catholicity, instead of checking the\nmind in its flight, only enlarges its range, increases its sublimity,\nits daring, and at the same time its security, by preventing it from\nrunning astray, what shall we say of its influence on the study of\nethics? Has the whole body of philosophers together ever discovered\nany thing beyond what is contained in the Gospel? What doctrine excels\nin purity, in sanctity, in sublimity that taught by the Catholic\nreligion? On this point we will do justice to the philosophers, even to\nthose most hostile to the Christian religion. They have attacked its\ndoctrines, and smiled at the divinity of its origin; but have always\nevinced a profound respect for its morality. I know not what secret\ninfluence has constrained them into an avowal that must certainly have\ncost them dear. \"Yes,\" they invariably say, \"it cannot be denied that\nthe morality of Catholicity is excellent.\"\n\nThere are certain doctrines of Catholicity which cannot be said to\nappertain directly either to God, to man, or to morality, in the sense\ngenerally given to this word. The Catholic religion is a revealed\nreligion, of an order far superior to any thing that the human mind is\ncapable of conceiving. Its object is to guide us to a destiny that we\ncould neither attain nor even imagine by our own strength, and it is\nbased upon this principle, that human nature, corrupted by the fall,\nrequires to be restored and purified; evidently, therefore, it should\ncontain certain doctrines explanatory of the mode in which this work of\nrestoration and purification is to be effected, whether in a general or\nparticular sense; and at the same time pointing out the means which\nGod has chosen to lead man to happiness. Such are the doctrines of the\nIncarnation, of Redemption, of Grace, and of the Sacraments.\n\nThese dogmas embrace a wide field; the relations in which they stand\nto God and to man are very extensive; the doctrines of the Catholic\nChurch are, and always have been, unchangeable. Well then! extensive\nas they are, they afford not a single point that can be said to\nhave a tendency to embarrass the free action of the intellect in\ninvestigations of any kind. The cause of this fact is the same as that\nI have already indicated. Those who have attentively compared the\nsciences of philosophy and theology may have remarked that theology, in\nthe sublime questions mentioned above, occupies a sphere so distinct\nand supereminent as scarcely to preserve a single point of contact\nwith that in which philosophy moves. They are two vast and sublime\norbits, occupying in the depths of space positions very distant from\neach other. Man sometimes tries to make them approximate, and would\nbe glad if a ray of terrestrial light could penetrate into the region\nof incomprehensible mysteries; but he scarcely knows how to begin\nthis, and we hear him avow, with a profound sense of his own weakness,\nthat he is _speaking only conventionally_ and _by analogy_, merely\nwith a view to make himself better understood. The Church allows such\nattempts, owing to the good intentions they evince; sometimes she\neven prompts and encourages them, desiring, as far as possible, to\naccommodate what is incomprehensible in her doctrines to the feeble\ncapacities of men.\n\nAfter all their reasonings on the attributes of the Divinity and\nthe relations of man to God, have philosophers discovered any thing\nincompatible with these doctrines of Catholicity? Have revealed truths\nstood in their way as a stumbling-block to their investigations?\nWhen Descartes, in the seventeenth century, effected a revolution in\nphilosophy, a singular incident occurred that will throw a strong\nlight on this subject. The Catholic doctrine respecting the august\nmystery of the Eucharist is known, and also in what the dogma of\n_transubstantiation_ consists. Many theologians, the reader is also\nprobably aware, in order to explain the supernatural phenomenon which\ntakes place after the consummation of the miracle, had recourse\nto the doctrine of accidents, which they distinguished from the\nsubstance. Now the theory of Descartes, and of almost all other\nmodern philosophers, was incompatible with this explanation, for they\ndenied the existence of accidents distinct from the substance. It\nconsequently appeared at first sight that a difficulty would here arise\nfor the Catholic doctrine, and that the Church would have to oppose\nthis system of philosophy. And did it so happen? Not at all. Upon a\ncareful investigation of the matter, it was seen that the Catholic\ndogma belonged to a region infinitely above that uncertain one in\nwhich the philosophic doctrine was discovered, however closely they\nmight have seemed to approximate. In vain theologians discussed the\nmatter, indulged in mutual recriminations, drew from the new doctrine\nall sorts of inferences, in order to represent it as dangerous. The\nChurch, always superior to the thoughts of men, kept aloof from these\ndisputes, maintaining that grave, majestic, and impassive attitude so\nwell becoming her to whom Jesus Christ confided the sacred deposit\nof His doctrine. Such is the liberty accorded by the Church to the\ngenius of philosophers, that it is free in every sense. The Church has\nno need to be continually imposing restrictions and conditions; the\nsacred doctrines of which she is the depository dwelling in so elevated\na region that the mind of man can scarcely ever meet them, at least\nso long as his investigations do not wander from the track of true\nphilosophy.\n\nBut this human reason, at once so powerful and so feeble, sometimes\nbecomes puffed up with arrogance and pride, and in the name of liberty\nand independence claims a right to blaspheme the Almighty, to deny\nman's free will, the immortality and spirituality of his soul, her\nsublime origin and her heavenly destiny. At such a time we avow, and we\nglory in the avowal, the Church does raise her voice, not to oppress\nor tyrannize over the human mind, but to defend the rights of the\nSupreme Being and the dignity of human nature; then, indeed, we behold\nher opposing, with unyielding firmness, that senseless liberty which\nconsists in the fatal right of uttering all sorts of extravagances.\nThis liberty Catholics neither possess nor desire, knowing that in\nthese matters, as in others, there is a sacred line of demarcation\nbetween liberty and licentiousness. Happy slavery, that keeps us from\natheism, materialism, and from doubting whether our souls come from\nGod, whether they tend towards Him, and whether there exists for\nunhappy mortals, after the sufferings that weigh upon them in this\nlife, a life of eternal happiness purchased by the merits of a God-man!\nAs for the sciences which have society for their object, I think I need\nnot vindicate the Catholic religion from the reproach of having in\nthis respect oppressed the human mind. The long train of reflections\nin which I have set forth her doctrines and her influence, as regards\nthe nature and extent of power, and the civil and political liberty\nof nations, proves to a demonstration that the Catholic religion,\nwithout descending to the arena in which the passions of men strive and\ncontend, teaches a doctrine most favorable to true civilization and to\nthe rightly-understood liberties of the people.\n\nI will also touch briefly upon the relations of the Catholic principle\nwith the study of the natural sciences. Assuredly it is not easy to\nsee in what way this principle can be injurious to the progress of the\nhuman mind in this department of knowledge. I have said, it is not\neasy; I might have said impossible, and that for a very simple reason,\nfounded upon a fact within the reach of every man; viz. the extreme\nreserve which the Catholic religion evinces in every thing relating to\npurely natural science. One might suppose that God had designed, on\nthis matter, to read us a severe lesson on our excessive curiosity:\nyou have only to read the Bible to be convinced of the truth of what\nI have advanced. I do not mean that nature is never noticed in the\nBible; that divine book presents her to us in her grandest, noblest,\nand most sublime aspect; as a living whole, in fact, together with all\nher relations and her sublime destiny, but without any kind of analysis\nor decomposition. In these sacred pages the painter's pencil and the\npoet's fancy will meet with magnificent models; but the inquisitive\nphilosopher will look in vain for the hints he is in quest of. The Holy\nSpirit did not aim at making naturalists, but virtuous men; hence, in\ndescribing the creation, He represents it solely in a light the best\nadapted to excite in us feelings of admiration and gratitude towards\nthe Author of so many wonders and benefits. Nature, as she appears\nin the sacred text, has not much to gratify the curiosity of the\nphilosopher; but then she delights and ennobles the imagination--she\nmoves and penetrates the heart.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXX.\n\nHISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT.\n\n\nFrom the rapid view we have taken of the several branches of learning\nin their relations to the authority of the Church, it is clear to a\ndemonstration, that the alleged enslavement of the intellect amongst\nCatholics is nothing but a mere bugbear: in no respect does our faith\neither arrest or retard the progress of learning. Since, however, it\nnot unfrequently happens that, in arguments apparently the most solid,\na flaw is discovered when they are brought to the test of facts, it\nwill be well to corroborate our assertion by historical testimony;\nfully assured as we are, that the result must be favorable to the cause\nof truth. We will begin at the beginning.\n\nM. Guizot maintains that the contest between the Church and the\nadvocates of the freedom of thought originated in the middle ages.\nNoticing the efforts of John Erigena, Roscelin, Abelard, and the alarm\nthey excited in the Church, he observes: \"This was the great event\nthat occurred at the end of the eleventh, and at the beginning of the\ntwelfth centuries, at a time when the Church was under theocratic and\nmonastic influence. It was then that, for the first time, a serious\nstruggle was commenced between the clergy and the freethinkers.\"\n(_Hist. G\u00e9n\u00e9rale de la Civilisation en Europe. Le\u00e7on 6._) The entire\nscope of M. Guizot's work shows that, in his judgment, the best-founded\nreproach that could be cast upon the Catholic Church was, that she\nchecked the freedom of thought. According to him, this is the point\nupon which the advantage of the Protestant system over Catholicity is\nthe least controvertible. His object being the complete development of\nthis idea, in treating of the religious revolution of the sixteenth\ncentury it was requisite for him to deposit it as a seed in his\npreliminary lectures; as otherwise the fact of the Reformation would\nhave appeared isolated, and shorn of its importance. Besides, it was\nnecessary that the resistance of Protestants to the Catholic Church\nshould have a meaning; that it should carry with it the appearance\nof a noble and generous thought; that it should be regarded as the\nproclamation of the freedom of the human mind. To attain this end,\nthe Church, on the one hand, must be represented as asserting claims\nin the middle ages to which she had not previously pretended; and, on\nthe other, those writers who resisted these alleged pretensions of the\nChurch must be held up as men of extraordinary penetration.\n\nNow, such is precisely the thread of M. Guizot's discourse; and we\nhence infer his efforts to prepare beforehand the triumph of his\nopinions. His plan, however, is ill-concerted; for he appears to have\noverlooked the most palpable facts in the history of the Church; and\nnot even to have known what were the doctrines of the three champions,\nwhose names he invokes with so much complacency. That no one may\naccuse me of making inconsiderate assertions, I will here quote his\nwords literally: \"Thus every thing,\" says he, \"seemed turning to the\nadvantage of the Church, of her unity, and of her power. But whilst\nthe Papacy was grasping at the government of the world, whilst the\nmonasteries were undergoing a moral reformation, a few powerful but\nisolated individuals claimed for human reason the right of being\nsomething in man, the right to interfere in the formation of his\nopinions. Most of them refrained from attacking received opinions, or\nreligious belief; they merely said that reason had a right to prove\nthem; and that it was not enough that they were affirmed by authority.\nJohn Erigena, Roscelin, and Abelard were the interpreters, through whom\nindividual reason began to lay claim to her inheritance--the first\nauthors of that movement of liberty, which was associated with the\nreform movement of Hildebrand and St. Bernard. If we seek the dominant\nfeature of this movement, we shall find that it was not a change of\nopinion, a revolt against the system of public belief; it was simply\nthe right of reasoning claimed for reason.\" (_Hist. G\u00e9n\u00e9rale de la\nCivilisation en Europe. Le\u00e7on 6._)\n\nWe will pass over the author's singular parallel between the efforts of\nJohn Erigena, Roscelin, and Abelard, and those of the great reformers,\nHildebrand or St. Gregory VII., and St. Bernard. These latter sought\nto reform the Church by legitimate means, to render the clergy more\nvenerable by making them more virtuous, and to win greater respect for\nauthority by sanctifying the persons entrusted with its exercise: the\nothers, according to M. Guizot, resisted this authority in matters\nof faith; that is, they aimed at its overthrow, and for this purpose\nlaid the axe to the root; the former _were_ reformers, the latter\ndevastators: and yet we are told that their efforts were directed to\none and the same object, had one and the same tendency. Verily, the\nphilosophy of history were a sorry thing, if it could allow of such\na confusion of ideas! What progress can be made in this branch of\nknowledge, by men who have so strange a way of dealing with facts? But,\nI repeat, let us take leave of these aberrations, and fix our attention\nspecially on two points: the worth of these three writers, so much\nvaunted, and the idea we are told to entertain of their resistance to\nauthority. Doubtless the names of John Erigena and Roscelin are already\npronounced with respect by those persons who would fain be thought well\nversed in the philosophy of history, without having ever read history,\nand who are obliged to content themselves with those easy lessons that\nare learned in an hour, and studied in an evening. With persons of this\ndescription, it is enough to have heard these names pronounced with\nemphasis, to have seen them coupled with epithets, such as _powerful\nmen_, _advocates of human reason_, _interpreters of individual reason_,\nto make them fancy that learning is no less indebted to Erigena and\nRoscelin than to Descartes or Bacon.\n\nWithout bearing in mind the remarks I have already made on the\npeculiarity of M. Guizot's position, it would not be easy to conjecture\nwhy he should seek to represent as new and extraordinary, what was,\nin fact, neither new nor uncommon; how he could say that the Church\nfirst began the contest against liberty of thought, when she put down\nErigena, Roscelin, and Abelard. He brings forward these three writers,\nas though their influence had been paramount; whereas they had no more\ninfluence than other sectarians, who abounded in preceding centuries.\nWho and what really was this John Erigena? A writer but imperfectly\nversed in theological science; but who, puffed up by the favor shown\nhim by Charles the Bold, broached certain errors on the subject of the\nEucharist, predestination and grace. In all that, I see only a man\ndeparting from the doctrine of the Church; and in Nicholas the First\nattempting to stop him in his career, I see only a Pope fulfilling his\nduty. What is there in all this either new or extraordinary? Does not\nthe whole history of the Church, from the time of the Apostles, exhibit\nan unbroken succession of similar facts?\n\nI repeat, it is impossible to conceive for what purpose the name\nof Erigena is brought forward. His errors produced no result of\nimportance; and the age in which he lived cannot be considered as\nhaving exercised any great influence on the intellectual development\nof subsequent times. He lived in the ninth century. Now, this century\nhad no share in the movement of those that followed; indeed, it is\nwell known that the tenth century was the darkest period of ignorance\nduring the middle ages; and that the intellectual movement commenced\nonly at the close of the tenth, and at the opening of the eleventh\ncentury. Erigena and Roscelin are separated by two centuries. As for\nRoscelin and Abelard, it is easier to understand why their names are\ncited. Every one knows the noise that Abelard made in the world by\nhis doctrines, and perhaps still more by his adventures. Roscelin may\nalso command attention by his errors, and especially as the master of\nAbelard.\n\nTo give an idea of the spirit that guided these men, and of the opinion\nwe are to form of their intentions, we must enter into some details\ntouching their lives and their doctrines. Roscelin was one of the most\ncrafty men of his time. A subtle dialectician and warm partizan of\nthe sect of the Nominalists, he substituted his own opinions for the\nteaching of the Church; and ended by falling into the gravest errors on\nthe sacred mystery of the Trinity. History has recorded a fact, that\nproves incontestably the notorious dishonesty of the man--his want\nof probity and of modesty. At the time that Roscelin was propagating\nhis errors, St. Anselm, who was afterwards archbishop of Canterbury,\nwas living, but at that time abbot of Beck. Lanfranc, archbishop of\nCanterbury, who died some time before, had left behind him the highest\nreputation for virtue and sound doctrine. Roscelin thought that the\nauthority of so high a name would give currency and consideration to\nhis errors; and, resorting to the foulest calumny, he affirmed that his\nopinions were the same as those of Archbishop Lanfranc, and Anselm,\nabbot of Beck. To this calumny Lanfranc could not reply, as he was\nalready in the tomb; but the abbot of Beck vigorously repelled so\nunjust an imputation; and at the same time vindicated the reputation\nof Lanfranc, who had been his master. The works of St. Anselm leave\nno doubt as to the nature of Roscelin's errors. We find them recorded\nwith the greatest precision. In fact, it were difficult to say why M.\nGuizot has conferred so much importance upon this man, or why he should\nbe adduced as one of the principal champions of the freedom of thought.\nThere is nothing in Roscelin to distinguish him from other heretics.\nHe is a man who employs artifices and subtleties, and falls into\nerror; but nothing is more common in the history of the Church; and it\ncertainly cannot be considered matter of astonishment.\n\nAbelard is more deserving of notice: his name has become so famous that\nno one is unacquainted with his sad adventures. A disciple of Roscelin,\nand as well skilled as his master in the dialectics of the age,\nendowed with great talents, and eager to parade them on the principal\ntheatres of literature, Abelard earned a reputation never attained\nby the dialectician of Compi\u00e8gne. His errors on points of very great\nimportance produced much mischief in the Church, and drew upon himself\nmany sorrows. But it is not true, as M. Guizot will have it, that his\ndoctrines met with less reproof than his method; neither is it true\nthat he and his master Roscelin had no intention of effecting a radical\nchange in matters of doctrine. Evidence of a most unexceptionable kind\nfortunately places the matter beyond all doubt, and proves that it\nwas not Roscelin's method, but his error on the Trinity, for which he\nwas condemned. Nor have we less certainty in the case of Abelard; for\nthe various errors taken from his works are preserved in the form of\narticles.\n\nWe learn from St. Bernard, that on the Trinity, Abelard held the\nopinions of Arius--on the Incarnation, those of Nestorius--on grace,\nthose of Pelagius. All this did not merely _tend_ to a radical change\nof doctrine, but actually was one. I do not know that Abelard ever\nprotested against the truth of these accusations; and even if he had,\nwe all know how to estimate such a protest. It is certain that, in the\nfamous Assembly of Sens--convoked at the request of Abelard himself--he\nhad not a word to say in reply to the sainted abbot of Clairvaux, who\nreproached him with his errors; and laying before him the very words\nof his propositions, extracted from his writings, urged him either\nto defend or abjure them. Abelard, confronted with so formidable an\nadversary, was so embarrassed that he could only say, in reply, that\nhe appealed to Rome. The Council of Sens, out of respect for the Holy\nSee, abstained from condemning the person of the innovator, but did\nnot fail to condemn his errors; and this condemnation was approved by\nthe Sovereign Pontiff, and extended to his person also. Now, from the\narticles containing the errors of Abelard, it does not appear that\nhis dominant idea was to proclaim the liberty of thought. He has, it\nis true, an overweening confidence in his own subtleties; but, beyond\nthis, his only fault is an erroneous and dogmatizing spirit on points\nof the greatest importance; a fault which he had in common with all the\nheretics who preceded him.\n\nAll this M. Guizot ought to have known; how he can have overlooked it\nI cannot imagine, nor why he attaches to these authors an importance\nwhich they really do not deserve. Perhaps he was anxious to furnish\nProtestants with some illustrious predecessors, when he laid such\nstress on the names of Roscelin and Abelard. These two, after all, were\nnot deficient in ability or in erudition, and they lived precisely\nduring the early period of the intellectual movement. Probably M.\nGuizot thought, that to bring these two innovators upon the scene would\nanswer his purpose extremely well, as showing that, from the very\ndawn of intellectual development, men of the greatest fame had raised\ntheir voices in favor of freedom of thought. After all, had M. Guizot\nsucceeded in proving that John Erigena, Roscelin, and Abelard aimed at\nnothing more than the assertion of the right of private examination in\nmatters of faith, it would not follow that these innovators had not\nsought to effect a radical change in matters of doctrine. In fact, what\ncan be more radical as regards matters of faith than that which strikes\nat authority, the root of all certainty? Neither would it follow, that\nin condemning the errors of these men the Church had taken alarm merely\nat their _method_; for if this method was to consist in withdrawing the\nintellect from the yoke of authority, even in matters of faith, it was\nitself a very grievous error, combated at all times by the Catholic\nChurch, which never would consent to have her authority called in\nquestion on points of faith.\n\nAnd yet, if these innovators had entered into the contest chiefly\nfor the purpose of contending against authority in matters of faith,\nM. Guizot would have had some reason to notice their proceedings as\nconstituting a new era; but, strange to say, their propositions do not\nappear to have been drawn up with a view to advocate the independence\nof thought, nor against authority in matters of faith; it was not\nfor such an attempt, but for other errors, that the Church condemned\nthem. Where, then, are the accuracy and historical truth which we\nshould expect from such a man as M. Guizot? How could he venture, in\naddressing a numerous audience, thus to substitute his own thoughts\nfor facts? The fact is, he well knew that these were matters generally\ntreated very superficially; that to gain the sympathy of superficial\nmen it would suffice to speak in pompous terms of the liberty of\nthought, to pronounce certain names probably heard by many for the\nfirst time, such as Erigena and Roscelin, and especially to mention the\nunfortunate lover of Helo\u00efse.\n\nM. Guizot, unable to conceal from himself that his observations upon\nthis period were somewhat feeble, tries to apply a remedy by inserting\na passage from the _Introduction to the Theology_ of Abelard, which, in\nmy opinion, is very far from answering the purpose of the publicist.\nHis object, in fact, is to show that from that very period a vigorous\nspirit of resistance to the authority of the Church in matters of faith\nhad sprung up, and that the human mind was even then longing to burst\nasunder the fetters in which it had been held. He would have us believe\nthat Abelard, yielding to the importunities of his own disciples, had\nthe courage to throw off the yoke of authority; and that his writings\nwere, to a certain extent, the expression of a necessity long felt, of\nan idea with which many minds had long been agitated. The following\nis the passage referred to: \"If we seek the dominant feature of this\nmovement, we shall find that it was not a change of opinion, a revolt\nagainst the system of public belief; it was simply the right of\nreasoning claimed for reason.\"\n\nWe have already seen how utterly devoid of truth is this assertion of\nthe publicist. The very attack upon authority was itself a radical\nchange in opinions, and a revolution in received doctrines; for the\nauthority of the Church was in itself a dogma, and formed the basis\nof all religious belief, as experience has satisfactorily shown,\nsince the appearance of Protestantism at the commencement of the\nsixteenth century. But let us allow the historian to proceed: \"The\ndisciples of Abelard, as he himself tells us in his _Introduction to\nTheology_, required of him philosophical arguments, and such as would\nsatisfy reason, requesting him to teach them not merely to repeat his\ninstructions, but to understand them also; for no one can believe\nwhat he does not understand, and it is ridiculous to preach to others\nthings that neither the teacher nor his pupils understand. 'What object\ncan the study of philosophy have but that of leading the mind to the\ncontemplation of God, to whom all things are to be referred? Why are\nthe faithful allowed to read works treating of worldly affairs and the\nbooks of the Gentiles, except to prepare them to understand the sacred\nScriptures, and to furnish them with the skill necessary for their\ndefence?... For this purpose alone we should avail ourselves of all\nour reasoning powers, lest, on questions so difficult and complicated\nas those that form the object of Christian faith, the subtilty of our\nopponents should too readily injure the purity of our faith.'\"\n\nIt cannot be denied, that in Abelard's time a lively curiosity aroused\nmen's minds to employ all their powers to be able to give a reason\nfor what they believed; but it is not true that the Church threw any\nobstacle in the way of this movement, considering it as a scientific\nmethod, and so long as it did not overstep legitimate bounds, and\nattack or undermine the articles of faith. It is impossible to take\na more unfavorable view of the Church than M. Guizot has here taken\nof her; nor could any one more completely overlook, I will even say\ndistort, facts.\n\n\"The importance of this first attempt at liberty,\" says he, \"of this\nrevival of the spirit of inquiry, was soon felt. The Church, though\nengaged in effecting her own reform, took the alarm nevertheless, and\nat once declared war against the reformers, whose new methods menaced\nher with more evils than their doctrines.\"\n\nThus is the Church represented as conspiring against the progress\nof thought, repressing with a strong arm the first attempts of the\nmind to advance in the path of science, and laying aside questions of\ndoctrine to contend against methods; and all this, we are told, as\nif it were something new and wonderful. \"For,\" says M. Guizot, \"this\nwas the great event which occurred at the end of the eleventh and\nbeginning of the twelfth centuries, at a time when the Church was under\ntheocratic and monastic influence. It was now that, for the first time,\na serious struggle commenced between the clergy and the freethinkers.\nThe quarrels of Abelard and St. Bernard, the Councils of Soissons and\nSens, in which Abelard was condemned, merely give expression to this\nevent, which has occupied so large a space in the history of modern\ncivilization.\"\n\nStill the same confusion of ideas. I have said already, and must repeat\nhere that the Church has condemned no method; it was not a _method_,\nbut error, that the Church condemned, unless by a method be meant an\nassault upon the articles of faith, under pretence of breaking the\nfetters of authority, which is not merely a method, but an error of the\nvery highest import. In reproving a pernicious doctrine, subversive of\nall faith, and denying the infallibility of the See of St. Peter in\nmatters of doctrine, the Church did not put forth any new pretensions;\nher conduct has always been the same ever since the time of the\nApostles, and is the same still. The moment a doctrine is propagated\nthat appears in the least degree dangerous, the Church examines it,\ncompares it with the sacred deposit of truth confided to her; if the\ndoctrine is not inconsistent with divine truth, she allows it free\ncirculation, for she is not ignorant that _God has given up the world\nto the controversies of men_; but if it is opposed to the faith, its\ncondemnation is irremissible, without concern or regret. Were the\nChurch to act otherwise, she would contradict herself, and cease to be\nwhat she is, the jealous depository of divine truth. If she allowed her\ninfallible authority to be questioned, that moment she would forget one\nof her most sacred obligations, and would lose all claim on our belief;\nfor, in betraying an indifference for truth, she would prove herself to\nbe no longer a religion descended from heaven, but a mere delusion.\n\nPrecisely at the time of which M. Guizot speaks, we observe a fact\nwhich proves that the Church allows free scope to the exercise of\nthought. The high reputation which St. Anselm sustained during his\nwhole career, and the great esteem in which he was held by the\nSovereign Pontiffs of his time, are well known; yet St. Anselm\nphilosophised with great freedom. In the introduction to his\n_Monologue_, he tells us that some persons entreated him to explain\nthings by reason alone, without the aid of the sacred Scriptures. The\nSaint was not afraid to comply with their request, and he accordingly\nwrote the little work we have just named. In other parts of his works,\ntoo, St. Anselm adopts the same method. Very few persons concern\nthemselves now-a-days about ancient writers, and doubtless very few\nhave read the works of the holy Doctor of whom we are speaking. They\ndisplay, however, such perspicuity of thought, such solid reasoning,\nand above all such a discreet and temperate judgment, that we are\nsurprised to find the human mind, at the very commencement of the\nintellectual movement, attaining to so high an elevation. In him we\nfind the greatest freedom of thought combined with the respect due\nto the authority of the Church; and far from impairing the vigor of\nhis ideas, this respect augments their force and perspicuity. From\nhis works we learn that Abelard was not the only one who taught, _not\nmerely to repeat his lectures, but also to understand them_; for St.\nAnselm, some years previous, followed the same method with a clearness\nand solidity far beyond what could be expected at that time. We there\ndiscover, also, that in the bosom of the Catholic Church men carried\nthe operations of reason to the greatest possible extent, though always\nwithin the bounds prescribed by its own weakness, and with reverential\nregard to the sacred veil that shrouds august mysteries.\n\nThe works of St. Anselm prove that Abelard was not exactly the man\nto teach the world that the end of philosophical studies is to lead\nthe mind to the contemplation of God, to whom all things should be\nreferred; and that we should avail ourselves of all our reasoning\npowers, lest on questions so difficult and complicated as those that\nform the object of Christian faith, the subtilties of our opponents\nshould too readily injure the purity of our faith. But from the Saint's\nprofound submission to the authority of the Church, from the candor and\ningenuousness with which he acknowledges the limits of the human mind,\nwe see that he was persuaded _that it is not impossible to believe what\nwe do not comprehend_; and, in fact, there is a wide difference between\nthe conviction that a thing exists, and a clear knowledge of the nature\nof the thing in the existence of which we believe.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXXI.\n\nRELIGION AND THE HUMAN MIND IN EUROPE.\n\n\nAs we are to examine what was, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries,\nthe conduct of the Church in reference to innovators, we will avail\nourselves of the excellent opportunity afforded by this epoch for\nnoticing the progress of the human mind. It has been said that\nin Europe intellectual development was exclusively theological.\nThis is true, and necessarily so; all the faculties of man receive\ntheir development according to the circumstances that surround\nhim; and as his health, his temperament, his strength, his color\neven, and his stature depend upon climate, food, mode of life, and\nother circumstances affecting him, so in like manner his moral\nand intellectual faculties bear the stamp of the principles which\npredominate in the family and society of which he forms a constituent\npart. Now, in Europe, religion was the predominating element; in\nevery thing religion made herself heard and felt; nowhere was there a\nprinciple of life or action discoverable unconnected with religion. It\nwas quite natural, therefore, that in Europe all the faculties of man\nshould have their development in a religious sense. A little attention\nwill show us that this was the case not with the intellect only, but\nlikewise with the heart, with the passions even, and with the whole\nmoral man; just as, in whatever direction we go in Europe, we meet\nat every step with some monument of religion; so whatever faculty we\nexamine in the individual European, we find upon it the impress of\nreligion.\n\nAnd the case was the same with families and society as with\nindividuals; religion was equally predominant in both. Wherever man\nhas progressed towards a state of perfection, we observe a similar\nphenomenon; and it is an invariable fact in the history of the human\nrace, that no society ever entered on the road to civilization, save\nunder the direction and impulse of religious principles. True or\nfalse, rational or absurd, wherever man is on the road to improvement,\nthese principles are found. Some nations, indeed, may well excite our\npity at the monstrous superstitions into which they have fallen; but\nwe still must acknowledge, that, under these very superstitions, lay\nconcealed germs of good that did not fail to produce considerable\nbenefits. The Egyptians, Ph\u0153nicians, Greeks, and Romans were all\nextremely superstitious; yet the progress they made in civilization\nand intellectual culture was such, that their monuments and memorials\nstrike us even yet with admiration. It is easy to smile at an\nextravagant observance or a senseless dogma; but we should remember\nthat the growth and preservation of certain moral principles cannot\nbe otherwise secured than under the protecting shade of religious\nbelief. Now, these principles are most indispensably necessary to\nprevent individuals from being monstrously changed, and to maintain\nthe social and family ties unbroken. Much has been said against the\nimmorality tolerated, permitted, and sometimes even taught by certain\nforms of religion; and certainly nothing is more lamentable than to\nbehold man thus led astray by that which ought to be his best guide.\nLet us, however, look for a reality beneath these shadows, which appear\nat first so gloomy, and we shall soon discover some rays of light that\nmay lead us to regard false religions, not indeed with indulgence,\nbut with less horror than those infamous systems which make matter\nself-existent, and pleasure the only divinity.\n\nTo preserve the idea of moral good and evil, an idea without meaning\nexcept in the supposition that there exists a divine power, is itself\nan inestimable advantage. Now this advantage adheres inseparably to\nevery form of religion, even to those that make the most absurd and\nmost criminal applications of the idea of good and evil. Doubtless, the\npeople of antiquity, and those of our own time who have not received\nthe light of Christianity, have gone most deplorably astray; but, in\nthe midst of their very wanderings, there always remains a certain\ndegree of light; and this light, however dimly it shines, however faint\nand feeble its rays, is incomparably better than the thick darkness of\natheism. Between the nations of antiquity and those of Europe there is\nthis very remarkable difference, that the former passed from a state of\ninfancy to a state of civilization; while the latter advanced to this,\nin passing from that undefinable state which, in Europe, was the result\nof the invasion of the barbarians, of the confused mixture of a young\nwith a decrepit society, of rude and ferocious nations with others that\nwere civilized, cultivated, or rather effeminate. Hence, amongst the\nancients the imagination was developed before the intellect, whilst\namongst Europeans the intellect came before the imagination. With the\nformer, poetry came first; with the latter, what is termed dialectics\nand metaphysics.\n\nWhat is the reason of so striking a difference? When a people are yet\nin their infancy, either an infancy properly so called, or having lived\nlong in ignorance, in a state similar to that of an infant people, we\nfind them rich in sensations, but very poor in ideas. Nature, with\nher majesty, her wonders, and her mysteries, affects such a people\nthe most; their language is grand, picturesque, and highly poetical;\ntheir passions are not refined, but, on the other hand, they are\nvery energetic and violent. Now an intellect that ingenuously seeks\nthe light, loves truth in its purity and simplicity, confesses and\nembraces it readily, lending itself neither to subtilties, artifices,\nnor disputes. The least thing that makes a vivid impression upon the\nsenses or the imagination of such a people fills them with surprise and\nwonder; you cannot inspire them with enthusiasm without setting before\nthem something heroic and sublime.\n\nOn the first glance at the state of the people of Europe in the middle\nages, we perceive in them a certain resemblance to an infant people,\nbut, at the same time, a very striking difference on several points.\nTheir passions are very strong, they are pleased beyond every thing\nwith the wonderful and the extraordinary, and, for want of realities,\ntheir imagination conjures up gigantic phantoms. The profession of arms\nis their favorite occupation; they rush eagerly into the most perilous\nadventures, and meet them with incredible courage. All this indicates a\ndevelopment of the feelings of sensibility and imagination, inasmuch as\nthey produce intrepidity and valor; but, strange to say, together with\nthese dispositions, we find a singular taste for things the most purely\nintellectual; with the most lively, ardent, and picturesque reality,\nwe find associated a taste for the coldest and barest abstractions.\nA knight, with the cross on his shoulder, gorgeously clad, covered\nwith trophies, beaming with glory won in a hundred combats; a\nsubtile dialectician, disputing on the system of the Nominalists,\nand urging his subtilely devised abstractions till he becomes\nunintelligible;--these are certainly two characters very dissimilar,\nand yet they exist together in the same society; both have their\nprestige, receive the greatest homage, and are followed by enthusiastic\nadmirers. Even when we have taken into account the singular position\nof the European nations at that period, it is not easy to assign a\ncause for this anomaly. We can easily understand how the people of\nEurope, emerging, for the most part, from the forests of the North, and\nengaged for a long time either in intestine wars or in conflicts with\nvanquished tribes, should have preserved, together with their warlike\nhabits, a strong and lively imagination and violent passions; but it\nis not so easy to account for their taste for an order of ideas purely\nmetaphysical and dialectical. When, however, we come to look deeply\ninto the matter, we discover that this apparent anomaly had its origin\nin the very nature of things. How is it that a people in their infancy\nhave so much imagination and sensibility? Because the objects by which\nthese faculties are naturally excited abound around them; because\nindividuals, being continually exposed to the influence of external\nthings, these objects operate upon them more forcibly. Man first feels\nand imagines; later he understands and reflects: this is the natural\norder in which his faculties begin to operate. Hence, with every people\nthe development of the imagination and of the passions precedes that of\nthe intellect; the passions and the imagination finding their object\nand aliment before the intellect. This accounts, also, for the fact\nthat the poetical always precedes the philosophical era. From this\nit follows, that nations in their infancy think little, as they want\nideas; and this is the chief distinctive mark between them and the\npeople of Europe at the period we are speaking of. In fact, _ideas_ at\nthat time _abounded in Europe_; and hence the purely intellectual was\nheld in such repute even amidst the most profound ignorance. Hence,\nalso, the intellect strove to shine even before its time appeared to\nhave arrived. Sound ideas respecting God, respecting man and society,\nwere already everywhere disseminated, thanks to the incessant teaching\nof Christianity; and as there still remained numerous traces of the\nwisdom of antiquity, both Christian and Pagan, the consequence was,\nthat every man possessed of a little learning had, in fact, a great\nfund of ideas.\n\nIt is clear, however, that notwithstanding these advantages, the\nminds of men could not, amidst the chaos of erudition and philosophy\nthat then presented itself, escape the confusion naturally resulting\nfrom the wide-spread ignorance, occasioned by a long succession of\nrevolutions. They could not possess sufficient discrimination and\njudgment to pursue all at once, and with success, the study of the\nBible, of the writings of the holy Fathers, of the civil and canon\nlaw, of the works of Aristotle, and of the Arabian commentaries. Yet\nthese were all studied at the same time; on all these, disputes were\nzealously maintained; and the errors and extravagances which in such\na state of things were inevitable were accompanied by the presumption\nthat is invariably inherent in ignorance. To succeed in explaining\ncertain passages of the Bible, of the Fathers, of the codes, and of\nthe works of philosophers, great preparatory labors were necessary,\nas the experience of subsequent ages has proved. It was necessary\nto study languages, to examine archives and monuments, to collect\ntogether from all parts an immense mass of materials; then, to reduce\nthese to order, to compare them together, and to discriminate between\nthem; in a word, it was necessary to possess a rich fund of learning,\nenlightened by the torch of criticism. Now all this was then wanting,\nand could only be attained in the course of ages. The consequence was\ninevitable, considering the mania that existed for explaining every\nthing. If a difficulty arose, and the facts and knowledge requisite\nfor its solution were wanting, they adopted a roundabout way; instead\nof seeking the support derivable from facts, the disputants took their\nstand upon an idea; substituting some subtle abstraction for solid\nreasoning; where they found it impossible to form a body of sound\ndoctrine, they threw together a confused mass of ideas and words. Who\ncould repress a smile, or not feel pity for Abelard, for instance,\npromising his disciples to explain to them the prophet Ezechiel, with\nvery little time for preparation, and actually fulfilling his promise?\nI would ask the reader whether, in the middle of the thirteenth\ncentury, an explanation of Ezechiel, given with only a slight\npreparation, could have been successful or interesting?\n\nThe study of dialectics and metaphysics was embraced with so much\nardor, that in a short time these branches of knowledge superseded all\nothers. The consequences were prejudicial to the minds of men; their\nattention being wholly engrossed by this object of their choice, the\npursuit of more solid learning was regarded with indifference--history\nwas neglected, literature unnoticed, in a word, the mind was only half\ndeveloped. Every thing appertaining to the imagination and the feelings\nwas sacrificed to the cultivation of the intellect; not, indeed, in\nits most useful operations,--the formation of a clear and perfect\nperception, of a mature judgment, of a habit of sound and accurate\nreasoning,--but in those which are astute, subtle, and extravagant.\n\nThose who would reproach the Church for her conduct at that period\nin reference to innovators have a very imperfect understanding of\nthe actual condition of Europe as regards science and religion. We\nhave already seen that the intellectual development was religious;\nconsequently, even when it deviated from the right path, it still\nretained this character, and the oddest subtilties were applied to\nmysteries the most sublime. Almost all the heretics of the time were\nrenowned dialecticians, and their errors arose from an excess of\nsubtilty. Roscelin, one of the leading dialecticians of his time,\nwas the founder, or at least one of the leaders of the sect of the\nNominalists. Abelard was celebrated for the readiness of his talents,\nhis skill in disputation, and his address in explaining every thing to\nsuit his thesis. The abuse of his intellect led him into the errors\nwhich we have already spoken of--errors which he would have avoided,\nhad he not proudly yielded himself up to his own vain thoughts. The\nmania for subtilising every thing drew Gilbert de la Poir\u00e9e into\nthe most lamentable errors on the subject of the Divinity; Amaury,\nanother celebrated philosopher, after the fashion of the time, took\nup so warmly the question of Aristotle's primordial matter, that he\nended by declaring matter to be God. The Church strenuously opposed\nthese errors, which arose in great numbers in minds led astray by vain\narguments, and puffed up with foolish pride. It would argue a strange\nmisconception of the true interests of science, to suppose that the\nChurch's resistance to these raving innovators was not most favorable\nto intellectual progress.\n\nThese headstrong men, eager in the pursuit of knowledge, and captivated\nby the first chimera presented to their imagination, stood greatly in\nneed of some discreet authority to restrain them within the bounds\nof reason and moderation. The intellect had scarcely taken the first\nsteps in the career of knowledge, and yet fancied it already knew every\nthing, \"pretending to know all things except the _nescio_, I know not,\"\nas St. Bernard reproaches the vain Abelard. Why should we not, for the\ngood of humanity, and the credit of the human intellect, approve the\ncondemnation pronounced by the Church against the errors of Gilbert,\nwhich aimed at nothing less than the overthrow of the ideas that we\nhave of God? If Amaury and his disciple David de Dinant are smitten by\nthe sentence of the Church, it is because they destroy the idea of the\nDivinity by confounding the Creator with _primordial matter_. Was it\nfor the advantage of Europe that its intellectual movement should be\ncommenced by precipitating itself at the very outset into the abyss of\npantheism?\n\nHad the human intellect followed in its development the way marked out\nfor it by the Church, European civilization would have gained at least\ntwo centuries; the fourteenth century would have been as far advanced\nas the sixteenth was. To convince ourselves of the truth of this\nassertion, we have only to compare writings with writings, and men with\nmen; the men most firmly attached to the faith of the Church attained\nto such eminence that they left the age in which they lived far behind\nthem. Roscelin's antagonist was St. Anselm; the latter always remained\nfaithful to the authority of the Church; the former rebelled against\nher: and who, let met ask, would have the hardihood to compare the\ndialectician of Compi\u00e8gne with the learned Archbishop of Canterbury?\nHow vast the difference between the profound and skilful metaphysician\nwho composed the Monologue and the Prosologue, and the frivolous leader\nof the disputes of the Nominalists! Have the subtilties and cavillings\nof Roscelin any weight whatever against the lofty thoughts of the man\nwho, in the eleventh century, to prove the existence of God, could\nreject all vain and captious reasonings, concentrate himself within\nhimself, consult his own ideas, compare them with their object, and\ndemonstrate the existence of God from the very idea of God, thus\nanticipating Descartes by five hundred years? Who best understood the\ntrue interests of science? Show me how the intellect of St. Anselm was\ndegraded or shackled by the influence of the formidable authority of\nthe Church, by any usurpation on the part of Popes of the rights of\nthe human mind. And can Abelard himself be compared, either as a man,\nor as a writer, with his Catholic adversary, St. Bernard? Abelard was\na perfect master of all the subtilties of the schools; noisy disputes\nwere his amusement; he was intoxicated with the applause of his\ndisciples, who were dazzled by their master's talents and courage, and\nstill more by the learned follies of the age; yet what has become of\nhis works? Who reads them? Who ever thinks of finding in them a single\npage of sound reasoning, the description of a single great event, or a\npicture of the manners of the time, in other words, the least matter of\ninterest to science or history? On the contrary, what man of learning\nhas not often sought this in the immortal works of St. Bernard?\n\nIt is impossible to find a more sublime personification of the Church\ncombating against the heretics of his time than the illustrious Abbot\nof Clairvaux, contending against all innovators, and speaking, if we\nmay use the term, in the name of the Catholic faith. No one could more\nworthily represent the ideas and sentiments which the Church endeavored\nto diffuse amongst mankind, nor more faithfully delineate the course\nthrough which Catholicity would have led the human mind. Let us pause\nfor a moment in the presence of this gigantic mind, which attained to\nan eminence far beyond any of its contemporaries. This extraordinary\nman fills the world with his name--upheaves it by his words--sways it\nby his influence; in the midst of darkness he is its light; he forms,\nas it were, a mysterious link, connecting the two epochs of St. Jerome\nand St. Augustine, of Bossuet and Bourdaloue. In the midst of a general\nrelaxation and corruption of morals, by the strictest observances and\nthe most perfect purity he is proof against every assault. Ignorance\nprevails throughout all classes; he studies night and day to enlighten\nhis mind. A false and counterfeit erudition usurps the place of true\nknowledge; he knows its unsoundness, disdains and despises it; and his\neagle eye discovers at a glance that the star of truth moves at an\nimmense distance from this false reflection, from this crude mass of\nsubtilties and follies, which the men of his time termed philosophy. If\nat that period there existed any useful learning, it was to be sought\nin the Bible, and in the writings of the holy Fathers; to the study\nof these, therefore, St. Bernard devotes himself unremittingly. Far\nfrom consulting the vain babblers who are arguing and declaiming in\nthe schools, St. Bernard seeks his inspirations in the silence of the\ncloister, or in the august sanctuary of the temple; if he goes out, it\nis to contemplate the great book of nature, to study eternal truths in\nthe solitude of the desert, and, as he himself has expressed it, \"in\nforests of beech-trees.\"\n\nThus did this great man, rising superior to the prejudices of his\ntime, avoid the evil produced in his contemporaries by the method\nthen prevailing. By this method the imagination and the feelings were\nstifled; the judgment warped; the intellect sharpened to excess; and\nlearning converted into a labyrinth of confusion. Read the works\nof the sainted Abbot of Clairvaux, and you will find that all his\nfaculties go, as it were, hand in hand. If you look for imagination,\nyou will find the finest coloring, faithful portraits, and splendid\ndescriptions. If you want feeling, you will learn how skilfully he\nfinds his way into the heart, captivates, subdues, and fashions it to\nhis will. Now he strikes a salutary fear into the hardened sinner,\ntracing with great force the formidable picture of the divine justice\nand the eternal vengeance; then he consoles and sustains the man who\nis sinking under worldly adversity, the assaults of his passions, the\nrecollection of his transgressions, or an exaggerated fear of the\ndivine justice. Do you want pathos? Listen to his colloquies with\nJesus and Mary; hear him speaking of the blessed Virgin with such\nenrapturing sweetness, that he seems to exhaust all the epithets that\nthe liveliest hope and the most pure and tender love can suggest. Would\nyou have vigor and vehemence of style, and that irresistible torrent\nof eloquence which nothing can resist, which carries the mind beyond\nitself, fires it with enthusiasm, compels it to enter upon the most\narduous paths, and to undertake the most heroic enterprises? See him\nwith his burning words inflaming the zeal of the people, nobles, and\nkings; moving them to quit their homes, to take up arms, and to unite\nin numerous armies that pour into Asia to rescue the Holy Sepulchre.\nThis extraordinary man is every where met with, every where heard.\nEntirely free from ambition, he possesses, nevertheless, a leading\ninfluence in the great affairs of Europe: though fond of solitude\nand retirement, he is continually obliged to quit the obscurity of\nthe cloister to assist in the councils of kings and popes. He never\nflatters, never betrays the truth, never dissembles the sacred ardor\nwhich burns within his breast; and yet he is every where listened to\nwith profound respect; his stern voice is heard in the cottages of the\npoor and in the palaces of kings; he admonishes with terrible severity\nthe most obscure monk and the Sovereign Pontiff.\n\nIn the midst of so much ardor and activity, his mind loses none of\nits clearness or precision. His exposition of a point of doctrine is\nremarkable for ease and lucidity; his demonstrations are vigorous and\nconclusive; his reasoning is conducted with a force of logic that\npresses close upon his adversary, and leaves him no means of escape: in\ndefence, his quickness and address are surprising. In his answers he\nis clear and precise; in repartee, quick and penetrating; and without\ndealing in the subtilties of the schools, he displays wonderful tact in\ndisentangling truth from error, sound reason from artifice and fraud.\nHere is a man formed entirely and exclusively under the influence of\nCatholicity; a man who never strayed from the pale of the Church, who\nnever dreamed of setting his intellect free from the yoke of authority;\nand yet he rises like a mighty pyramid above all the men of his time.\n\nTo the eternal honor of the Catholic Church, and utterly to disprove\nthe accusation brought against her, of exerting an influence hostile\nto the freedom of the human mind, I must observe that St. Bernard\nwas not the only man who rose superior to the age, and pointed out\nthe way to genuine progress. It is unquestionably certain, that the\nmost distinguished men of that period, those least influenced by the\nevils that so long kept the human mind in pursuit of mere vanities and\nshadows, were precisely the men most devotedly attached to Catholicity.\nThese men set an example of what was necessary to be done for the\nadvancement of learning; an example that for a long time had, it is\ntrue, but few followers, but which found some in subsequent ages: now\nit is to be observed that the progress of learning was due to the\ncredit obtained by this method--I speak of the study of antiquity.\n\nThe sacred sciences were the chief object of attention at this\nperiod; as the intellect was theologically developed, dialectics and\nmetaphysics were studied with a view to their application to theology.\nWith Roscelin, Abelard, Gilbert de la Poir\u00e9e, and Amaury, the phrase\nwas: \"Let us reason, subtilise, and apply our systems to all sorts\nof questions; let our reason be our rule and guide, without which\nknowledge is impossible.\" With St. Bernard, St. Anselm, Hugh and\nRichard de St. Victor, Peter Lombard, on the contrary, it was: \"Let us\nsee what antiquity teaches; let us study the works of the holy Fathers;\nlet us analyse and compare their texts; we cannot place our dependence\nexclusively on arguments, which are sometime dangerous and sometimes\nfutile.\" Which of these two judgments has been actually confirmed?\nWhich of these methods was adopted when real progress was to be made?\nWas not recourse had to an unremitting study of ancient works? Was it\nnot found necessary to throw aside the cavils of the dialecticians?\nProtestants themselves boast of having taken this way; their\ntheologians consider it an honor to be versed in antiquity; and would\nbe offended if treated as mere dialecticians. On which side, then, was\nreason? With the heretics, or with the Church? Who best understood\nthe method most favorable to intellectual progress? The heretical\ndialectician, or the orthodox doctor? To these questions there can only\nbe one reply. These are not mere opinions--they are facts; not an empty\ntheory, but the actual history of learning, as known by all the world,\nand as represented to us in irrefragable documents. Unless prepossessed\nby the authority of M. Guizot, the reader certainly cannot complain\nthat I have eschewed questions of history, or claimed his belief on my\nown bare word.\n\nUnhappily, mankind seemed doomed never to find the true road without\ngoing a long way round; thus the intellect, taking the very worst\nway of all, went in pursuit of subtilties and cavils, forsaking the\nbeaten track of reason and good sense. At the beginning of the twelfth\ncentury the evil had reached to such a height, that to apply a remedy\nwas no slight undertaking; nor is it easy to say how far matters\nmight have gone, nor what evils would have ensued in various ways, had\nnot Providence, who never abandons the care of the moral, any more\nthan of the physical universe, raised up an extraordinary genius,\nwho, rising to an immense height above the men of his age, reduced\nthe chaos to order. Out of the undigested mass, by retrenching here,\nadding there, classifying and explaining, this man collected a fund\nof real learning. Persons acquainted with the history of learning at\nthat time will readily understand that I speak of St. Thomas Aquinas.\nRightly to appreciate the extraordinary merit of this great Doctor,\nwe must view him in connection with the times and circumstances of\nwhich we are treating. Beholding in St. Thomas Aquinas one of the most\nluminous, most comprehensive, and most penetrating intellects that have\never adorned the human race, we are almost tempted to think that his\nappearance in the thirteenth century was inopportune; we regret that\nhe did not live in a more recent age, to enter the lists with the most\nillustrious men of whom modern Europe can boast. But, upon further\nreflection, we find that the human mind owes so much to him, we see so\nclearly the reason why his appearance at the time when Europe received\nhis lectures was most opportune, that we have no other feeling left\nthan one of profound admiration of the designs of Providence.\n\nWhat was the philosophy of his time? Amidst the strange compound of\nGreek and Arabian philosophy and of Christian ideas, what would have\nbecome of dialectics, metaphysics, and morality? We have already seen\nwhat sort of fruit began to grow out of such combinations, favored by\na degree of ignorance unable to distinguish the real nature of things,\nand encouraged by pride that pretended to a knowledge of every thing.\nAnd yet the evil was only beginning; its further development would\nhave been attended with symptoms still more alarming. Fortunately,\nthis great man appeared; the first touch of his powerful hand advanced\nlearning two or three centuries. He could not root out the evil, but at\nleast he applied a remedy; owing to his indisputable superiority, his\nmethod and his learning soon won their way everywhere. He became, as it\nwere, the centre of a grand system, round which all other scholastic\nwriters were forced to revolve; he thus prevented a multitude of errors\nthat without his intervention would have been almost inevitable. He\nfound the schools in a state of complete anarchy; he reduced them\nto order; and on account of his angelic intellect, and his eminent\nsanctity, was looked up to as their sublime dictator. This is the view\nI take of the mission of St. Thomas; it will be viewed in the same\nlight by all those who study his works, and do not content themselves\nwith a hasty perusal of a biographical article respecting him.\n\nNow this man was a Catholic, and the Catholic Church venerates him upon\nher altars, and I do not see that his mind was shackled by authority\nin matters of faith; it goes abroad freely amongst all the branches\nof knowledge; he unites in his person such extensive and profound\nacquirements as to appear a prodigy for the age in which he lived. We\nobserve in St. Thomas, notwithstanding the purely scholastic method\nwhich he adopted, the same characteristic that we discover in all the\neminent Catholic writers of the times. He reasons much; but it is easy\nto see that he does not trust entirely to his reason, but proceeds with\nthat wise diffidence which is an unequivocal sign of real learning.\nHe avails himself of the doctrines of Aristotle; but evidently would\nhave made less use of them, and more of the Fathers, but for his\nleading idea, which was, to make the philosophy of his time subservient\nto the defence of religion. The reader must not suppose that his\nmetaphysics and moral philosophy are a congeries of inexplicable\nenigmas, as a knowledge of the period at which he wrote might lead us\nto apprehend. Nothing of the kind; and any one who entertains such an\nidea has evidently not spent much time in the study of his writings.\nHis metaphysical works, it must be acknowledged, make us perfectly\nacquainted with the dominant ideas of the time; but it is equally\nundeniable, that in every page we meet with the most luminous passages\non the most complicated questions of ideology, ontology, cosmology,\nand psychology; so much so, that we almost imagine we are reading the\nworks of a philosopher who wrote after the fullest development of the\nsciences had been attained.\n\nWhat his political ideas were, we have already seen; were it\nnecessary, and did the nature of the present work permit, I might here\nproduce many fragments from his _Treatise on Laws and on Justice_,\ndistinguished for such solid principles, such lofty views, so profound\na knowledge of the nature of society, that they would occupy an\nhonorable position amongst the best works on legislation written in\nmodern times. His treatises on virtues and vices, whether considered\ngenerally, or in detail, exhaust the subject, and defy all subsequent\nwriters to produce a single idea of any importance that has not been\nalready either developed, or at least suggested in them. Above all, his\nworks are remarkable for moderation and extreme reserve in doctrinal\nexpositions, in which respect they are eminently conformable to the\nspirit of Catholicity; and assuredly if all writers had followed in\nhis footsteps, the field of science would have presented us with\nan assembly of sages, and would not have been converted into a\nblood-stained arena for furious combatants. Such is his modesty, that\nhe does not relate a single incident in his life, private or public;\nfrom him we hear nothing but the language of enlightened reason, calmly\ndispensing its treasures: the man, with his fame, his misfortunes, his\nlabors, and all his vain pretensions, with which other writers are wont\nto weary us, never appears for an instant.[41]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXXII.\n\nON THE PROGRESS OF THE HUMAN MIND FROM THE ELEVENTH CENTURY TO THE\nPRESENT TIME.\n\n\nI think I have satisfactorily vindicated the Catholic Church from the\nreproaches cast upon her by her enemies, for her conduct during the\neleventh and twelfth centuries in reference to the development of the\nhuman mind. Let us now take a rapid survey of the march of intellect up\nto our own times, and see what titles Protestantism can produce to the\ngratitude of the friends of progress in human knowledge.\n\nIf I mistake not, the following are the phases through which the human\nmind has passed, since the revival of learning in the eleventh century.\nFirst came the epoch of subtilties, with its heaps of crude erudition;\nthen the age of criticism, with appropriate attempts at grave\ncontroversies on the meaning of records and monuments; and finally\ncame the reflecting age, and the inauguration of the philosophical\nperiod. The eleventh and succeeding centuries, to the sixteenth,\nwere characterized by a fondness for dialectics and erudite trifles;\ncriticism and controversy formed the distinctive characteristics of the\nsixteenth, and part of the seventeenth centuries; the philosophical\nspirit began to prevail towards the middle of the seventeenth, and\ncontinued to our own time. Now of what advantage was Protestantism to\nlearning? None; Protestantism found learning already accumulated--this\nI can easily prove--Erasmus and Louis Vives shone in the time of Luther.\n\nDid Protestantism promote the study of criticism? Yes; just as an\nepidemic that decimates nations aids the progress of the medicinal\nart. But we must not suppose that the taste for this kind of literary\nlabor would not have been disseminated without the aid of the\npseudo-Reformation. As monuments came to light, as a knowledge of\nlanguages became more general, as the public acquired clearer and more\ncorrect notions of history, people would naturally set themselves to\ndiscriminate between the apocryphal and the authentic. The necessary\ndocuments were at hand, and were studied unremittingly; for this was\nthe favorite taste of the epoch. Under such circumstances, how is it\npossible there should have existed no desire to examine to what author,\nand to what age, such documents severally belonged; to investigate\nhow far ignorance or dishonesty had falsified them, had taken from,\nor added to them? On this subject, I need only relate what took place\nrelative to the famous decretals of Isidore Mercator. These decretals\nhad been received, without opposition, during the centuries anterior\nto the fifteenth, owing to the want of antiquarian and critical\nresearch; but the moment that knowledge and facts began to accumulate,\nthe edifice of imposture gave way. As early as the fifteenth century,\nCardinal Cusa challenged the authenticity of certain decretals that had\nbeen supposed to be anterior to Pope Siricius; and the reflections of\nthe learned Cardinal led the way to other attacks of a similar kind. A\nserious discussion arose, in which Protestants naturally took part; but\nit would unquestionably have been engaged in all the same, if Catholic\nwriters had been left entirely to themselves. When the learned came to\nread the codes of Theodosius and Justinian, the works of antiquity, and\ncollections of ecclesiastical records, they could not possibly fail to\nobserve that the spurious decretals contained sentences and fragments\nbelonging to an era posterior to the time to which they were referred;\nand when once such doubts had arisen, error was sure to be promptly\nexposed.\n\nWe may say of controversy, what we have just said of criticism. There\nwould have been no want of controversy, even if the unity of the faith\nhad never been violated. In support of this assertion, the recollection\nof what occurred amongst the different schools of Catholics is\nquite conclusive. These schools were engaged in controversy amongst\nthemselves, in the presence even of the common opponent: and we may\nrest assured that, if their attention had not been partially diverted\nby that enemy, their polemical discussions would have been maintained\nonly with the greater energy and warmth. Protestants have no more\nthe advantage over Catholics, as regards controversy than as regards\ncriticism. However true it be that some of our theologians did not see\nthe necessity of opposing the enemy with arms superior to those taken\nfrom the arsenal of Aristotelian philosophy, it is quite certain that\na great number of them took up a sufficiently lofty position, and were\nthoroughly impressed with the importance of the crisis, and urged the\nintroduction of very great modifications into the course of theological\nstudies. Bellarmin, Melchior Cano, Petau, and many others, were no way\ninferior to the most skilful Protestants, whatever may have been the\nboasted scientific merits of the defenders of error.\n\nThe knowledge of the learned languages must have contributed in an\nextraordinary degree to the progress of critical and controversial\nlearning. Now I do not see that Catholics were behind others in the\nknowledge of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Anthony de Nebrija, Erasmus,\nLouis Vives, Lawrence Villa, Leonardus Aretinus, Cardinal Bembo,\nSadolet, Poggio, Melchior Cano, and many others, too numerous to\nmention; were they, I ask, trained in Protestantism? Did not the Popes,\nmoreover, take the lead in this literary movement? Who patronized the\nlearned with greater liberality? Who supplied them with more abundant\nresources? Who incurred greater expenses in the purchase of the best\nmanuscripts? Nor let it be forgotten, that such was the taste for pure\nLatinity, that some among the learned objected to read the Vulgate, for\nfear of acquiring inelegant phrases.\n\nAs regards Greek, we need only bear in mind the causes that led to\nits diffusion in Europe, to be convinced that the progress made\nin the knowledge of this language owes nothing whatever to the\npseudo-Reformation. It is well known that, after the taking of\nConstantinople by the Turks, the literary remains of that unfortunate\nnation were brought to the coasts of Italy. In Italy the study of Greek\nwas first seriously commenced; from Italy it spread to France, and to\nthe other European states. Half a century before the appearance of\nProtestantism, this language was taught in Paris by the Italian Gregory\nde Tiferno. At the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth\ncenturies, Germany itself could boast of the celebrated John Reuchlin,\nwho taught Greek with great applause, first at Orleans and Poictiers,\nand afterwards at Ingolstadt. Reuchlin, being on one occasion at Rome,\nso felicitously explained, and read with so pure an accent, a passage\nfrom Thucydides, in the presence of Argyropilus, that the latter,\nfilled with admiration, exclaimed: \"_Gracia nostra exilio transvolavit\nAlpes_; our exiled Greece has crossed the Alps.\"\n\nRespecting Hebrew, I will transcribe a passage from the Abb\u00e9 Goujet:\n\"Protestants,\" says he, \"would fain have it thought that they\neffected the revival of this language in Europe; but they are forced\nto acknowledge, that whatever they know of Hebrew they owe to the\nCatholics, who were their teachers, and the sources whence, even to\nthis day, is obtained all that is most valuable in Oriental literature.\nJohn Reuchlin, who lived the greater part of his time in the fifteenth\ncentury, was unquestionably a Catholic, and one of the most skilful\nHebrew scholars, and was also the first Christian who reduced the\nteaching of that language to a system. John Weissel of Groningen had\ntaught him the elements of this language, and had himself pupils in\nwhom he had awakened a love for this study. In like manner, it was by\nthe exertions of Picus de Mirandula, who was a strict Catholic, that a\ntaste for the study of Hebrew was revived in the West. At the time of\nthe Council of Trent, most of the heretics who then knew that language\nhad learned it in the bosom of the Church they had forsaken; and their\nvain subtilties respecting the meaning of the sacred text excited the\nfaithful to still greater assiduity in the study of a language so\nwell calculated to insure their own triumph and the defeat of their\nopponents. In devoting themselves to this branch of study, moreover,\nthey were only following out the intentions of Pope Clement V., who,\nas early as the beginning of the fourteenth century, had ordained that\nGreek, and Hebrew, and even Arabic and Chaldean, should be publicly\ntaught, for the benefit of foreigners, at Rome, at Paris, at Oxford, at\nBologna, and at Salamanca. The design of this Pope, who so well knew\nthe advantages resulting from well-conducted studies, was, to augment\nthe learning of the Church by the study of languages, and to raise\nup doctors capable of defending her against every form of error. By\nmeans of these languages, and more especially of Hebrew, he intended\nto renew the study of the sacred books, that the latter, when read in\nthe original, might appear more worthy of the Holy Spirit who inspired\nthem, and by their combined grandeur and simplicity, when better\nknown, awaken greater reverence for them; and that, without derogating\nfrom the respect due to the Latin version, it might be felt that an\nintimate acquaintance with the originals was peculiarly serviceable in\nconfirming the faith of believers, and confuting heretics.\" (L'Abb\u00e9\nGoujet, _Discours sur le renouvellement des Etudes, et principalement\ndes Etudes eccl\u00e9siastiques depuis le quatorzi\u00e8me si\u00e8cle_.)\n\nOne of the causes which contributed the most to the development of\nthe human mind was the creation of great centres of instruction,\ncollecting the most illustrious talents and learning, and diffusing\nrays of light in all directions. I know not how men could forget that\nthis idea was not due to the pretended Reformation, seeing that most of\nthe universities of Europe were established long before the birth of\nLuther. That of Oxford was established in 895; Cambridge in 1280; that\nof Prague, in Bohemia, in 1358; that of Louvain, in Belgium, in 1425;\nthat of Vienna, in Austria, in 1365; that of Ingolstadt, in Germany,\nin 1372; that of Leipsic in 1408; that of Basle, in Switzerland, in\n1469; that of Salamanca in 1200; that of Alcala in 1517. It would be\nsuperfluous to notice the antiquity of the universities of Paris,\nof Bologna, of Ferrara, and of a great many others, which attained\nthe highest renown long before the advent of Protestantism. The\nPopes, it is well known, took an active part in the establishment\nof universities, granting them privileges, and bestowing upon them\nthe highest honors and distinctions. How can any one, then, venture\nto assert, that Rome has opposed the progress of learning and the\nsciences, in order to keep the people in darkness and ignorance? As if\nDivine Providence had intended to confound these future calumniators\nof His Church, Protestantism made its appearance precisely at the\ntime when, under the auspices of a renowned Pope, the progress in\nthe science, in literature and the arts was most active. Posterity,\njudging of our disputes with impartiality, will undoubtedly pass a\nsevere sentence upon those pretended philosophers, who are constantly\nendeavoring to prove from history, that Catholicity has impeded the\nprogress of the human mind, and that scientific progress has been all\nowing to the cry of liberty raised in central Germany. Yes; sensible\nmen in future ages, like those of our own times, will form a correct\njudgment upon this subject, when they reflect that Luther began to\npropagate his errors _in the age of Leo X_.\n\nCertainly, the court of Rome could not at that time be reproached\nwith obscurantism. Rome was at the head of all progress, which she\nurged onwards with the most active zeal, the most ardent enthusiasm;\nso much so, indeed, that if she were censurable at all--if there were\nin her conduct any thing of which history should disapprove--it was\nrather that her march was too quick than too slow. Had another St.\nBernard addressed Leo X., he would assuredly not have blamed him for\nabusing his authority to impede the march of the human intellect and\nthe progress of learning. \"The Reformation,\" says M. de Chateaubriand,\n\"deeply imbued with the spirit of its founder--a coarse and jealous\nmonk--declared itself the enemy of the arts. By prohibiting the\nexercise of the imaginative faculties, it clipped the wings of genius,\nand made her plod on foot. It raised an outcry against certain alms\ndestined for the erection of the basilica of St. Peter for the use\nof the Christian world. Would the Greeks have refused the assistance\nsolicited from their piety for the building of a temple to Minerva? Had\nthe Reformation been completely successful from the beginning, it would\nhave established, for a time at least, another species of barbarism:\nviewing as superstition the pomp of divine worship; as idolatry the\n_chefs-d'\u0153uvre_ of sculpture, of architecture, and of painting, its\ntendency was to annihilate lofty eloquence and sublime poetry--to\ndegrade taste, by repudiating its models--to introduce a dry, cold,\nand captious formality into the operations of the mind--to substitute\nin society affectation and materialism in lieu of ingenuousness and\nintellectuality, and to make machinery take the place of manual and\nmental operations. These are truths confirmed by everyday experience.\n\n\"Amongst the various branches of the reformed religion, their\napproximation to the beautiful and sublime is always found to be\nproportioned to the amount of Catholic truth they have retained. In\nEngland, where an ecclesiastical hierarchy has been upheld, literature\nhas had its classic era. Lutheranism preserves some sparks of\nimagination, which Calvinism aims at utterly extinguishing; and so on,\ntill we come to Quakerism, which would reduce social life to unpolished\nmanners and the practice of trades. Shakspeare, in all probability,\nwas a Catholic; Milton has evidently imitated some parts of the poems\nof St. Avitus and Masenius; Klopstock has borrowed very largely from\nthe faith of Rome. In our own days, in Germany, the high imaginative\npowers have been put forth only when the spirit of Protestantism\nhad begun to decline. It was in treating Catholic subjects that the\ngenius of Goethe and Schiller was manifested; Rousseau and Madame\nde Sta\u00ebl are, indeed, illustrious exceptions to this rule; but were\nthey Protestants after the model of the first disciples of Calvin?\nAt this very day, painters, architects, and sculptors, of all the\nconflicting creeds, go to seek inspiration at Rome, where they find\nuniversal toleration. Europe, nay, the whole world, is covered with\nmonuments of the Catholic religion. To it we are indebted for that\nGothic architecture, which rivals in its details, and eclipses in\nits magnificence, the monuments of Greece. It is now three centuries\nsince Protestantism arose,--it is powerful in England, in Germany,\nin America,--it is professed by millions of men,--and what has it\nerected? It can show only the ruins it has made; on which perhaps, it\nhas planted gardens or built factories. Rebelling against the authority\nof tradition, the experience of centuries, and the venerable wisdom of\nages, Protestantism let go its hold on the past, and planted a society\nwithout roots. Acknowledging for their founder a German monk of the\nsixteenth century, the reformers renounced the wonderful genealogy\nthat unites Catholics, through a succession of great and holy men,\nwith Jesus Christ Himself, and, through Him, with the patriarchs and\nthe earliest of mankind. The Protestant era, from the first hours of\nits existence, refused all relationship with the era of that Leo who\nprotected the civilized world against Attila, and also with the era of\nthat other Leo, at whose coming barbarism vanished, and society, now\nno longer in need of defence, put on the ornaments of civilization.\"\n(_Etud. Histor._, Fran\u00e7ois I.)\n\nIt is much to be regretted that the author of such noble sentiments,\nwho so accurately describes the effects of Protestantism on literature\nand the arts, should have said, that \"the Reformation was, properly\nspeaking, philosophic truth, under the guise of Christianity, attacking\nreligious truth.\" (_Etud. Histor._, Preface.) What is the meaning\nof these words? We shall best understand them from the illustrious\nauthor's own explanation. \"Religious truth,\" says he, \"is the knowledge\nof one God manifested in a form of worship. Philosophic truth is the\nthreefold knowledge of things intellectual, moral, and natural.\"\n(_Etud. Histor._, Exposition.) It is difficult to imagine how any one\nwho admits the truth of the Catholic religion, and, as a necessary\nconsequence, the falsehood of Protestantism, can define the latter to\nbe, philosophic truth at war with religious truth. In the natural,\nas well as in the supernatural, order of things, in philosophy as in\nreligion, all truths come from God, all end in Him. There cannot,\ntherefore, be any antagonism between truths of one order and truths of\nanother order; between religious and true philosophy, between nature\nand grace, no antagonism is possible. Truth is that which is; for\ntruth resides in beings themselves; we should rather say, it consists\nof beings themselves such as they exist, such as they are in their\nsubstance; and hence it is quite incorrect to say that philosophic\ntruth has ever stood in antagonism to religious truth.\n\nAccording to the same author \"Philosophic truth is neither more nor\nless than the independence of the human mind; its tendency being to\nmake discoveries, and lead to perfection in the three sciences that\ncome within its sphere, viz. the intellectual, the moral, and the\nnatural. But philosophic truth,\" he continues, \"looking forwards to\nthe future, has stood in opposition to religious truth, which adheres\nto the past, owing to the immovable nature of the eternal principle\nupon which it is founded.\" (_Etud. Histor._, Exposition.) With all the\nrespect due to the immortal author of the _G\u00e9nie du Christianisme_ and\nof the _Martyrs_, I must take the liberty to observe, that we find here\na lamentable confusion of ideas. The philosophic truth of which M. de\nChateaubriand here treats, must be either science itself, considered\nas an aggregate of truths, or a general knowledge, in which truth and\nerror are commingled; or, in fine, the whole body of men of learning,\nconsidered as constituting a very influential class in society. In the\nfirst case, it is impossible for philosophic truth to be in antagonism\nto religious truth,--that is, to Catholicity; in the second case, the\nalleged opposition is nothing extraordinary, for error being in this\ncase mixed up with truth, will on some points be found to be opposed\nto Catholic faith; and, finally, as regards the third hypothesis,\nit is unfortunately too true, that many men, distinguished by their\ntalents and erudition, have been opposed to Catholicity; but, on the\nother hand, as great a number of men equally eminent have triumphantly\nmaintained the truth of Catholicity; hence it would be extremely\nillogical to affirm that philosophic truth, even in this sense, is\nopposed to religious truth.\n\nIt is not my wish to give an unfavorable interpretation to the words of\nthe illustrious writer; I rather incline to think, that, in his mind,\nphilosophic truth is nothing but a spirit of independence considered\nin a general, vague, and undefined sense, and not as applied to any\nobject in particular. This is the only way to reconcile assertions\nso different; for it is quite clear, that, after he had so severely\ncondemned the Protestant Reformation, the writer could not proceed\nto admit that this same Reformation carried with it philosophic\ntruth, properly so called, wherein it became opposed to Catholic\ndoctrines. But, in this case, the language of the illustrious author\nis unquestionably wanting in precision; this, however, need not\nsurprise us, as, upon reflection, we shall find that, in treating\nhistorico-philosophical subjects, precision is not to be expected from\nwriters whose genius has been wont to soar into the highest regions on\nthe wings of a sublime poetry.\n\nIt was not either in Germany or in England, but in Catholic France,\nthat the philosophical movement advanced with the greatest freedom\nand daring. Descartes, the founder of a new era in philosophy, that\nsuperseded the Aristotelian, and gave a fresh impulse to the study of\nlogic, of physics, and metaphysics, was a Frenchman and a Catholic.\nThe greater part of his most distinguished followers were also in\ncommunion with the Roman Church. Philosophy, then, in the highest\nsense of the word, owes nothing to Protestantism. Before Leibnitz,\nGermany could scarcely reckon a single philosopher of any note; and\nthe English schools that attained to any thing like celebrity arose\nafter Descartes' time. We shall find, upon reflection, that France was\nthe centre of the philosophical movement from the end of the sixteenth\ncentury; and at that period all the Protestant countries were so\nbackward in this kind of study, that the active progress of philosophy\namongst the Catholics was scarcely noticed by them. In like manner,\nit was in the bosom of the Catholic Church that the taste arose for\nprofound meditations on the secrets of the heart, and on the relations\nof the human mind to God and nature, and that sublime abstraction which\nconcentrates man's faculties, sets him free from the body, and elevates\nhim to those exalted regions that appear destined to be visited\nexclusively by celestial spirits. Is not mysticism, in its purest, most\nrefined, and most elevated form, found in our Catholic writers of the\ngolden age? Since that time, what has been published that may not be\nmet with in the works of St. Teresa, in those of St. John of the Cross,\nin the venerable Avila, in Louis de Grenada, and in Louis de L\u00e9on?\n\nAnd Pascal, that man of thought, one of the most vigorous geniuses\nof the seventeenth century, who was unhappily deceived for some time\nby a hypocritical and canting sect, was he a Protestant? Was it not\nhe who laid the basis of that philosophico-religious school, whose\ninvestigations, directed at one time to the deepest questions of\nreligion, at another to those of nature, or to the mysteries of the\nhuman heart, have surrounded truth with a flood of light? Do not the\napologists of Christianity, whether Protestants or Catholics, when\nengaged in combating indifference or incredulity, avail themselves by\npreference of his _Pens\u00e9es_? Authors who have written on the philosophy\nof history have perhaps surpassed all others in their eagerness to\nvilify the Church as the enemy of enlightenment, whilst they represent\nProtestantism as the great bulwark of the rights of the mind. Now,\ngratitude alone should have induced them to proceed more circumspectly;\nthey should not forget that the real founder of the philosophy of\nhistory was a Catholic, and that the first and best work ever written\non this subject came from the pen of a Catholic Bishop. It was Bossuet,\nin his immortal _Discours sur l'Histoire Universelle_, who first taught\nour modern thinkers to take a lofty survey of the human race; to\nembrace at one view all the events that have marked the course of ages,\ncontemplating them in all their vastness and intimate connection, with\nall their phases, effects, and causes, and to draw from them salutary\nlessons for the instruction both of princes and people. Now, Bossuet\nwas a Catholic, and, moreover, one of the most trenchant adversaries of\nthe Protestant Reformation. His fame is heightened too by another work,\nin which he completely overthrows the doctrines of the innovators, by\nproving their continual variations, and demonstrating that theirs must\nbe the way of error, seeing that variation is incompatible with truth.\nWe may ask the abettors of Protestantism, if the Eagle of Meaux feels\nin his flight the fetters of the Catholic religion, when, glancing at\nthe origin and destiny of mankind, at the fall of our first parents and\nits consequences, on the revolutions of the East and West, he traces\nwith such wonderful sublimity the designs of Divine Providence?\n\nAs regards the literary movement, I might almost consider myself\nrelieved from all necessity of combating the reproaches cast upon\nCatholicity by its enemies. What, in fact, was the literature of all\nthe Protestant countries together, at the time when Italy produced\nthose orators and poets, who, in succeeding ages, have been universally\nreceived as models? Various descriptions of literature were already\nquite common in Catholic countries, that were not even known in England\nor Germany; and when, at a later period, an attempt was made to fill\nup the hiatus, no better means could be found for the purpose than to\ntake for models the Spanish writers, who had been subject _to Catholic\nobscurantism and the fires of the Inquisition_.\n\nNeither the mind, the heart, nor the imagination of man owes any thing\nto Protestantism. Before the Reformation these were all in graceful and\nvigorous progress; after the Reformation, this progress continued in\nthe bosom of the Catholic Church as successfully as before. Catholicity\ndisplays a bright array of illustrious men crowned with the glories\nthey have won amidst the unanimous plaudits of all civilized nations.\nWhatever has been said of the tendency of our religion to enslave and\nhoodwink the mind, is but calumny. No; that which is born of light,\ncannot produce darkness; that which is the work of truth itself, need\nnot fly from the sun's rays to conceal itself in the bowels of the\nearth. The daughter of heaven may walk in the brightness of day, may\ndare discussion, may gather around her all the brightest intellects;\nwell assured that the more closely and attentively they see and\ncontemplate her, the more pure, the more beauteous and enrapturing will\nshe appear.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXXIII.\n\nSUMMARY.--DECLARATION OF THE AUTHOR.\n\n\nHaving reached the end of my difficult enterprise, let me be allowed\nto take a retrospective view of the vast space over which I have but\njust passed, like the traveller who rests after his labor. The fear of\nseeing religious schism introduced into my country; the sight of the\nefforts which were made to inculcate Protestant errors amongst us; the\nperusal of certain writings, wherein it was stated that the pretended\nReformation had been favorable to the progress of nations,--such were\nthe motives which inspired me with the idea of undertaking this work.\nMy object was, to show that neither individuals nor society owe any\nthing to Protestantism, either in a religious, social, political, or\nliterary point of view. I undertook to examine what history tells us,\nand what philosophy teaches us, on this point. I was not ignorant\nof the immense extent of the questions which I had to enter upon; I\nwas far from flattering myself that I was able to clear them up in a\nbecoming manner; nevertheless I set forth upon my journey, with that\ncourage which is inspired by the love of truth, and the confidence that\none is defending its cause.\n\nWhen considering the birth of Protestantism, I have endeavored to\ntake as lofty a view as possible. I have rendered to men that justice\nwhich is due to them; I have attributed a large portion of the evil\nto the wretched condition of mankind, to the weakness of our minds,\nand to that inheritance of perverseness and ignorance which has been\ntransmitted to us by the fall of our first parent. Luther, Calvin,\nand Zuinglius have disappeared from my eyes; placed in the immense\npicture of events, they have been viewed by me as small imperceptible\nfigures, whose individuality was far from deserving the importance\nwhich was given to them at other periods. Honest in my convictions,\nand unreserved in my words, I have acknowledged with candor, but with\nsorrow, that there existed certain abuses, and that these abuses were\ntaken as pretexts when it was wished to break the unity of the faith.\nI have allowed that a portion of the blame shall also fall upon men;\nbut I have also pointed out, that the more you here lay stress upon\nthe weakness and wickedness of man, the more do you illustrate the\nprovidence of Him who has promised to be with His Church till the\nconsummation of ages.\n\nBy the aid of reasoning and irrefragable experience, I have proved\nthat the fundamental dogmas of Protestantism show little knowledge of\nthe human mind, and were a fruitful source of errors and catastrophes.\nThen, turning my attention to the development of European civilization,\nI have made a continued comparison between Protestantism and\nCatholicity; and I believe that I may assert, that I have not hazarded\nany proposition of importance without having supported it by the\nevidence of historical facts. I have found it necessary to take a\nsurvey of all ages, dating from the commencement of Christianity, and\nto observe the different phases under which civilization has appeared;\nwithout this, it would have been impossible to give a complete\nvindication of the Catholic religion.\n\nThe reader may have observed that the prevailing idea of the work is\nthis: \"Before Protestantism European civilization had reached all the\ndevelopment which was possible for it; Protestantism perverted the\ncourse of civilization, and produced immense evils in modern society;\nthe progress which has been made since Protestantism, has been made not\nby it, but in spite of it.\" I have only consulted history, and I have\ntaken extreme care not to pervert it; I have borne in mind this passage\nof holy writ: \"Has God, then, need of thy falsehood?\" The documents to\nwhich I refer are there; they are to be found in all libraries, ready\nto answer; read them, and judge for yourselves.\n\nI am not aware, in the multitude of questions which have presented\nthemselves to me, and which it has been indispensable for me to\nexamine, that I have resolved any in a manner not in conformity with\nthe dogmas of the religion which I was desirous of defending. I am\nnot aware that, in any passage of my book, I have laid down erroneous\npropositions, or expressed myself in ill-sounding terms. Before\npublishing my work, I submitted it to the examination of ecclesiastical\nauthority; and without hesitation, I complied with the slightest\nhint on its part, purifying, correcting, and modifying what had been\npointed out as worthy of purification, correction, or modification.\nNotwithstanding that, I submit my whole work to the judgment of the\nCatholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church; as soon as the Sovereign\nPontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ upon earth, shall pronounce sentence\nagainst any one of my opinions, I will hasten to declare that I\nconsider that opinion erroneous, and cease to profess it.\n\n\n\n\nNOTES.\n\nNOTE 1, p. 26.\n\nThe _History of the Variations_ is one of those works which exhaust\ntheir subject, and which do not admit of reply or addition. If\nthis immortal _chef-d'\u0153uvre_ be read with attention, the cause of\nProtestantism, with respect to faith, is forever decided: there is no\nmiddle way left between Catholicity and infidelity. Gibbon read it in\nhis youth, and he became a Catholic, abandoning the Protestant religion\nin which he had been brought up. When, at a later period, he left the\nCatholic Church, he did not become a Protestant, but an unbeliever.\nMy readers will perhaps like to learn from the mouth of this famous\nwriter what he thought of the work of Bossuet, and the effect which was\nproduced on him by its perusal. These are his words: \"In the _History\nof the Variations_, an attack equally vigorous and well-directed,\" says\nhe, \"Bossuet shows, by a happy mixture of reasoning and narration,\nthe errors, mistakes, uncertainties, and contradictions of our first\nreformers, whose variations, as he learnedly maintains, bear the\nmarks of error; _while the uninterrupted unity of the Catholic Church\nis a sign and testimony of infallible truth_. I read, approved, and\nbelieved.\" (Gibbon's _Memoirs_.)\n\n\nNOTE 2, p. 27.\n\nIt has been wished to represent Luther to us as a man of lofty ideas,\nof noble and generous feelings, and as a defender of the rights\nof the human race. Yet he himself has left us in his writings the\nmost striking testimony of the violence of his character, of his\ndisgusting rudeness, and his savage intolerance. Henry VIII., king of\nEngland, undertook to refute the book of Luther called _De Captivitate\nBabylonica_; and behold the latter, irritated by such boldness, writes\nto the king, and calls him _sacrilegious, mad, senseless, the grossest\nof all pigs and of all asses_. It is evident that Luther paid but\nlittle regard to royalty; he did the same with respect to literary\nmerit. Erasmus, who was perhaps the most learned man of his age, or\nwho at least surpassed all others in the variety of his knowledge, in\nthe refinement and _\u00e9clat_ of his mind, was not better treated by the\nfurious innovator, in spite of all the indulgence for which the latter\nwas indebted to him. As soon as Luther saw that Erasmus did not think\nproper to be enrolled in the new sect, he attacked him with so much\nviolence, that the latter complained of it, saying, \"_that in his old\nage he was compelled to contend against a savage beast, a furious wild\nboar_.\" Luther did not confine himself to mere words; he proceeded to\nacts. It was at his instigation that Carlostad was exiled from the\nstates of the Duke of Saxony, and was reduced to such misery, that he\nwas compelled to carry wood, and do other similar things, to gain his\nlivelihood. In his many disputes with the Zwinglians, Luther did not\nbelie his character; he called them _damned_, _fools_, _blasphemers_.\nAs he lavished such epithets on his dissenting companions, we cannot\nbe astonished that he called the doctors of Louvain _beasts_,\n_pigs_, _Pagans_, _Epicureans_, _Atheists_; and that he makes use\nof other expressions which decency will not allow us to cite; and\nthat, launching forth against the Pope, he says, \"_He is a mad wolf,\nagainst whom every one ought to take arms, without waiting even for\nthe order of the magistrates; in this matter there can be no room left\nfor repentance, except for not having been able to bury the sword in\nhis breast_;\" adding, \"that all those who followed the Pope ought to\nbe pursued like bandit-chiefs, were they kings or emperors.\" Such\nwas the spirit of tolerance which animated Luther. And let it not be\nimagined that this intolerance was confined to him; it extended to\nall the party of the innovators, and its effects were cruelly felt.\nWe have an unexceptionable witness of this truth in Melancthon, the\nbeloved disciple of Luther, and one of the most distinguished men\nthat Protestantism has had. \"I find myself under such oppression,\"\nwrote Melancthon to his friend Camerarius, \"that I seem to be in the\ncave of the Cyclops; it is almost impossible for me to explain to you\nmy troubles; and every moment I feel myself tempted to take flight.\"\n\"These are,\" he says, in another letter, \"ignorant men, who know\nneither piety nor discipline; behold what they are who command, and you\nwill understand that I am like Daniel in the lions' den.\" How, then,\ncan it be maintained that such an enterprise was guided by a generous\nidea, and that it was really attempted to free the human mind? The\nintolerance of Calvin, sufficiently shown by the single fact mentioned\nin the text, is manifested in his works at every page, by the manner in\nwhich he treats his adversaries. _Wicked men_, _rogues_, _drunkards_,\n_fools_, _madmen_, _furies_, _beasts_, _bulls_, _pigs_, _asses_,\n_dogs_, and _vile slaves of Satan_. Such are the polite terms which\nabound in the writings of the famous reformer. And how many wretched\nthings of the same kind could I not relate, if I did not fear to\ndisgust my readers!\n\n\nNOTE 3, p. 27.\n\nThe Diet of Spires had made a decree concerning the change of religion\nand worship; fourteen towns of the empire refused to submit to it,\nand presented a Protest; hence men began to call the dissenters\n_Protestants_. As this name is a condemnation of the separated\nchurches, they have several times attempted to assume others, but\nalways in vain; the names which they took were false, and false names\ndo not last. What was their meaning when they called themselves\n_Evangelicals_? That they adhered to the Gospel alone? In that case\nthey ought rather to call themselves _Biblicals_; for it was not to the\nGospel that they professed to adhere, but to the Bible. They are also\nsometimes called _Reformers_; and many people have been accustomed to\ncall _Protestantism, reformation_; but it is enough to pronounce this\nword, to feel how inappropriate it is; _religious revolution_ would be\nmuch more proper.\n\n\nNOTE 4, p. 27.\n\nCount de Maistre, in his work _Du Pape_, has developed this question\nof names in an inimitable manner. Among his numerous observations,\nthere is one very just one: it is, that the Catholic Church alone has\na positive and proper name, which she gives to herself, and which is\ngiven to her by the whole world. The separated Churches have invented\nmany, but without the power of appropriating them.--\"Each one was free\nto take what name he pleased,\" says M. de Maistre; \"_Lais_, in person,\nmight be able to write upon her door, _H\u00f4tel d'Art\u00e9mise_. The great\npoint is, to compel others to give us a particular name, which is not\nso easy as to take it of our own authority.\"\n\nMoreover, it must not be imagined that Count de Maistre was the\ninventor of this argument; a long time before him St. Jerome and St.\nAugustin had used it. \"If you,\" says St. Jerome, \"hear them called\nMarcionites, Valentinians, Montanists, know that they are not the\nChurch of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist.--Si audieris\nnuncupari Marcionitas, Valentinianos, Montanenses, scito, non Ecclesiam\nChristi, sed Antichristi esse synagogam.\" (Hieron. lib. _Adversus\nLuciferianos_.) \"I am retained in the Church,\" says St. Augustin, \"by\nher very name of Catholic; for it was not without a cause that she\nalone, amid so many heresies, obtained that name. All the heretics\ndesire to be called Catholics; yet if a stranger asks them which is the\nchurch of the Catholics, none of them venture to point out their church\nor house.--Tenet me in Ecclesia ipsum Catholic\u00e6 nomen, quod non sine\ncausa inter tam multas h\u00e6reses, sic ipsa sola obtinuit, ut cum omnes\nh\u00e6retici se Catholicos dici velint, qu\u00e6renti tamen peregrino alicui,\nubi ad Catholicam conveniatur, nullus h\u00e6reticorum, vel basilicam suam\nvel domum audeat ostendere.\" (St. Augustin.) What St. Augustin observed\nof his time is again realized with respect to the Protestants. I\nappeal to the testimony of those who have visited the countries where\ndifferent communions exist. An illustrious Spaniard of the seventeenth\ncentury, who had lived a long time in Germany, tells us, \"They all\nwish to be called Catholic and Apostolical; but notwithstanding this\npretension, they are called Lutherans, or Calvinists.--Singuli volunt\nCatholici et Apostolici, sed volunt, et ab aliis non hoc pr\u00e6tenso illis\nnomine, sed Luterani potius aut Calviniani nominantur.\" (Caramuel.)\n\"I have dwelt in the towns of heretics,\" continues the same writer,\n\"and I have seen with my eyes and heard with my ears a thing on which\nthe heterodox should reflect: _it is, that with the exception of the\nProtestant preacher, and a few others, who desire to know more of\nthe thing than is necessary, all the crowd of heretics gave the name\nof Catholics to the Romans_.--Habitavi in h\u00e6reticorum civitatibus;\net hoc propriis oculis vidi, propriis audivi auribus, quod deberet\nab h\u00e6terodoxis ponderari, _pr\u00e6ter pr\u00e6dicantem, et pauculos qui plus\nsapiunt quam oportet sapere, totum h\u00e6reticorum vulgus Catholicos vocat\nRomanos_.\" Such is the force of truth. The ideologists know well\nthat these phenomena have deep causes, and that these arguments are\nsomething more than subtilties.\n\n\nNOTE 5, p. 38.\n\nSo much has been said of abuses, the influence which they may have had\non the disasters which the Church suffered during the last centuries\nhas been so much exaggerated, and at the same time so much care has\nbeen taken, by hypocritical praise, to exalt the purity of manners and\nstrictness of discipline in the primitive Church, that some people\nhave at last imagined a line of division between ancient and modern\ntimes. These persons see in the early times only truth and sanctity;\nthey attribute to the others only corruption and falsehood; as if,\nin the early ages of the Church, all the faithful were angels--as if\nthe Church, at all times, had not errors to correct and passions to\ncontrol. With history in our hands, it would be easy to reduce these\nexaggerated ideas to their just value, to which Erasmus himself,\ncertainly little disposed to exculpate his contemporaries, does\njustice. He clearly shows us, in a parallel between his own times and\nthose of the early ages of the Church, how puerile and ill-founded\nwas the desire, then so widely diffused, of exalting antiquity at the\nexpense of the present time. We find a fragment of this parallel in the\nworks of Marchetti, among his observations on Fleury's history.\n\nIt would not be less curious to pass in review the regulations made by\nthe Church to check all kinds of abuses. The collections of councils\nwould furnish us with so many materials thereupon, that many volumes\nwould not suffice to make them known; or rather, these collections\nthemselves, with alarming bulk, from one end to the other, are nothing\nbut an evident proof of these two truths: 1st, that there have been\nat all times many abuses to be corrected, an effect, in some measure\nnecessary, of the weakness and corruption of human nature; 2dly, that\nat all periods the Church has labored to correct these abuses, so that\nit may be affirmed without hesitation, that you cannot point out one\nwithout immediately finding a canonical regulation by its side to check\nor punish it. These observations clearly show that Protestantism was\nnot caused by abuses, but that it was a great calamity, as it were,\nrendered unavoidable by the fickleness of the human mind, and the\ncondition in which society was placed. In the same sense Jesus Christ\nhas said, _that it was necessary that there should be scandal_; not\nthat any one in particular is forced to give it, but because such is\nthe corruption of the human heart, that the natural course of things\nmust necessarily bring it.\n\n\nNOTE 6, p. 42.\n\nThis concert and unity, which are found in Catholicity, are\nthings which ought to fill every sensible man with admiration and\nastonishment, whatever his religious ideas may be. If we do not suppose\nthat _the finger of God is here_, how can we explain or understand the\ncontinuance of the centre of unity in the see of Rome? So much has\nbeen said of the supremacy of the Pope, that it is very difficult to\nadd any thing new; but perhaps our readers will not be displeased to\nsee a passage of St. Francis de Sales, where the various remarkable\ntitles given to the Sovereign Pontiff and to his see, by the Church in\nancient times, are collected. This work of the holy Bishop is worthy of\nbeing introduced, not only because it interests the curiosity, but also\nbecause it furnishes matter for grave reflection, which we leave to the\nreader.\n\n\nTITLES OF THE POPE.\n\n Most Holy Bishop of the Catholic Church--Council of Soissons, of 300\n Bishops.\n\n Most Holy and Blessed Patriarch--Ibid., t. vii., Council.\n\n Most Blessed Lord--St. Augustine, Ep. 95.\n\n Universal Patriarch--St. Leo, P., Ep. 62.\n\n Chief of the Church in the World--Innoc. ad P. P. Concil. Milevit.\n\n The Bishop elevated to the Apostolic eminence--St. Cyprian, Ep. 3, 12.\n\n Father of Fathers--Council of Chalcedon, Sess. iii.\n\n Sovereign Pontiff of Bishops--Id., in pr\u00e6f.\n\n Sovereign Priest--Council of Chalcedon, Sess. xvi.\n\n Prince of Priests--Stephen, Bishop of Carthage.\n\n Prefect of the House of God and Guardian of the Lord's\n Vineyard--Council of Carthage, Ep. to Damasus.\n\n Vicar of Jesus Christ, Confirmer of the Faith of Christians--St.\n Jerome, pr\u00e6f. in Evang. ad Damasum.\n\n High-Priest--Valentinian, and all antiquity with him.\n\n The Sovereign Pontiff--Council of Chalcedon, in Epist. ad Theodos.\n Imper.\n\n The Prince of Bishops--Ibid.\n\n The Heir of the Apostles--St. Bern., lib. de Consid.\n\n Abraham by the Patriarchate--St. Ambrose, in 1 Tim. iii.\n\n Melchisedech by ordination--Council of Chalcedon, Epist. ad Leonem.\n\n Moses by authority--St. Bernard, Epist. 190.\n\n Samuel by jurisdiction--Id. ib., et in lib. de Consider.\n\n Peter by power--Ibid.\n\n Christ by unction--Ibid.\n\n The Shepherd of the Fold of Jesus Christ--Id. lib ii. de Consider.\n\n Key-Bearer of the House of God--Id. ibid. c. viii.\n\n The Shepherd of all Shepherds--Ibid.\n\n The Pontiff called to the plentitude of power--Ibid.\n\n St. Peter was the Mouth of Jesus Christ--St. Chrysost., Hom. ii., in\n Div. Serm.\n\n The Mouth and Head of the Apostleship--Orig., Hom. lv. in Matth.\n\n The Cathedra and Principal Church--St. Cypr., Ep. lv. ad Cornel.\n\n The Source of Sacerdotal Unity--Id., Epist. iii. 2.\n\n The Bond of Unity--Id. ibid. iv. 2.\n\n The Church where resides the chief power (_potentior\n principalitas_)--Id. ibid. iii. 8.\n\n The Church the Root and Mother of all the others--St. Anaclet. Papa,\n Epist. ad omnes Episc. et Fideles.\n\n The See on which our Lord has built the Universal Church--St. Damasus,\n Epist. ad Univ. Episcop.\n\n The Cardinal Point and Head of all the Churches--St. Marcellinus, R.\n Epist. ad Episc. Antioch.\n\n The Refuge of Bishops--Conc. Alex., Epist. ad Felic. P.\n\n The Supreme Apostolic See--St. Athanasius.\n\n The Presiding Church--Emperor Justin., in lib. viii., Cod. de Sum.\n Trinit.\n\n The Supreme See which cannot be judged by any other--St. Leo, in Nat.\n SS. Apost.\n\n The Church set over and preferred to all the others--Victor d'Utiq.,\n in lib. de Perfect.\n\n The first of all the Sees--St. Prosper, in lib. de Ingrat.\n\n The Apostolic Fountain--St. Ignatius, Epist. ad Rom. in Subscript.\n\n The most secure Citadel of all Catholic Communion--Council of Rome\n under St. Gelasius.\n\n\nNOTE 7, p. 45.\n\nI have said that the most distinguished Protestants have felt the void\nwhich is found in all sects separated from the Catholic Church. I am\nabout to give proofs of this assertion, which perhaps some persons may\nconsider hazardous. Luther, writing to Zwinglius, said, \"If the world\nlasts for a long time, it will be again necessary, on account of the\ndifferent interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to\nreceive the decrees of Councils, and take refuge in them, in order to\npreserve the unity of the faith.--Si diutius steterit mundus, iterum\nerit necessarium, propter diversas Scriptur\u00e6 interpretationes qu\u00e6\nnunc sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem, ut conciliorum decreta\nrecipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus.\"\n\nMelancthon, deploring the fatal results of the want of spiritual\njurisdiction, said, \"There will result from it a liberty useless to the\nworld;\" and in another place he utters these remarkable words: \"There\nare required in the Church inspectors, to maintain order, to observe\nattentively those who are called to the ecclesiastical ministry, to\nwatch over the doctrine of priests, and pronounce ecclesiastical\njudgments; so that if bishops did not exist, it would be necessary to\ncreate them. The _monarchy of the Pope would be of great utility to\npreserve among such various nations uniformity of doctrine_.\"\n\nLet us hear Calvin: \"God has placed the seat of his worship in the\ncentre of the earth, and has placed there only one Pontiff, whom\nall may regard, the better to preserve unity.--Cultus sui sedem in\nmedio terr\u00e6 collocavit, illi _unum_ Antisticem pr\u00e6fecit, quem omnes\nrespicerent, quo melius in unitate continerentur.\"--(Calvin, _Inst._ 6,\n\u00a7 11.)\n\n\"I have also,\" says Beza, \"been long and greatly tormented by the same\nthoughts which you describe to me. I see our people wander at the\nmercy of every wind of doctrine, and after having been raised up, fall\nsometimes on one side, and sometimes on the other. What they think of\nreligion to-day you may know; what they will think of it to-morrow you\ncannot affirm. _On what point of religion are the Churches which have\ndeclared war against the Pope agreed? Examine all, from beginning to\nend, you will hardly find one thing affirmed by the one which the other\ndoes not directly cry out against as impiety._--Exercuerunt me diu et\nmultum ill\u00e6 ips\u00e6 quas describis cogitationes. Video nostros palantes\nomni doctrin\u00e6 vento, et in altum sublatos, modo ad hanc, modo ad illam\npartem deferri. Horum, qu\u00e6 sit hodie de religione sententia scire\nfortasse possis; sed qu\u00e6 cras de eadem futura sit opinio, neque tu\ncerto affirmare queas. In quo tandem religionis capite congruunt inter\nse Ecclesi\u00e6, qu\u00e6 Romano Pontifici bellum indixerunt? A capite ad calcem\nsi percurras omnia, nihil propemodum reperias ab uno affirmari, quod\nalter statim non impium esse clamitet.\" (Th. Bez. _Epist. ad Andream\nDudit_.)\n\nGrotius, one of the most learned of Protestants, also felt the weakness\nof the foundation on which the separated sects repose. Many people have\nbelieved that he died a Catholic. The Protestants accused him of having\nthe intention of embracing the Roman faith; and the Catholics, who had\nrelations with him at Paris, thought the same thing. It is said that\nthe celebrated Petau, the friend of Grotius, at the news of his death,\nsaid mass for him; an anecdote the truth of which I do not guarantee.\nIt is certain that Grotius, in his work entitled _De Antichristo_,\ndoes not think, with other Protestants, that the Pope is Antichrist.\nIt is certain that, in his work entitled _Votum pro Pace Ecclesi\u00e6_,\nhe says, without circumlocution, \"that without the supremacy of the\nPope, it is impossible to put an end to disputes;\" and he alleges\nthe example of the Protestants: \"as it happens,\" says he, \"among the\nProtestants.\" It is certain that, in his posthumous work, _Rivetiani\nApologetici Discussio_, he openly lays down the fundamental principle\nof Catholicity, namely, that \"the dogmas of faith should be decided\nby tradition and the authority of the Church, and not by the holy\nScriptures only.\"\n\nThe conversion of the celebrated Protestant Papin, which made so much\nnoise, is another proof of what we are endeavoring to show. Papin\nreflected on the fundamental principle of Protestantism, and on the\ncontradiction which exists between this principle and the intolerance\nof Protestants, who, relying only on private judgment, yet have\nrecourse to authority for self-preservation. He reasoned as follows:\n\"If the principle of authority, which they attempt to adopt, is\ninnocent and legitimate, it condemns their origin, wherein they refused\nto submit to the authority of the Catholic Church; but if the principle\nof private judgment, which they embraced in the beginning, was right\nand just, this is enough to condemn the principle of authority invented\nby them for the purpose of avoiding its excesses; for this principle\nopens and smooths the way to the greatest disorders of impiety.\"\n\nPuffendorf, who will certainly not be accused of coldness when\nattacking Catholicity, could not help paying his tribute also to the\ntruth, when, in a confession for which all Catholics ought to thank\nhim, he says, \"The suppression of the authority of the Pope has sowed\nendless germs of discord in the world: as there is no longer any\nsovereign authority to terminate the disputes which arise on all sides,\nwe have seen the Protestants split among themselves, and tear their\nbowels with their own hands.\" (Puffendorf, _de Monarch. Pont. Roman_.)\n\nLeibnitz, that great man, who, according to the expression of\nFontenelle, advanced all sciences, also acknowledged the weakness\nof Protestantism, and the organizing power which belongs to the\nCatholic Church. We know that, far from participating in the anger of\nProtestants against the Pope, he regarded the religious supremacy of\nRome with the most lively sympathy. He openly avows the superiority of\nthe Catholic over the Protestant missions; the religious communities\nthemselves, the objects of so much aversion to so many people, were\nto him highly respectable. These anticipations with respect to the\nreligious ideas of this great man have been more and more confirmed\nby one of his posthumous works, published for the first time at Paris\nin 1819. _The Exposition of the Doctrine of Leibnitz on Religion,\nfollowed by Thoughts extracted from the writings of the same Author,\nby M. Emery, formerly General Superior of St. Sulpice_, contains\nthe posthumous work of Leibnitz, whereof the title, in the original\nmanuscript, is, _Theological System_. The commencement of this work,\nremarkable for its seriousness and simplicity, is certainly worthy\nof the great soul of this distinguished thinker. It is this: \"After\nhaving long and profoundly studied religious controversies, after\nhaving implored the divine assistance, and laid aside, as far as it is\npossible for man, all spirit of party, I have considered myself as a\nneophyte come from the new world, and one who had not yet embraced an\nopinion; behold, therefore, the conclusions at which I have arrived,\nand what appeared to me, out of all that I have examined, worthy to be\nreceived by all unprejudiced men, as what is most conformable to the\nholy Scriptures and respectable antiquity; I will even say, to right\nreason and the most certain historical facts.\"\n\nLeibnitz afterwards lays down the existence of God, the Incarnation,\nthe Trinity, and the other dogmas of Christianity; he adopts with\ncandor, and defends with much learning, the doctrine of the Catholic\nChurch on tradition, the sacraments, the sacrifice of the Mass, the\nrespect paid to relics and holy images, the Church hierarchy, and the\nsupremacy of the Pope. He adds, \"In all cases which do not admit the\ndelay of the convocation of a general Council, or which do not deserve\nto be considered therein, it must be admitted that the first of the\nBishops, or the Sovereign Pontiff, has the same power as the whole\nChurch.\"\n\n\nNOTE 8, p. 49.\n\nSome persons may suppose that what we have said with respect to the\nemptiness of human knowledge and the weakness of our intellect, has\nbeen said only for the purpose of making the necessity of a rule in\nmatters of faith more sensibly felt. It is not so. It would be easy for\nme to insert here a long list of texts, drawn from the writings of the\nmost illustrious men of ancient and modern times, who have insisted\nupon this very point. I will only quote here an excellent passage from\nan illustrious Spaniard, one of the greatest men of the sixteenth\ncentury, Louis Vives. \"_Jam mens ipsa, suprema animi et celsissima\npars, videbit quantopere sit tum natura sua tarda ac pr\u00e6pedita, tum\ntenebris peccati c\u00e6ca, et a doctrina, usu, ac solertia imperita et\nrudis, ut ne ea quidem qu\u00e6 videt, qu\u00e6que manibus contrectat, cujusmodi\nsint, aut quid fiant assequatur, nedum ut in abdito illa natur\u00e6,\narcana possit penetrare; sapienterque ab Aristotele illa est posita\nsententia: Mentem nostram ad manifestissima natur\u00e6 non aliter habere\nse, quam noctu\u00e6 oculum ad lumen solis._ Ea omnia, qu\u00e6 universum\nhominum genus novit, quota sunt pars eorum qu\u00e6 ignoramus? Nec solum\nid in universitate artium est verum, sed in singulis earum, in quarum\nnulla tantum est humanum ingenium progressum, ut ad medium pervenerit,\netiam in infimis illis ac villissimis; ut nihil existimetur verius\nesse dictum ab Academicis quam Scire nihil.\" (Ludovic. Vives, _de\nConcordia et Discordia_, lib. iv. c. iii.) So thought this great man,\nwho, to vast erudition in sacred and profane things, added profound\nmeditation on the human intellect itself; who followed the progress of\nthe sciences with an observant eye, and undertook to regenerate them,\nas his writings prove. I regret that I cannot copy his words at length,\nas well those in the passage which I have just cited, as those of his\nimmortal work on the causes of the decline of the arts and sciences,\nand on the manner of teaching them. If any one complain that I have\ntold some truths as to the weakness of our minds, and fear lest this\nshould impede the progress of knowledge by checking its flights, I will\nremind him that the best way of promoting the progress of our minds is,\nto give them a knowledge of themselves. On this point, the profound\nsentence of Seneca may be quoted: \"I know that many persons would\nhave attained to wisdom, if they had not presumed that they already\npossessed it.\" \"Puto multos ad sapientiam protuisse pervenire, nisi se\njam crederent pervenisse.\"\n\n\nNOTE 9, p. 53.\n\nDense clouds surround the intellect as soon as it approaches the first\nprinciples of the sciences. I have said that even the mathematics,\nthe clearness and certainty of which have become proverbial, are not\nexempted from this universal rule. The infinitesimal calculation,\nwhich, in the present state of science, may be said to play the\nleading part, nevertheless depends on a few ideas which, up to this\ntime, have not been well explained by any one--ideas with respect to\n_limits_. I do not wish to throw any doubt on the certainty of this\ncalculation: I only wish to show, that, if it were attempted to examine\nthe ideas which are as it were the elements of it, before the tribunal\nof metaphysical philosophy, the consequence would be, that shades\nwould be cast upon their certainty. Without going further than the\nelementary part of science, we might discover some points which would\nnot bear a continued metaphysical and ideological analysis without\ninjury: a thing which it would be very easy to prove by example, if\nthe nature of this work allowed it. We may recommend to the reader on\nthis subject, the valuable letter addressed by the Spanish Jesuit,\nEximeno, a distinguished philosopher and mathematician, to his friend,\nJuan Andres; he will there find some appropriate observations made by a\nman who certainly will not be rejected on the ground of incompetency.\nIt is in Latin, and is called _Epistola ad clarissimum virum Joannem\nAndresium_.\n\nAs to the other sciences, it is not necessary to say much to prove that\ntheir first principles are surrounded with darkness; and it may be\nsaid that the brilliant reveries of the most illustrious men have had\nno other source than this very obscurity. Led away by the feeling of\ntheir own strength, these men pursued truth even to the abyss; there,\nto use the expression of an illustrious contemporary poet, _the torch\nwas extinguished in their hands_; lost in an obscure labyrinth, they\nwere then abandoned to the mercy of their fancies and inspirations;\nit was thus that reality gave place to the beautiful dreams of their\ngenius.\n\n\nNOTE 10, p. 54.\n\nNothing is better for understanding and explaining the innate weakness\nof the human mind, than to survey the history of heresies; a history\nwhich we owe to the Church, to the extreme care which she has taken to\ndefine and classify errors. From Simon Magus, who called himself the\nlegislator of the Jews, the renovator of the world, and the paraclete,\nwhile paying a worship of latria to his mistress Helena, under the\nname of Minerva, down to Hermann, preaching the massacre of all the\npriests and all the magistrates of the world, and affirming that he\nwas the real son of God; a vast picture, very unpleasant to behold, I\nacknowledge, if it were only on account of the extravagances with which\nit abounds, presents itself to the observer, and suggests to him very\ngrave and profound reflections on the real character of the human mind;\nthere it is easy to see the wisdom of Catholicity, in attempting, in\ncertain cases, to subject this inconstant spirit to rule.\n\n\nNOTE 11, p. 57.\n\nIf any persons find difficulty in persuading themselves that illusion\nand fanaticism are, as it were, in their proper element among\nProtestants, behold the irresistible testimony of facts in aid of\nour assertion. This subject would furnish large volumes; but I must\nbe content with a rapid glance. I begin with Luther. Is it possible\nto carry raving further than to pretend to have been taught by the\ndevil, to boast of it, and to found new doctrines on so powerful an\nauthority? Yet this was the raving of Luther himself, the founder\nof Protestantism, who has left us in his works the evidence of his\ninterview with Satan.--Whether the apparition was real, or produced\nby the dreams of a night agitated by fever, it is impossible to carry\nfanaticism further than to boast of having had such a master. Luther\ntells us himself that he had many colloquies with the devil; but\nwhat is above all worthy of attention is, the vision in which, as he\nrelates in the most serious manner, Satan, by his arguments, compelled\nhim to proscribe private masses. He gives us a lively description of\nthis adventure. He wakes in the middle of the night; Satan appears to\nhim.--Luther is seized with horror; he sweats, he trembles; his heart\nbeats in a fearful manner. Nevertheless the discussion begins, and the\ndevil, like a good disputant, presses him so hard with his arguments,\nthat he leaves him without reply. Luther is conquered; which ought\nnot to astonish us, since he tells us that the logic of the devil was\naccompanied by a voice so alarming, that the blood froze in his veins.\n\"I then understood,\" says this wretched being, \"how it often happens\nthat people die _at the break of day_; it is because the devil is able\nto kill or suffocate men; and without going so far as that, when he\ndisputes with them, he places them in such embarrassment, that he can\nthus occasion their death. I have often experienced this myself.\" This\npassage is certainly curious.\n\nThe phantom which appeared to Zwinglius, the founder of Protestantism\nin Switzerland, affords us another example of extravagance no less\nabsurd. This heresiarch wished to deny the real presence of Jesus\nChrist in the Eucharist; he pretended that what exists under the\nconsecrated species is only a sign. As the authority of the sacred\ntext, which clearly expresses the contrary, embarrassed him, behold,\nsuddenly, at the moment when he imagined that he was disputing with\nthe secretary of the town, a white or black phantom, so he tells\nus himself, appeared to him, and showed him a means. This pleasant\nanecdote we have from Zwinglius himself.\n\nWho does not regret to see such a man as Melancthon also given up\nto the prejudices and manias of the most ridiculous superstition,\nstupidly credulous with respect to dreams, extraordinary phenomena,\nand astrological prognostics? Read his letters, which are filled with\nsuch pitiful things. At the time when the diet of Augsburg was held,\nMelancthon regarded as favourable presages for the new gospel an\ninundation of the Tiber, the birth at Rome of a monstrous mule with a\ncrane's foot, and that of a calf with two heads in the territory of\nAugsburg,--events which to him were the undoubted announcements of a\nchange in the universe, and particularly of the approaching ruin of\nRome by the power of schism. He himself makes the horoscope of his\ndaughter, and he trembles for her because Mars presents an alarming\naspect; he is not the less alarmed at the tail of a comet appearing\nwithin the limits of the north. The astrologers had predicted that in\nautumn the stars would be more favorable to ecclesiastical disputes;\nthis prognostic sufficed to console him for the slowness of the\nconferences of Augsburg on the subject of religion: we see, moreover,\nthat his friends--that is, the leaders of the party--allowed themselves\nto be ruled by the same powerful reasons. As if he had not troubles\nenough, it is predicted that Melancthon will be shipwrecked in the\nBaltic; he avoids sailing on those fatal waters. Certain Franciscans\nhad prophesied that the power of the Pope was about to decline, and\nthen to fall for ever; also that, in the year 1600, the Turks were to\nbecome masters of Italy and Germany; Melancthon boasts of having the\noriginal prophecy in his possession; moreover, the earthquakes which\noccur confirm him in his belief.\n\nThe human mind had but just set itself up as the only judge of faith,\nwhen the atrocities of the most furious fanaticism already inundated\nGermany with blood. Mathias Harlem, the Anabaptist, at the head of a\nferocious troop, orders the churches to be sacked, the sacred ornaments\nto be broken in pieces, and all books, except the Bible, to be burnt,\nas impious or useless. Established at Munster, which he calls Mont\nSion, he causes all the gold, silver, and precious stones possessed\nby the inhabitants to be brought to him, and places them in a common\ntreasury, and names deacons to distribute them. All his disciples are\ncompelled to eat in common, to live in perfect equality, and to prepare\nfor the war which they would have to undertake, _quitting Mount Sion_,\nas he himself said, _to subject all the nations of the earth to his\npower_. He at length dies in a rash attempt, wherein, like another\nGideon, he undertook nothing less than to exterminate the army of the\nimpious with a handful of men. Mathias immediately found an heir to his\nfanaticism in Becold, perhaps better known under the name of John of\nLeyden. This fanatic, a tailor by trade, ran naked through the streets\nof Munster, crying out, \"_Behold, the king of Sion comes_.\" He returned\nto his house, shut himself up there for three days; and when the\npeople came to inquire for him, he pretended that he could not speak;\nlike another Zachary, he made signs that he wanted writing materials,\nand wrote that it had been revealed to him by God, that the people\nshould be governed by judges, in imitation of the people of Israel.\nHe named twelve judges, choosing the men who were the most attached\nto himself; and until the authority of the new magistrates had been\nacknowledged, he took the precaution not to allow himself to be seen\nby any body. Already was the authority of the new prophet secured in a\ncertain manner; but not content with the real command, he desired to\nsurround himself with pomp and majesty; he proposed nothing less than\nto have himself proclaimed king. Now the blindness of the sectarian\nfanatics was so great, that it was not difficult for him to complete\nhis mad enterprise; it was enough for him to play off a gross farce. A\ngoldsmith who had an understanding with the aspirant to royalty, and\nwas also initiated in the art of prophecy, presented himself before the\njudges of Israel, and spoke to them thus: \"Behold, this is the will of\nthe Lord God, the Eternal: as in other times I established Saul over\nIsrael, and after him David, who was only a simple shepherd, so I now\nestablish my prophet Becold king of Sion.\" The judges would not resolve\non abdication; but Becold assured them that he also had had the same\nvision, that he had concealed it from humility, but that God having\nspoken by another prophet, it was necessary for him to resign himself\nto mount the throne, and _accomplish the orders of the Most High_.\nThe judges persisted in wishing to call the people together; they\nassembled in the market-place; there a _prophet_, on the part of God,\npresented to Becold a drawn sword, as a sign of the _power of justice,\nwhich was conferred on him over all the earth, to extend to the four\nquarters of the world the empire of Sion_; he was proclaimed king with\nthe most boisterous joy, and solemnly crowned on the 24th of June,\n1534. As he had espoused the wife of his predecessor, he raised her to\nthe royal dignity; but while reserving to her the exclusive privilege\nof being queen, he continued to have seventeen wives, in conformity\nwith the _holy_ liberty which he had proclaimed in this matter. The\norgies, assassinations, atrocities, and ravings of all kinds which\nfollowed cannot be related; it may be affirmed that the sixteen\nmonths of the reign of this madman were only a series of crimes. The\nCatholics cried out against such horrible excesses. The Protestants\ncried out also; but who was to blame? Was it not they who, after\nhaving proclaimed resistance to the authority of the Church, had thrown\nthe Bible into the midst of these wretched men, at the risk of their\nheads being turned by the ravings of individual interpretation, and of\nprecipitating them into projects as criminal as they were senseless?\nThe Anabaptists were well aware of this; and they were exceedingly\nindignant with Luther, who condemned them in his writings; and indeed,\nwhat right had he, who had established the principle, to desire to\ncheck its consequences? If Luther found in the Bible that the Pope\nwas Antichrist, if he arrogated to himself, of his own authority, the\nmission of destroying the reign of the Pope, by exhorting all the world\nto conspire against him, why could not the Anabaptists say, in their\nturn, _that they had intercourse with God, and had received the order\nto exterminate all the wicked, and to establish a new kingdom, in which\nwere to be seen only wise, pious, and innocent men, having become the\nmasters of all things_.\n\nHermann preaching the massacre of all the priests and all the\nmagistrates of the world; David George proclaiming that his doctrine\nalone was perfect, that that of the _Old and New Testaments was\nimperfect, and that he was the true Son of God_; Nicholas rejecting\nfaith and worship as useless, treading under foot the fundamental\nprecepts of morality, and teaching _that it was good to continue in\nsin, that grace might abound_; Hacket pretending that the spirit of\nthe Messiah had descended upon him, and sending two of his disciples\nto cry out in the streets of London, \"_Behold Christ coming here with\na vase in his hand!_\" Hacket himself crying out, at the sight of the\ngibbet, and in the agony of punishment, \"Jehovah! Jehovah! do you not\nsee that the heavens open, and that Jesus Christ comes to deliver me?\"\nare not all these deplorable spectacles, and a hundred others that I\nmight mention, proofs sufficiently evident that the Protestant system\nnourishes and inflames a fearful fanaticism? Venner, Fox, William\nSimpson, J. Naylor, Count Zinzendorf, Wesley, Baron Swedenborg, and\nother similar names, are sufficient to remind us of an assemblage\nof sects so extravagant, and a series of crimes such as would fill\nvolumes, which would afford us the most ridiculous and the most odious\npictures, the greatest miseries and the most deplorable errors of the\nhuman mind. I have not invented or exaggerated. Open history, consult\nauthors--I do not mean Catholics, but Protestants, or whatever they may\nbe--and you will every where find a multitude of witnesses who depose\nto the truth of these facts; notorious facts, which have taken place in\nthe light of day, in great capitals, and in times bordering on our own;\nand let it not be supposed that this abundant source of illusion and\nfanaticism has been exhausted in the course of ages; it does not seem\nthat it is yet near being dried up, and Europe appears condemned to\nhear the recital of visions, such as those of Baron Swedenborg in the\ninn in London; and we shall still see passports for heaven with three\nseals given out, like those of Johanna Southcote.\n\n\nNOTE 12, p. 60.\n\nNothing is more palpable than the difference which exists on this point\nbetween Protestants and Catholics. On both sides there are persons who\nconsider themselves to be favored with heavenly visions; but these\nvisions render Protestants proud, turbulent, and raving mad, while\namong Catholics they increase the spirit of humility, peace, and love.\nEven in that very sixteenth century, in which the fanaticism of the\nProtestants agitated and stained Europe with blood, there lived in\nSpain a woman who, in the judgment of unbelievers and Protestants, is\ncertainly one of those who have been the most deeply infected with\nillusion and fanaticism; but has the supposed fanaticism of this woman\never caused the spilling of a drop of blood, or the shedding of a tear?\nWere her visions, like those of Protestants, orders from heaven for the\nextermination of men? After the desolate and horrible picture which I\nhave given in the preceding note, perhaps the reader will be glad to\nlet his eyes rest upon a spectacle as peaceful as it is beautiful. It\nis St. Theresa writing her own life out of pure obedience, and relating\nto us her visions with angelic candor and ineffable sweetness. \"The\nLord (she says) willed that I should once have this vision: I saw\nnear to me, on the left hand, an angel in a corporeal form; this is\nwhat I do not usually see, except by a prodigy; although angels often\npresent themselves to me without my seeing them, as I have said in the\npreceding vision. In this the Lord willed that I should see him in the\nfollowing manner: he was not tall, but small and very beautiful, his\nface all in a flame, and he seemed to be one of the angels very high\nin the hierarchy, who apparently are all on fire. Without doubt, he\nwas one of those who are called seraphim.--These angels do not tell\nme their names; but I clearly see that there is so great a difference\namong the angels, between some and others, that I do not know how to\nexpress it. I saw in his hands a long dart of gold, which appeared to\nme to have some fire at the end of the point. It seemed to me that\nthe angel buried this dart from time to time in my heart, and made it\npenetrate to my bowels, and that when withdrawing it, he carried them\naway, leaving me all inflamed with a great love of God.\" (_Vie de St.\nTh\u00e9r\u00e8se_, c. xxix. no. 11.) Another example: \"At this moment I see on\nmy head a dove very different from those of earth; for this one had\nno feathers, but wings as it were of the shell of mother of pearl,\nwhich shone brightly. It was larger than a dove; it seemed to me that\nI heard the noise of its wings. It moved them almost for the time of\nan Ave Maria. The soul was already in such a condition that, herself\nswooning away, she also lost sight of this divine dove. The mind grew\ntranquil with the presence of such a guest, although it seemed to me\nthat so wonderful a favor ought to fill it with perturbation and alarm;\nbut as the soul began to enjoy it, fear departed, repose came with\nenjoyment, and the mind remained in ecstacy.\" (_Vie_, c. xxviii. no.\n7.) It would be difficult to find any thing more beautiful, expressed\nin more lively colors, and with a more amiable simplicity. It will not\nbe out of place to copy here two other passages of a different kind,\nwhich, while they enforce what we wish to show, may contribute to\nawaken the taste of our nation for a certain class of Spanish writers,\nwho are every day falling into oblivion with us, while foreigners\nseek for them with eagerness, and publish handsome editions of them.\n\"I was once at office with all the rest; my soul was suddenly fixed\nin attention, and it seemed to me to be entirely as a clear mirror\nwithout reverse or side, neither high nor low, but shining every where.\nIn the midst of it, Christ our Saviour presented himself to me, as\nI am accustomed to see Him. He appeared to me to be at once in all\nparts of my soul. I saw Him as in a clear mirror, and this mirror also\n(I cannot say how) was entirely imprinted on our Lord himself, by a\ncommunication which I cannot describe--a communication full of love. I\nknow that this vision has been of great advantage to me every time that\nI recollect it, principally when I have just received communion. I was\ngiven to understand that when a soul is in a state of mortal sin, this\nmirror is covered with great darkness, and is extremely obscure, so\nthat our Lord cannot appear or be seen therein, although He is always\npresent as giving being; as to heretics, it is as if the mirror were\nbroken, which is much worse than if it were obscured. There is a great\ndifference between seeing this and telling it; it is difficult to make\nsuch a thing understood. I repeat, that this has been very profitable\nto me, and also very afflicting, on account of the view of the various\noffences by which I have obscured my soul, and have been deprived of\nseeing my Lord.\" (_Vie_, c. xi. no. 4.)\n\nIn another place she explains a manner of seeing things in God; she\nrepresents the idea by an image so brilliant and sublime, that we\nappear to be reading Malebranche, when developing his famous system.\n\n\"We say that the Divinity is like a bright diamond, infinitely larger\nthan the world; or rather like a mirror, as I have said of the soul in\nanother vision; except that here it is in a manner so sublime, that I\nknow not how to exalt it sufficiently. All that we do is seen in this\ndiamond, which contains all in itself; for there is nothing which is\nnot comprised in so great a magnitude. It was alarming to me to see in\nso short a time so many things assembled in this bright diamond; and I\nam profoundly afflicted every time that I think that things so shocking\nas my sins appeared to me in this most pure brightness.\" (_Vie_, c. xl.\nno. 7.)\n\nLet us now suppose, with Protestants, that all these visions were\nonly pure illusions: at least it is evident that they do not pervert\nideas, corrupt morals, or disturb public order; and assuredly, had they\nserved only to inspire these beautiful pages, we should not know how\nto regret the illusion. This is a confirmation of what I have said of\nthe salutary effects which the Catholic principle produces in souls,\nby preventing them from being blinded by pride, or throwing themselves\ninto dangerous courses. This principle confines them to a sphere where\nit is impossible for them to injure any one; but it does not deprive\nthem of any of their force or energy to do good, supposing that the\ninspiration is real. Although it would have been easy for me to cite a\nthousand examples, I was compelled, for the sake of brevity, to confine\nmyself to one, when selecting St. Theresa as one of those who are the\nmost distinguished in this respect, and because she was contemporary\nwith the great aberrations of Protestantism. In fine, as she was a\ndaughter of Spain, I seized the opportunity of recalling her to the\nmemories of Spaniards, who begin too much to forget her.\n\nNOTE 13, p. 64.\n\nSome of the leaders of the Reformation have left suspicions that they\ntaught with insincerity, that they did not themselves believe what\nthey preached, and that they had no other object than to deceive their\nproselytes. As I am unwilling to have it imputed to me that I have made\nthis accusation rashly, I will adduce some proofs in support of my\nassertion. Let us hear Luther himself. \"Often,\" he says, \"do I think\nwithin myself that I scarcely know where I am, and whether I teach the\ntruth or not (S\u00e6pe sic mecum cogito, propemodum nescio, quo loco sim,\net utrum veritatem doceam, necne).\" (Luther, _Col. Isleb. de Christo_.)\nAnd it is the same man who said: \"It is certain that I have received\nmy dogmas from heaven. I will not allow you to judge of my doctrine,\nneither you nor even the angels of heaven (Certum est dogmata mea\nhabere me de c\u0153lo. Non sinam vel vos vel ipsos angelos de c\u0153lo de mea\ndoctrina judicare).\" (Luther, _contra Reg. Ang._) John Matthei, the\nauthor of many writings on the life of Luther, and who is not scanty\nin eulogies on the heresiarch, has preserved a very curious anecdote\ntouching the convictions of Luther. It is this: \"A preacher called John\nMusa related to me that he one day complained to Luther that he could\nnot prevail on himself to believe what he taught to others: '_Blessed\nbe God_ (said Luther) _that the same thing happens to others as to\nmyself: I believed till now that THAT was a thing which happened only\nto me_.'\" (Johann. Matthesius, _conc._ 12.)\n\nThe doctrines of infidelity were not long delayed; but would it be\nbelieved that they are found expressed in various parts of Luther's own\nworks? \"It is likely,\" says he, speaking of the dead, \"that, except a\nfew, they all sleep deprived of feeling.\" \"I think that the dead are\nburied in so ineffable and wonderful a sleep, that they feel or see\nless than those who sleep an ordinary sleep.\" \"The souls of the dead\nenter neither into purgatory nor into hell.\" \"The human soul sleeps;\nall its senses buried.\" \"There is no suffering in the abode of the\ndead.\" (\"Verisimile est, exceptis paucis, omnes dormire insensibiles.\"\n\"Ego puto mortuos sic ineffabili et miro somno sopitos, ut minus\nsentiant aut videant, quam hi qui alias dormiunt.\" \"Anim\u00e6 mortuorum\nnon ingrediuntur in purgatorium nec infernum.\" \"Anima humana dormit,\nomnibus sensibus sepultis.\" \"Mortuorum locus cruciatus nullos habet.\")\n(Tom. ii. _Epist. Lat. Isleb._ fol. 44; t. vi. _Lat. Wittenberg_,\nin cap. ii., cap. xxiii., c. xxv., c. xlii. et xlix. _Genes._ et t.\niv. _Lat. Wittenberg_, fol. 109.) Persons were not wanting ready to\nreceive such doctrines; and this teaching caused such ravages, that\nthe Lutheran Brentzen, disciple and successor of Luther, hesitates\nnot to say: \"_Although no one among us publicly professes that the\nsoul perishes with the body, and that there is no resurrection of the\ndead, nevertheless the impure and wholly profane lives which they for\nthe most part lead, show very clearly that they do not believe that\nthere is another life. Some even allow words of this kind to escape\nthem, not only in the intoxication of libations, but even when fasting,\nin their familiar intercourse._ (Et si inter nos nulla sit publica\nprofessio quod anima simul cum corpore intereat, et quod non sit\nmortuorum resurrectio, tamen impurissima et profanissima illa vita,\nquam maxima pars hominum sectatur, perspicue indicat quod non sentiat\nvitam post hanc. Nonnullis etiam tales voces, tam ebriis inter pocula,\nquam sobriis in familiaribus colloquiis.)\" (Brentius, _Hom._ 35, in\ncap. 20, Luc.) There were in this same sixteenth century some men who\ncared not to give their names to this or that sect, but who professed\ninfidelity and scepticism without disguise. We know that the famous\nGruet paid with his head for his boldness in this way; and it was not\nthe Catholics who cut it off, but the Calvinists, who were offended\nthat this unhappy man had taken the liberty to paint the character\nand conduct of Calvin in their true colors. Gruet had also committed\nthe crime of posting up placards at Geneva, in which he charged the\npretended reformers with inconsistency, on account of the tyranny which\nthey attempted to exercise over consciences, after having shaken off\nthe yoke of authority on their own account. This took place soon after\nthe birth of Protestantism, as the sentence on Gruet was executed in\n1549.\n\nMontaigne, who has been pointed out as one of the first sceptics who\nacquired reputation in Europe, carries the thing so far, that he does\nnot even admit the natural law. \"_They are not serious_ (he says)\n_when, to give some certainty to laws, they say that there are any\nlaws fixed, perpetual, and immutable, which they call natural, which\nare impressed on the human race by the condition of their peculiar\nessence_.\" (Montaigne, _Ess._ l. ii. c. 12.)\n\nWe have already seen what Luther thought of death, or at least the\nexpression which escaped him on this subject; and we cannot be\nastonished after that, that Montaigne wished to die like a real\nunbeliever, and that he says, speaking of the terrible passage: \"_I\nplunge my head, insensibly sunk in death, without considering or\nobserving it, as in a silent and obscure depth, which swallows me up\nat once, stifles me in a moment with powerful sleep full of insipidity\nand indolence._\" (Montaigne, l. iii. c. 9.) But this man, who wished\nthat death should find him planting his cabbages, and without thinking\nof it (_Je veux que la mort me trouve plantant mes choux, mais sans me\nsoucier d'elle_), was not of the same opinion in his last moments. When\nhe was near breathing his last, he wished that the holy sacrifice of\nthe Mass should be celebrated in his apartment, and he expired while\nmaking an effort to raise himself on his bed, in the act of adoring\nthe sacred Host. We see that he had profited in his heart by some of\nhis ideas with respect to the Christian religion. \"It is pride,\" he\nhad said, \"that leads man out of the common path, and urges him to\nembrace novelties, loving rather to be the chief of a wandering and\nundisciplined band, than to be a disciple of the school of truth.\" In\nanother place, at once condemning all the dissenting sects, he had\nsaid, \"In religious matters it is necessary to adhere to those who are\nthe established judges of doctrine, and who have legitimate authority,\nnot to the most learned and the cleverest.\"\n\nFrom all that I have just said, it is clear that if I accuse\nProtestantism of having been one of the principal causes of infidelity\nin Europe, I do not accuse it without reason. I repeat here, that it is\nby no means my intention to overlook the efforts of some Protestants\nto oppose infidelity; I do not assail _persons_, but _things_, and I\nhonor merit wherever I find it. In fine, I will add, that if at the\nend of the seventeenth century a considerable number of Protestants\ndisplayed a tendency towards Catholicity, we must seek the reason\nfor it in the progress which they saw infidelity making,--a progress\nwhich it was impossible to check, at least without holding fast to the\nanchor of authority which the Catholic Church offered to the whole\nworld. I cannot, without exceeding the limits which I have marked out\nfor myself, give a circumstantial detail of the correspondence between\nMolanus and the Bishop of Tyna, of Leibnitz and Bossuet. Readers who\ndesire to become thoroughly acquainted with that affair, may examine it\npartly in the works of Bossuet himself, and partly in the interesting\nwork of M. de Beausset, prefixed to some editions of Bossuet.\n\n\nNOTE 14, p. 86.\n\nIn order to form an idea of the state of knowledge at the time of the\nappearance of Christianity, and become convinced that there was nothing\nto be expected from the human mind abandoned to its own strength, it\nis enough to recall to mind the monstrous sects which every where\nabounded in the first ages of the Church, the doctrines whereof\nformed the most shapeless, extravagant, and immoral compound that it\nis possible to conceive. The names of Cerinthus, Menander, Ebion,\nSaturninus, Basilides, Nicolas, Carpocrates, Valentinus, Marcion,\nMontanus, and so many others, remind us of the sects in which delirium\nwas connected with immorality. When we throw a glance over these\nphilosophico-religious sects, we see that they were capable neither\nof conceiving a philosophical system with any degree of concert, nor\nof imagining a collection of doctrines and practices to which the\nname of religion can be applied. These men overturned, mixed, and\nconfounded all; Judaism, Christianity, and the recollections of the\nancient schools, were all amalgamated in their deluded heads; what they\nnever forgot was, to give a loose rein to all kinds of corruption and\nobscenity.\n\nIn the spectacle of these ages, a wide field is opened to the\nconjectures of true philosophy. What would have become of human\nknowledge, if Christianity had not come to enlighten the world with her\ncelestial doctrines; if that divine religion, confounding the foolish\npride of man, had not come to show him how vain and senseless were his\nthoughts, and how far he was removed from the path of truth? It is\nremarkable that these same men, whose aberrations make us shudder, gave\nthemselves the name of Gnostics, on account of the superior knowledge\nwith which they supposed themselves to be endowed. We see that man is\nat all times the same.\n\n\nNOTE 15, p. 115.\n\nI have thought that it would not be useless to transcribe here, word\nfor word, the canons which I have mentioned in the text. My readers may\nthereby acquire for themselves a complete knowledge of what is found\nthere; and there will be no room left to suppose that the real sense of\nthe regulations has been perverted in the extracts which I have given.\n\n\nCANONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS,\n\n _Which show the solicitude of the Church to improve the lot of slaves,\n and the various means she has used to accomplish the abolition of\n slavery:_\n\n\n\u00a7 I.\n\n _A penance is imposed on the mistress who maltreats her slave_\n (_ancillam_).\n\n(Concilium Eliberitanum, anno 305.)\n\n\"Si qua domina furore zeli accensa flagris verberaverit ancillam\nsuam, ita ut in tertium diem animam cum cruciatu effundat; eo quod\nincertum sit, voluntate an casu occiderit; si voluntate, post septem\nannos, si casu, post quinquennii tempora, acta legitima p\u0153nitentia, ad\ncommunionem placuit admitti. Quod si infra tempora constituta fuerit\ninfirmata, accipiat communionem.\" (Canon 5.)\n\nIt must be observed, that the word 'ancillam' means a slave properly\nso called, and not any kind of servant. This appears, indeed, from the\nwords _flagris verberaverit_, which express a chastisement reserved for\nslaves.\n\n\n _They excommunicate the master who, of his own authority, beats his\n slave to death._\n\n(Concilium Epaoense, anno 517.)\n\n\"Si quis servum proprium sine conscientia judicis occiderit,\nexcommunicatione biennii effusionem sanguinis expiabit.\" (Canon 34.)\n\nThis same regulation is repeated in the 15th canon of the 17th Council\nof Toledo, held in 694; even the words of the Council of Epaon are\nthere copied with very slight change.\n\n\n (Ibid.) _The slave guilty of an atrocious crime was to escape\n corporeal punishments by taking refuge in a church._\n\n\"Servus reatu atrociore culpabilis si ad ecclesiam confugerit, a\ncorporabilibus tantum suppliciis excusetur. De capillis vero, vel\nquocumque opere, placuit, a dominis juramenta non exigi.\" (Canon 39.)\n\n\n _Very remarkable precautions to prevent masters from maltreating the\n slaves who had taken refuge in churches._\n\n(Concilium Aurelianense quintum, anno 549.)\n\n\"De servis vero, qui pro qualibet culpa ad ecclesi\u00e6 septa confugerint,\nid statuimus observandum, ut, sicut in antiquis constitutionibus\ntenetur scriptum, pro concessa culpa datis a domino sacramentis,\nquisquis ille fuerit, expediatur de venia jam securus. Enim vero si\nimmemor fidei dominus trascendisse convincitur quod juravit, ut is qui\nveniam acceperat, probetur postmodum pro ea culpa qualicumque supplicio\ncruciatus, dominus ille qui immemor fuit dat\u00e6 fidei, sit ab omnium\ncommunione suspensus. Iterum si servus de promissione veni\u00e6 datis\nsacramentis a domino jam securus exire noluerit, ne sub tali contumacia\nrequirens locum fug\u00e6, domino fortasse dispereat, egredi nolentem\na domino eum liceat occupari, ut nullam, quasi pro retentatione\nservi, quibuslibet modis molestiam aut calumniam patiatur ecclesia:\nfidem tamen dominus, quam pro concessa venia dedit, nulla temeritate\ntranscendat. Quod si aut gentilis dominus fuerit, aut alterius sect\u00e6,\nqui a conventu ecclesi\u00e6 probatur extraneus, is qui servum repetit,\npersonas requirat bon\u00e6 fidei Christianas, ut ipsi in persona domini\nservo pr\u00e6beant sacramenta: quia ipsi possunt servare quod sacrum est,\nqui pro transgressione ecclesiasticum metuunt disciplinam.\" (Canon 22.)\n\nIt is difficult to carry solicitude for the lot of slaves further. This\ndocument is very curious.\n\n\n _They forbid bishops to mutilate their slaves: they order that the\n duty of chastising them should be left to the judge of the town, who,\n nevertheless, could not cut off their hair, a punishment which was\n considered too ignominious._\n\n(Concilium Emeritense, anno 666.)\n\n\"Si regalis pietas pro salute omnium suarum legum dignata est ponere\ndecreta, cur religio sancta per sancti concilii ordinem non habeat\ninstituta, qu\u00e6 omnino debent esse cavenda? Ideoque placuit huic sancto\nconcilio, ut omnis potestas episcopalis modum su\u00e6 ponat ir\u00e6; nec\npro quolibet excessu cuilibet ex familia, ecclesi\u00e6 aliquod corporis\nmembrorum sua ordinatione pr\u00e6sumat extirpare aut auferre. Quod si talis\nemerserit culpa, advocato judice civitatis, ad examen ejus deducatur\nquod factum fuisse asseritur. Et quia omnino justum est, ut pontifex\ns\u00e6vissimam non impendat vindictam; quidquid coram judice verius\npatuerit, per disciplin\u00e6 severitatem absque turpi decalvatione maneat\nemendatum.\" (Canon 15.)\n\n\n _Priests are forbidden to have their slaves mutilated._\n\n(Concilium Toletanum undecimum, anno 675.)\n\n\"His a quibus domini sacramenta tractanda sunt, judicium sanguinis\nagitare non licet: et ideo magnopere talium excessibus prohibendum\nest, ne indiscret\u00e6 pr\u00e6sumptionis motibus agitati, aut quod morte\nplectendum est, sententia propria judicare pr\u00e6sumant, aut truncationes\nquaslibet membrorum quibuslibet personis aut per se inferant, aut\ninferendas pr\u00e6cipiant. Quod si quisquam horum immemor pr\u00e6ceptorum, aut\necclesi\u00e6 su\u00e6 familiis, aut in quibuslibet personis tale quid fecerit,\net concessi ordinis honore privatus, et loco suo, perpetuo damnationis\nteneatur religatus ergastulo: cui tamen communio exeunti ex hac vita\nnon neganda est, propter domini misericordiam, _qui non vult peccatoris\nmortem, sed ut convertatur et vivat_.\" (Canon 6.)\n\nIt should be remarked, that the word _familia_, employed in the two\nlast canons which we have just cited, should be understood of slaves.\nThe real meaning of this word is clearly shown us by the 74th canon of\nthe 4th Council of Toledo.\n\n\"De _familiis_ ecclesi\u00e6 constituere presbyteros et diaconos per\nparochias liceat ..... ea tamen ratione ut _antea manumissi libertatem\nstatus sui percipiant_.\"\n\nWe see this word employed in the same sense by Pope St. Gregory.\n(Epist. xliv. l. 4.)\n\n\n _A penance is imposed on the master who kills his slave of his own\n authority._\n\n (Concilium Wormatiense, anno 868.)\n\n\"Si quis servum proprium sine conscientia judicum qui tale quid\ncommiserit, quod morte sit dignum, occiderit, excommunicatione vel\np\u0153nitentia biennii, reatum sanguinis emendabit.\" (Canon 38.)\n\n\"Si qua femina furore zeli accensa, flagris verberaverit ancillam suam,\nita ut intra tertium diem animam suam cum cruciatu effundat, eo quod\nincertum sit voluntate, an casu occiderit; si voluntate, septem annos,\nsi casu, per quinque annorum tempora legitimam peragat p\u0153nitentiam.\"\n(Canon 39.)\n\n\n _They check the violence of those who, to revenge themselves for the\n asylum granted to slaves, take possession of the goods of the Church._\n\n(Concilium Arausicanum primum, anno 441.)\n\n\"Si quis autem mancipia clericorum pro suis mancipiis ad ecclesiam\nfugientibus crediderit occupanda, per omnes ecclesias districtissima\ndamnatione feriatur.\" (Canon 6.)\n\n\n\u00a7 II.\n\n (Ibid.) _They check all attempts made against the liberty of slaves\n enfranchised by the Church, or who have been recommended to her by\n will._\n\n\"In ecclesia manumissos, vel per testamentum ecclesi\u00e6 commendatos,\nsi quis in servitutem, vel obsequium, vel ad colonariam conditionem\nimprimere tentaverit, animadversione ecclesiastica coerceatur.\" (Canon\n7.)\n\n\n _They secure the liberty of those who have received the benefit of\n manumission in the Churches. The latter are enjoined to take upon\n themselves the defence of the enfranchised._\n\n(Concilium quintum Aurelianense, anno 549.)\n\n\"Et quia plurimorum suggestione comperimus, eos qui in ecclesiis juxta\npatrioticam consuetudinem a servitiis fuerunt absoluti, pro libito\nquorumcumque iterum ad servitium revocari, impium esse tractavimus, ut\nquod in ecclesia Dei consideratione a vinculo servitutis absolvitur,\nirritum habeatur. Ideo pietatis causa communi concilio placuit\nobservandum, ut qu\u00e6cumque mancipia ab ingenuis dominis servitute\nlaxantur, in ea libertate maneant, quam tunc a dominis perceperunt.\nHujusmodi quoque libertas si a quocumque pulsata fuerit, cum justitia\nab ecclesiis defendatur, pr\u00e6ter eas culpas, pro quibus leges collatas\nservis revocare jusserunt libertates.\" (Canon 7.)\n\n\n _The Church is charged with the defence of the enfranchised, whether\n they have been emancipated within her enclosure, whether they have\n been so by letter or testament, or have gained their liberty by\n prescription. They restrain the arbitrariness of the judges towards\n these unfortunate persons. It is decided that the Bishops shall take\n cognizance of these causes._\n\n(Concilium Matisconense secundum, anno 585.)\n\n\"Qu\u00e6 dum postea universo c\u0153tui secundum consuetudinem recitata\ninnotescerent, Pr\u00e6textatus et Pappulus viri beatissimi dixerunt:\nDecernat itaque, et de miseris libertis vestr\u00e6 auctoritatis vigor\ninsignis, qui ideo plus a judicibus affliguntur, quia sacris sunt\ncommendati ecclesiis: ut si quas quispiam dixerit contra eos actiones\nhabere, non audeat eos magistratus contradere; sed in episcopi tantum\njudicio, in cujus pr\u00e6sentia litem contestans, qu\u00e6 sunt justiti\u00e6\nac veritatis audiat. Indignum est enim, ut hi qui in sacrosancta\necclesia jure noscuntur legitimo manumissi, aut per epistolam, aut\nper testamentum, aut per longinquitatem temporis libertatis jure\nfruuntur, a quolibet injustissime inquietentur. Universa sacerdotalis\nCongregatio dixit: Justum est, ut contra calumniatorum omnium versutias\ndefendantur, qui patrocinium immortalis ecclesi\u00e6 concupiscunt. Et\nquicumque a nobis de libertis latum decretum, superbi\u00e6 ausu pr\u00e6varicare\ntentaverit, irreparabili damnationis su\u00e6 sententia feriatur. Sed si\nplacuerit episcopo ordinarium judicem, aut quemlibet alium s\u00e6cularem,\nin audientiam eorum accersiri, cum libuerit fiat, et nullus alius\naudeat causas pertractare libertorum nisi episcopus cujus interest, aut\nis cui idem audiendum tradiderit.\" (Canon 7.)\n\n\n_The defence of the freed is confided to the priests._\n\n (Concilium Parisiense quintum, anno 614.)\n\n\"Liberti quorumcumque ingenuorum a sacerdotibus defensentur, nec ad\npublicum ulterius revocentur. Quod si quis ausu temerario eos imprimere\nvoluerit, aut ad publicum revocare, et admonitus per pontificem ad\naudientiam venire neglexerit, aut emendare quod perpetravit distulerit,\ncommunione privetur.\" (Canon 5.)\n\n\n_The enfranchised recommended to the Churches shall be protected by the\nBishops._\n\n(Concilium Toletanum tertium, anno 589.)\n\n\"De libertis autem id Dei pr\u00e6cipiunt sacerdotes, ut si qui ab episcopis\nfacti sunt secundum modum quo canones antiqui dant licentiam, sint\nliberi; et tantum a patrocinio ecclesi\u00e6 tam ipsi quam ab eis progeniti\nnon recedant. Ab aliis quoque libertati traditi, et ecclesiis\ncommendati, patrocinio episcopali tegantur, a principe hoc episcopus\npostulet.\" (Canon 6.)\n\n\n _The Church undertakes to defend the liberty and the property acquired\n by industry of the enfranchised who have been recommended to her._\n\n(Concilium Toletanum quartum, anno 633.)\n\n\"Liberti qui a quibuscumque manumissi sunt, atque ecclesi\u00e6 patrocinio\ncommendati existunt, sicut regul\u00e6 antiquorum patrum constituerunt,\nsacerdotali defensione a cujuslibet insolentia protegantur; sive in\nstatu libertatis eorum, seu in peculio quod habere noscuntur.\" (Cap.\n72.)\n\n\n _The Church will defend the enfranchised: a regulation which does not\n distinguish whether they have been recommended to her or not._\n\n(Concilium Agathense, anno 506.)\n\n\"Libertos legitime a dominis suis factos ecclesia, si necessitas\nexegerit, tueatur; quod si quis ante audientiam, aut pervadere, aut\nexpoliare pr\u00e6sumpserit, ab ecclesia repellatur.\" (Canon 29.)\n\n\n\u00a7 III.\n\n _The Church shall regard the ransom of captives as her first care; she\n shall give their interests the preference over her own, however bad\n may be the state of her affairs._\n\n\"Sicut omnino grave est, frustra ecclesiastica ministeria venundare,\nsic iterum culpa est, imminente hujusmodi necessitate, res maxime\ndesolat\u00e6 Ecclesi\u00e6 captivis suis pr\u00e6ponere, et in eorum redemptione\ncessare.\" (Caus. xii. q. 2, canon 16.)\n\n\n _Remarkable words of St. Ambrose touching the ransom of captives.\n To perform this pious duty, the holy Bishop breaks up and sells the\n sacred vessels._\n\n(S. Ambrosius de Off. lib. ii. cap. 15.)\n\n(\u00a7 70.) \"Summa etiam liberalitas captos redimere, eripere ex hostium\nmanibus, subtrahere neci homines, et maxime feminas turpidini, reddere\nparentibus liberos, parentes liberis, cives patri\u00e6, restituere. Nota\nsunt h\u00e6c nimis Illyri\u00e6 vastitate et Thraci\u00e6: quanti ubique venales\nerant captivi orbe....\n\nIbid. (\u00a7 71.) \"Pr\u00e6cipua est igitur liberalitas, redimere captivos\net maxime ab hoste barbaro, qui nihil deferat humanitatis ad\nmisericordiam, nisi quod avaritia reservaverit ad redemptionem.\"\n\nIb. l. ii. c. 2 (\u00a7 13.) \"_Ut nos aliquando in invidiam incidimus, quod\nconfregerimus vasa mystica, ut captivos redimeremus_, quod Arianis\ndisplicere potuerat, nec tam factum displiceret, quam ut esset quod in\nnobis reprehenderetur.\"\n\nThese noble and charitable sentiments were not those of St. Ambrose\nonly; his words are but the expression of the feelings of the whole\nChurch. Without referring to numberless proofs which I might adduce\nhere, and before I pass to the canons which I mean to insert, I will\ncopy some passages from a touching letter of St. Cyprian, which\ncontains the motives which animated the Church in her pious enterprise,\nand gives a lively description of her zeal and charity in these\nadmirable efforts.\n\n\"Cyprianus Januario, Maximo, Proculo, Victori, Modiano, Nemesiano,\nNampulo, et Honorato, fratribus salutem. Cum maximo animi nostri gemitu\net non sine lacrymis legimus litteras vestras, fratres carissimi, quas\nad nos pro dilectionis vestr\u00e6 sollicitudine de fratrum nostrorum et\nsororum captivitate fecistis. Quis enim non doleat in ejusmodi casibus,\naut quis non dolorem fratris sui suum proprium computet cum loquatur\napostolus Paulus et dicat: _Si patitur unum membrum, compatiuntur et\nc\u00e6tera membra: si l\u00e6tatur membrum unum, coll\u00e6tantur et c\u00e6tera membra._\n(1 ad Cor. xii. 26.) Et alio loco: _Quis infirmatur, inquit, et non ego\ninfirmor?_ (2 ad Cor. xi. 29.) Quare nunc et nobis captivitas fratrum\nnostra captivitas computanda est, et periclitantium dolor pro nostro\ndolore numerandus est, cum sit scilicet adunationis nostr\u00e6 corpus\nunum, et non tantum dilectio sed et religio instigare nos debeat et\nconfortare ad fratrum membra redimenda. Nam cum denuo apostolus Paulus\ndicat: _Nescitis quia templum Dei estis, et Spiritus Dei habitat in\nvobis?_ (1 ad Cor. iii. 16), etiamsi charitas nos minus adigeret ad\nopem fratribus ferendam, considerandum tamen hoc in loco fuit, Dei\ntemplum esse qu\u00e6 capta sunt, nec pati nos longa cessatione et neglecto\ndolore debere, ut diu Dei templa captiva sint; sed quibus possumus\nviribus elaborare et velociter gerere ut Christum judicem et Dominum\net Deum nostrum promereamur obsequiis nostris. Nam cum dicat Paulus\napostolus, _Quotquot in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis_\n(ad Gal. iii. 27,) in captivis fratribus nostrus contemplandus est\nChristus et redimendus de periculo captivitatis, qui nos de diaboli\nfaucibus exuit, nunc ipse qui manet et habitat in nobis de barbarorum\nmanibus exuatur, et redimatur nummaria quantitate qui nos cruce redemit\net sanguine.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQuantus vero communis omnibus nobis m\u0153ror atque cruciatus est de\npericulo virginum qu\u00e6 illic tenentur? pro quibus non tantum libertatis,\nsed et pudoris jactura plangenda est, nec tam vincula barbarorum quam\nlenonum et lupanarium stupra defienda sunt, ne membra Christo dicata\net in \u00e6ternum continenti\u00e6 honorum pudica virtute devota, insultantium\nlibidine et contagione f\u0153dentur? Qu\u00e6 omnia istic secundum litteras\nvestras fraternitas nostra cogitans et dolenter examinans, prompte\nomnes et libenter ac largiter subsidia nummaria fratribus contulerunt.\n\n * * * * *\n\nMisimus autem sestertia centum millia nummorum, qu\u00e6 istic in\necclesia cui de Domini indulgentia pr\u00e6sumus, cleri et plebis apud\nnos consistentis collatione, collecta sunt, qu\u00e6 vos illic pro vestra\ndiligentia dispensabitis.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSi tamen ad explorandam nostri anima charitatem, et examinandi nostri\npectoris fidem tale aliquid acciderit, nolite cunctari nuntiare h\u00e6c\nnobis litteris vestris, pro certo habentes ecclesiam nostram et\nfraternitatem istic universam, ne h\u00e6c ultra fiant precibus orare, si\nfacta fuerint, libenter et largiter subsidia pr\u00e6stare.\" (Epist. 60.)\n\nThus the zeal for the redemption of captives, a zeal which was exerted\nwith so much ardor in later ages, had appeared in the earliest times of\nthe Church; this zeal was founded on grand and sublime motives, which\nrender this work in some measure divine, and secure to those who devote\nthemselves to it an unfading crown. Important information on this\nsubject will be found also in the works of St. Gregory. (V. lib. iii.\nep. 16; lib. iv. ep. 17; lib. vi. ep. 35; lib. vii. ep. 26, 28, and 38;\nlib. ix. ep. 17.)\n\n\n _The property of the Church employed for the redemption of captives._\n\n(Concilium Matisconense secundum, anno 585.)\n\n\"Unde statuimus ac decernimus, ut mos antiquus a fidelibus reparetur;\net decimas ecclesiasticis famulantibus ceremoniis populus omnis\ninferat, quas sacerdotes aut in pauperum usum _aut in captivorum\nredemptionem pr\u00e6rogantes_, suis orationibus pacem populo ac salutem\nimpetrent: si quis autem contumax nostris statutis saluberrimis fuerit,\na membris ecclesi\u00e6 omni tempore separetur.\" (Canon 5.)\n\n\n _It is allowed to break up the sacred vessels, in order to devote the\n price of them to the redemption of captives._\n\n(Concilium Rhemense, anno 625 vel 630.)\n\n\"Si quis episcopus, excepto si evenerit ardua necessitas pro\nredemptione captivorum ministeria sancta frangere pro qualicumque\nconditione presumpserit, ab officio cessabit ecclesi\u00e6.\" (Canon 22.)\n\nThe following canon informs us that the Bishops gave letters of\nrecommendation to the captives; they are desired to state therein the\ndate and price of the ransom; they are requested also to mention there\nthe wants of those who are thus restored to liberty.\n\n(Concilium Lugdunense tertium, anno 583.)\n\n\"Id etiam de epistolis placuit captivorum, ut ita sint sancti\npontifices cauti, ut in servitio pontificibus consistentibus qui eorum\nmanu vel subscriptione agnoscat epistol\u00e6 aut qu\u00e6libet insinuationum\nlitter\u00e6 dari debeant, quatenus de subscriptionibus nulla ratione\npossit Deo propitio dubitari: et epistola commendationis pro\nnecessitate cujuslibet promulgata dies datarum et pretia constituta,\nvel necessitates captivorum quos cum epistolis dirigunt, ibidem\ninserantur.\" (Canon 2.)\n\n\n _Excess into which some ecclesiastics allowed themselves to fall, by\n an indiscreet zeal in favor of captives._\n\n (Synodus S. Patricii, Auxilii et Isernini Episcoporum in Hibernia\n celebrata, circa annum Christi 450 vel 456.)\n\n\"Si quis clericorum voluerit juvare captivo cum suo pretio illi\nsubveniat, nam si per furtum illum inviolaverit, blasphemantur multi\nclerici per unum latronem, qui sic fecerit excommunionis sit.\" (Canon\n32.)\n\nThe church employed her property in the ransom of captives; and when\nthe latter had afterwards acquired the means of repaying the sums\nadvanced for them, she refused all reimbursement and graciously gave up\nthe price of the ransom.\n\n(Ex epistolis S. Gregorii.)\n\n\"Sacrorum canonum statuta et legalis permittit auctoritates, lici\nres ecclesiasticas in redemptionem captivorum impendi. Et ideo, quia\nedocti a vobis sumus, ante annos fere 18, virum reverendissimum\nquemdam Fabium, Episcopum Ecclesi\u00e6 Firman\u00e6, libras 11 argenti de eadem\necclesia pro redemptione vestra, ac patris vestri Passivi, fratris et\nco-episcopi nostri, tunc vero clerici, necnon matris vestr\u00e6, hostibus\nimpendisse, atque ex hoc quamdam formidinem vos habere, ne hoc\nquod datum est, a vobis quolibet tempore repetatur, hujus pr\u00e6cepti\nauctoritate suspicionem vestram pr\u00e6vidimus auferendam; constituentes,\nnullam vos exinde, h\u00e6redesque vestros quolibet tempore repetitionis\nmolestiam sustinere, nec a quoquam vobis aliquam objici qu\u00e6stionem.\"\n(L. 7, ep. 14, et hab. Cuas. 12, q. 2, c. 15.)\n\n\n _The property of the Church served to ransom captives._\n\n(Concilium Vernense secundum, anno 844.)\n\n\"Ecclesi\u00e6 facultates quas reges et reliqui christiani Deo voverunt,\nad alimentum servorum Dei et pauperum, ad exceptionem hospitum,\n_redemptionis captivorum_, atque templorum Dei instaurationem, nunc\nin usu s\u00e6cularium detinentur. Hinc multi servi Dei penuriam cibi et\npotus ac vestimentorum patiuntur, pauperes consuetam eleemosynam non\naccipiunt, negliguntur hospites, _fraudantur captivi_, et fama omnium\nmerito laceratur.\" (Canon 12.)\n\nLet us observe in this canon the use which the Church made of her\nproperty; after having supported the clergy, and maintained divine\nworship, she devoted it to succor the poor, travellers or pilgrims,\nand to redeem captives. I make this observation here, because the\nopportunity offers; not because this canon is the only proof of the\nexcellent use which the Church made of her property. Indeed, a great\nnumber of others might be cited, beginning with the canons called\nApostolical. It is necessary also to remark the expression which is\nsometimes made use of to stigmatize the wickedness of the spoilers of\nthe Church, or of those who administer her property badly; they are\ncalled _pauperum necatores_, 'murderers of the poor;' to make it well\nunderstood that one of the principal objects of this property is the\nsupport of the necessitous.\n\n\n\u00a7 IV.\n\n _Those who attempt to take away the liberty of persons are\n excommunicated._\n\n(Concilium Lugdunense secundum, anno 566.)\n\n\"Et qui peccatis facientibus multi in perniciem anim\u00e6 su\u00e6 ita conati\nsunt, aut conantur assurgere, ut animas longa temporis quiete sine\nulla status sui competitione viventes, nunc improba proditione atque\ntraditione, aut captivaverint aut captivare conentur, si juxta\npr\u00e6ceptum domini regis emendare distulerint, quousque hos quos\nobduxerunt, in loco in quo longum tempus quiete vixerint, restaurare\ndebeant, ecclesi\u00e6 communione priventur.\" (Canon 3.)\n\nWe see in this canon that private individuals, by too frequent\nattempts, employed violence to reduce free persons to slavery. At\nthis time, on account of the irruptions of the barbarians, the state\nof Europe was such, that public authority, weak in the extreme, did\nnot, properly speaking, exist. This is the reason why it is so noble\nto see the Church struggling every where to support public order, to\ndefend liberty, and excommunicating those who attacked that liberty, in\ncontempt of the commands of the king.\n\n\n _The same abuse repressed._\n\n(Concilium Rhemense, anno 625 vel 630.)\n\n\"Si quis ingenuum aut liberum ad servitium inclinare voluerit, aut\nfortasse jam fecit, et commonitus ab episcopo se de inquietudine ejus\nrevocare neglexerit, aut emendare noluerit, tamquam calumni\u00e6 reum\nplacuit sequestrari.\" (Canon 17.)\n\n\n _It is declared that he who leads away a Christian to sell him, is\n guilty of homicide._\n\n(Concilium Confluentinum, anno 922.)\n\n\"Item interrogatum est, quid de eo faciendum sit qui christianum\nhominem seduxerit, et sic vendiderit: responsumque est ab omnibus,\nhomicidii reatum, ipsum hominem sibi contrahere.\" (Canon 7.)\n\n\n _The traffic in men, practised at that time in England, is proscribed;\n it is forbidden to sell men like ignoble animals._\n\n(Concilium Londinense, anno 1102.)\n\n\"Ne quis illud _nefarium negotium_ quo hactenus in Anglia solebant\nhomines sicut bruta animalia venundari, deinceps ullatenus facere\npr\u00e6sumat.\"\n\nWe see, from the canon which I have just cited, to what point the\nChurch had attained in all that affects true civilization. We are in\nthe nineteenth century, and it is considered that a great step has been\ngained in modern civilization by the consent of the great European\nnations to sign treaties to suppress the slave-trade; now the canon\nwhich we have just cited tells us, that at the beginning of the twelfth\ncentury, and in that very town of London, where the famous Convention\nwas lately held, the traffic in men was forbidden, and stigmatized as\nit deserves. _Nefarium negotium_--detestable trade--it is called by the\nCouncil: _infamous traffic_, it is called by modern civilization, the\nunconscious heir of the thoughts and even the words of those men who\nare treated by it as barbarians, of those Bishops, whom calumny has\nmore or less represented as a band of conspirators against the liberty\nand happiness of the human race.\n\n\n _It is ordered that persons who have been sold or pledged, shall\n immediately recover their liberty by restoring the price received; it\n is ordained that more shall not be required of them than they shall\n have received for their liberty._\n\n(Synodus incerti loci, circa annum 616.)\n\n\"De ingenuis qui se pro pecunia aut alia revendiderint, vel\noppignoraverint, placuit ut quandoquidem pretium, quantum pro ipsis\ndatum est, invenire potuerunt, absque dilatione ad statum su\u00e6\nconditionis reddito pretio reformentur, nec amplius quam pro eis datum\nest requiratur. Et interim, si vir ex ipsis, uxorem ingenuam habuerit,\naut mulier ingenuum habuerit maritum, filii qui ex ipsis nati fuerint,\nin ingenuitate permaneant.\" (Canon 14.)\n\nThe text of this Council, held, according to some, at Boneuil, well\ndeserves to have some remarks made on it. The beneficial regulation\nwhich allowed a man who had been sold to regain his liberty by paying\nthe sum received, checked an evil which was deeply rooted in the\ncustoms of Gaul at that time, for we find it at a very early period. We\nknow, indeed, from C\u00e6sar, whose testimony we have cited in the text,\nthat many men of that country sold their liberty to relieve themselves\nfrom difficulties. Let us also remark the regulation contained in the\nsame canon with respect to the children of the person who was sold;\nwhether it be the father or mother, the canon prescribes, in both\ncases, that the children shall be free; and it here departs from the\nwell known rule of civil law: _partus sequitur ventrem_.\n\n\n\u00a7 V.\n\n _It is forbidden to give up to the Jews the slaves who have taken\n refuge in the churches; it matters little whether they have chosen\n that asylum because their masters obliged them to things contrary to\n the Christian faith, or because they have been maltreated by them\n after having been once withdrawn from the sacred asylum under the\n promise of pardon._\n\n(Concilium Aurelianense tertium, anno 538.)\n\n\"De mancipiis Christianis, qu\u00e6 in Jud\u00e6orum servitio detinentur, si eis\nquod Christiana religio vetat, a dominis imponitur, aut si eos quos de\necclesia excusatos tollent, pro culpa qu\u00e6 remissa est, affligere aut\nc\u00e6dere fortasse pr\u00e6sumpserint, et ad ecclesiam iterato confugerint,\nnullatenus a sacerdote reddantur, nisi pretium offeratur ac detur, quod\nmancipia ipsa valere pronuntiaverit justa taxatio.\" (Canon 13.)\n\n\n _The precept given in the preceding canon is renewed; a precept\n contained in the canon which we have just cited._\n\n(Concilium Aurelianense quartum, anno 541.)\n\n\"Cum prioribus canonibus jam fuerit definitum ut de mancipiis\nChristianis, qu\u00e6 apud Jud\u00e6os sunt, si ad ecclesiam confugerint, et\nredimi se postulaverint, etiam ad quoscumque Christianos refugerint, et\nservire Jud\u00e6is noluerint, taxato et oblato a fidelibus justo pretio, ab\neorum dominio liberentur, ideo statuimus, ut tam justa constitutio ab\nomnibus catholicis conservetur.\" (Canon 30.)\n\n\n _The Jew who perverts a Christian slave is punished with the loss of\n all his slaves._ (Ibid.)\n\n\"Hoc etiam decernimus observandum, ut quicumque Jud\u00e6us proselytum, qui\nadvena dicitur, Jud\u00e6um facere pr\u00e6sumpserit, aut Christianum factum ad\nJudaicam superstitionem adducere; vel si Jud\u00e6us Christianam ancillam\nsuam sibi crediderit sociandam; vel si de parentibus Christianis natum,\nJud\u00e6um sub promissione fecerit libertatis, mancipiorum amissione\nmulctetur.\" (Canon 31.)\n\n\n _Jews are forbidden to have Christian slaves henceforth; as to those\n who are in their power, all Christians are allowed to ransom them by\n paying their Jewish masters twelve solidi._\n\n(Concilium Matisconense primum, anno 581.)\n\n\"Et liceat quid de Christianis qui aut de captivitatis incursu, aut\nfraudibus Jud\u00e6orum servitio implicantur, debeat observari, non solum\ncanonicis statutis, sed et legum beneficio pridem fuerit constitutum;\ntamen quia nunc item quo rumdam querela exorta est, quosdam Jud\u00e6os,\nper civitates aut municipia consistentes, in tantam insolentiam et\nproterviam prorupisse, ut nec reclamantes Christianos liceat vel\npretio de eorum servitute absolvi: idcirco pr\u00e6senti concilio, Deo\nauctore, sancimus, ut nullus Christianus Jud\u00e6os deinceps debeat\ndeservire; sed datis pro quolibet bono mancipio 12 solidis, ipsum\nmancipium quicumque Christianus, seu ad ingenuitatem, seu ad servitium,\nlicentiam habeat redimendi; quia nefas est, ut quos Christus Dominus\nsanguinis sui effusione redemit, persecutorum vinculis maneant\nirretiti. Quod si acquiescere his qu\u00e6 statuimus quicumque Jud\u00e6us\nnoluerit, quamdiu ad pecuniam constitutam venire distulerit, liceat\nmancipio ipsi cum Christianis ubicumque voluerit habitare. Illud etiam\nspecialiter sancientes, quod si quis Jud\u00e6us Christianum mancipium ad\nerrorem Judaicum convictus fuerit suasisse, ut ipse mancipio careat, et\nlegandi damnatione plectatur.\" (Canon 16.)\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe preceding canon is almost equivalent to a decree for the entire\nemancipation of Christian slaves; for if, on the one hand, Jews were\nforbidden to acquire new Christian slaves, and, on the other, those who\nwere in their possession could be redeemed by the first Christian who\ncame, it is clear that the charity of the faithful thus finding a door\nopen to it, the number of Christian slaves who groaned in the power of\nthe Jews must have diminished in an extraordinary manner. It is not\nsaid that these canonical regulations of the Church from the first\nmoment obtained all the result which was intended; but, as she was\nthe only power that remained standing at that time, and the only one\nthat exercised influence on the nations, it cannot be doubted that her\nregulations were infinitely advantageous to those in whose favor they\nwere established.\n\n\n _Jews are forbidden to acquire Christian slaves. If a Jew perverts to\n Judaism, or circumcises a Christian slave, the latter becomes free\n without having any thing to pay to his master._\n\n(Concilium Toletanum tertium, anno 589.)\n\n\"Suggerente concilio, id gloriossimus dominus noster canonibus\ninserendum pr\u00e6cipit, ut Jud\u00e6is non liceat Christianas habere uxores,\n_neque mancipia comparare in usus proprios_....\n\n\"Si qui vero Christiani ab eis Judaico ritu sunt maculati, vel etiam\ncircumcisi, non reddito pretio ad libertatem et religionem redeant\nChristianam.\" (Canon 14.)\n\nThis canon is remarkable, both because it protects the conscience of\nthe slave, and imposes on masters a punishment favorable to liberty.\nThis manner of checking the arbitrary power of those who violated the\nconsciences of their slaves, is found, during the following century, in\na curious example contained in the collection of the laws of Ina, queen\nof the West Saxons. It is this:\n\n\n _If a master makes his slave work on Sunday, the slave becomes free._\n\n(Leges Yn\u00e6 regin\u00e6 Saxonum Occiduorum, anno 692.)\n\n\"Si servus operetur die dominica per pr\u00e6ceptum domini sui, sit liber.\"\n(Leg. iii.)\n\nAnother curious example:\n\n_If a master gives meat to a slave on a fasting-day, the slave becomes\nfree._\n\n (Concilium Berghamsted\u00e6 anno 5^o Withredi regis Cantii, id est Christi\n 697: sub Bertualdo Cantuariensi archiepiscopo celebratum. H\u00e6c sunt\n judicia Withredi regis Cantuariorum.)\n\n\"Si quis servo suo carnem in jejunio dediderit comedendam, servus liber\nexeat.\" (Canon 15.)\n\n\n _It is definitively forbidden for Jews to have Christian slaves;\n all contravention of this order shall deprive the Jews of all their\n slaves, who shall obtain their liberty from the prince._\n\n(Concilium Toletanum quartum, anno 633.)\n\n\"Ex decreto gloriosissimi principis hoc sanctum elegit concilium, ut\nJud\u00e6is non liceat Christianos servos habere, nec Christiana mancipia\nemere, nec cujusquam consequi largitate: nefas est enim ut membra\nChristi serviant Antichristi ministris. Quod si deinceps servos\nChristianos, vel ancillas Jud\u00e6i habere pr\u00e6sumpserint, sublati ab eorum\ndominatu libertatem a principe consequantur.\" (Canon 66.)\n\n\n _It is forbidden to sell Christian slaves to Jews or Gentiles; if such\n sales have been made, they shall be annulled._\n\n(Concilium Rhemense, anno 625.)\n\n\"Ut Christiani Jud\u00e6is vel Gentilibus non vendantur; et si quis\nChristianorum necessitate cogente mancipia sua Christiana elegerit\nvenundanda, non aliis nisi tantum Christianis expendat. Nam si\npaganis aut Jud\u00e6is vendiderit, communione privetur, et emptio careat\nfirmitate.\" (Canon 11.)\n\nNo precaution was too great in those unhappy times. It might appear at\nfirst that such regulations were an effect of the intolerance of the\nChurch with respect to the Jews and Pagans; and yet, in reality, they\nwere a barrier against the barbarism which invaded all; they were a\nguarantee of the most sacred rights of man; so much the more necessary,\nas all the others, it may be said, had disappeared. Read the document\nwhich we are about to transcribe; you will there see that barbarism was\ncarried so far, that slaves were sold to the Pagans to be sacrificed.\n\n (Gregorius Papa III. ep. ad Bonifacium Archiepiscopum, anno 731.)\n\n\"Hoc quoque inter alia crimina agi in partibus illis dixisti, quod\nquidam ex fidelibus ad _immolandum_ paganis sua venundent mancipia.\nQuod ut magnopere corrigere debeas, frater, commonemus, nec sinas fieri\nultra; scelus est enim et impietas. Eis ergo qui h\u00e6c perpetraverunt,\nsimilem homicid\u00e6 indices p\u0153nitentiam.\"\n\nThese excesses must have occupied the active attention of the Church,\nas we see the Council of Liptines, held in 743, again insist on this\npoint, and forbid Christian slaves to be given up to the Gentiles.\n\n\"Et ut mancipia Christiana paganis non tradantur.\" (Canon 7.)\n\n\n _It is forbidden to sell a Christian slave out of the territory\n comprised within the kingdom of Clovis._\n\n(Concilium Cabilonense, anno 650.)\n\n\"Pietatis est maxim\u00e6 et religionis intuitus, ut captivitatis vinculum\nomnino a Christianis redimatur. Unde sancta Synodus noscitur censuisse,\nut nullus mancipium extra fines vel terminos, qui ad regnum domini\nClodovei regis pertinent, debeat venundare, ne quod absit, per tale\ncommercium, aut captivitatis vinculo, vel quod pejus est, Judaica\nservitute mancipia Christiana teneantur implicita.\" (Canon 9.)\n\nThis canon, which forbids the selling of Christian slaves out of the\nkingdom of Clovis, for fear that they should fall into the power of\nthe Pagans and Jews, and the other of the Council of Rheims, cited\nabove, which contains a similar regulation, are worthy of remark,\nunder two aspects; they show, 1st, the high respect which we ought\nto have for the soul of man, even of him who is a slave, since it\nis forbidden to sell him where his conscience might be in danger: a\nrespect which it was very important to maintain, both in order to\neradicate the erroneous maxims of antiquity on this point, and because\nit was the first step towards emancipation. 2d. By limiting the power\nof sale, there was introduced into that kind of property a law which\ndistinguished it from others, and placed it in a different and more\nelevated category. This was a great step made towards declaring open\nwar against this property itself, and abolishing it by legitimate means.\n\n\n _Clerics who sold their slaves to Jews are severely reproved: they are\n threatened with alarming punishments._\n\n(Concilium decimum Toletanum, anno 656.)\n\n\"Septim\u00e6 collationis immane satis et infandum operationis studium\nnunc sanctum nostrum adiit concilium; quod plerique ex sacerdotibus\net levitis, qui pro sacris ministeriis, et pietatis studio,\ngubernationisque augmento sanct\u00e6 ecclesi\u00e6 deputati sunt officio,\nmalunt imitari turbam malorum, potius quam sanctorum patrum insistere\nmandatis: ut ipsi etiam qui redimere debuerunt, venditiones facere\nintendant, quos Christi sanguine pr\u00e6sciunt esse redemptos; ita\nduntaxat, ut eorum dominio qui sunt empti in ritu Judaismo convertantur\noppressi, et fit execrabile commercium, ubi nitente Deo justum est\nsanctum adesse conventum; quia majorum canones vetuerunt ut nullus\nJud\u00e6orum conjugia vel servitia habere pr\u00e6sumat de Christianorum c\u0153tu.\"\n\nHere the Council eloquently reprimands the guilty; it continues:\n\n\"Si quis enim post hanc definitionem talia agere tentaverit, noverit se\nextra ecclesiam fieri, et pr\u00e6senti, et futuro judicio cum Juda simili\np\u0153na percelli, dum modo Dominum denuo proditionis pretio malunt ad\niracundiam provocare.\" (Canon 7.)\n\n\n\u00a7 VI.\n\n _Pope St. Gregory the First gives freedom to two slaves of the Church\n of Rome. Remarkable passage, in which this holy pope explains the\n motives which induced the Christians to enfranchise their slaves._\n\n\"Cum Redemptor noster totius conditor creatur\u00e6 ad hoc propitiatus\nhumanam voluerit carnem assumere, ut divinitatis su\u00e6 gratia, diruto\nquo tenebamur captivi vinculo servitutis, pristin\u00e6 nos restitueret\nlibertati; salubriter agiter, si homines quos ab initio natura creavit\nliberos et protulit, et jus gentium jugo substituit servitutis, in\nea natura in qua nati fuerant, manumittentis beneficio, libertati\nreddantur. Atque ideo pietatis intuitu, et hujus rei consideratione\npermoti, vos Montanam atque Thomam famulos sanct\u00e6 Roman\u00e6 Ecclesi\u00e6, cui\nDeo adjutore deservimus, liberos ex hac die civesque Romanos efficimus,\nomneque vestrum vobis relaxamus servitutis peculium.\" (S. Greg. l. v.\nep. 12.)\n\n\n _Bishops are directed to respect the liberty of those who have been\n enfranchised by their predecessors. Mention is made of the power given\n to Bishops to free their slaves who deserve well, and the sum is fixed\n which they may give them to aid them in living._\n\n(Concilium Agathense, anno 506.)\n\n\"Sane si quos de servis ecclesi\u00e6 benemeritos sibi episcopus libertate\ndonaverit, collatam libertatem a successoribus placuit custodiri, cum\nhoc quod eis manumissor in libertate contulerit, quod tamen jubemus\nviginti solidorum numerum, et modum in terrula, vineola, vel hospitiolo\ntenere. Quod amplius datum fuerit, post manumissoris mortem ecclesia\nrevocabit.\" (Canon 7.)\n\n\n _What has been mortgaged or alienated from the property of the Church\n by a Bishop who has left nothing of his own, must be restored; but\n enfranchised slaves are excepted from this rule: they shall preserve\n their liberty._\n\n(Concilium Aurelianense quartum, anno 541.)\n\n\"Ut episcopus qui de facultate propria ecclesi\u00e6 nihil relinquit, de\necclesi\u00e6 facultate si quid aliter quam canones eloquunter obligaverit,\nvendiderit, aut distraxerit, ad ecclesiam revocetur. Sane si de servis\necclesi\u00e6 libertos fecerit numero competenti, in ingenuitate permaneant,\nita ut ab officio ecclesi\u00e6 non recedant.\" (Canon 9.)\n\nAn English Council ordains that, at the death of each Bishop, all his\nEnglish slaves shall be freed. The solemnization of the obsequies is\nregulated; to terminate the funeral ceremonies, each Bishop and abbot\nshall enfranchise three slaves, by giving them each three solidi.\n\n (Synodus Cellichytensis, anno 816.)\n\n\"Decimo jubetur, et hoc firmiter statuimus asservandum, tam in nostris\ndiebus, quamque etiam futuris temporibus, omnibus successoribus\nnostris qui post nos illis sedibus ordinentur quibus ordinati sumus:\nut quandocumque aliquis ex numero episcoporum migraverit de s\u00e6culo,\nhoc pro anima illius pr\u00e6cipimus, ex substantia uniuscumque rei\ndecimam partem dividere, ac distribuere pauperibus in eleemosynam,\nsive in pecoribus, et armentis, seu de ovibus et porcis, vel etiam in\ncellariis, _nec non omnem hominem Anglicum liberare, qui in diebus suis\nsit servituti subjectus_, ut per illud sui proprii laboris fructum\nretributionis percipere mereatur, et indulgentiam peccatorum. Nec\nullatenus ab aliqua persona huic capitulo contradicatur, sed magis,\nprout condecet, a successoribus augeatur, et ejus memoria semper in\nposterum per universas ecclesias nostr\u00e6 ditioni subjectas cum Dei\nlaudibus habeatur et honoretur. Prorsus orationes et eleemosynas qu\u00e6\ninter nos specialiter condictam habemus, id est, ut statim per singulas\nparochias in singulis quibusque ecclesiis, pulsato signo, omnis\nfamulorum Dei c\u0153tus ad basilicam conveniant, ibique pariter XXX psalmos\npro defuncti anim\u00e6 decantent. Et postea unusquisque antistes et abbas\nsexcentos psalmos, et centum viginti missas celebrare faciat, _et tres\nhomines liberet et eorum cuilibet tres solidos distribuat_.\" (Canon 10.)\n\n\n _A curious document, which shows the generous resolution made by the\n Council of Armagh in Ireland, to give liberty to all the English\n slaves._\n\n (Concilium Ardamachiense in Hibernia celebratum, anno 1171: ex Giraldo\n Cambrensi, cap. xxviii. Hiberni\u00e6 expugnat\u00e6.)\n\n\"His completis convocato apud Ardamachiam totius Hiberni\u00e6 clero, et\nsuper advenarum in insulam adventu tractato diutius et deliberato,\ntandem communis omnium in hoc sententia resedit: propter peccata\nscilicet populi sui, eoque pr\u00e6cipue quod Anglos olim, tam a\nmercatoribus, quam pr\u00e6donibus atque piratis, emere passim, et in\nservitutem redigere consueverant, divin\u00e6 censura vindict\u00e6 hoc eis\nincommodum accidisse, ut et ipsi quoque ab eadem gente in servitutem\nvice reciproca jam redigantur. Anglorum namque populus adhuc integro\neorum regno, communi gentis vitio, liberos suos venales exponere, et\npriusquam inopiam ullam aut inediam sustinerent, filios proprios et\ncognatos in Hiberniam vendere consueverant. Unde et probabiliter credi\npotest, sicut venditores olim, ita et emptores, tam enormi delicto juga\nservitutis jam meruisse. Decretum est itaque in pr\u00e6dicto concilio,\net cum universitatis consensu publice statutum, ut Angli ubique\nper insulam, servitutis vinculo mancipati, in pristinam revocentur\nlibertatem.\"\n\nIt is thus that religious ideas influence and soften the ferocious\nmanners of nations. When a public calamity occurs, they immediately\nfind its cause in the divine anger, justly excited by the traffic which\nthe Irish carried on by buying English slaves of merchants, robbers,\nand pirates. It is not less curious to learn, that at that time the\nEnglish were barbarous enough to sell their children and relations,\nlike the Africans of our days. This frightful custom must have been\npretty general, as we read in the passage quoted, that it was the\ncommon vice of those nations: _communi gentis vitio_. This makes us\nbetter understand the necessity of a regulation inserted above, that\nof the Council of London, held in 1102, which proscribes this infamous\ntraffic in men.\n\n\n _It is forbidden to change the slaves of the Church for other slaves,\n unless the exchange procured their liberty._\n\n(Ex concilio apud Sylvanectum, anno 864.)\n\n\"Mancipia ecclesiastica, nisi ad libertatem non convenit commutari;\nvidelicet ut mancipia, qu\u00e6 pro ecclesiastico homine dabuntur, in\necclesi\u00e6 servitute permaneant, et ecclesiasticus homo, qui commutatur,\nfruatur perpetua libertate. Quod enim semel Deo consecratum est, ad\nhumanos usus transferri non decet.\" (V. Decret. Greg. IX., l. iii. tit.\n19, cap. 3.)\n\n\n _A Canon containing the same regulation as the preceding; and whence,\n moreover, it appears, that the faithful, for the salvation of their\n souls, were accustomed to offer their slaves to God and the Saints._\n\n(Ex eodem, anno 864.)\n\n\"Injustum videtur et impium, ut mancipia, qu\u00e6 fideles Deo et sanctis\nejus pro remedio anim\u00e6 su\u00e6 consecrarunt, cujuscumque muneris mancipio,\nvel commutationis commercio iterum in servitutem secularium redigantur,\ncum canonica auctoritas servos tantummodo permittat distrahi fugitives.\nEt ideo ecclesiarum rectores summopere caveant, ne eleemosyna unius,\nalterius peccatum fiat. Et est absurdum, ut ab ecclesiastica dignitate\nservus discedens, human\u00e6 sit obnoxius servituti.\" (Ibid. cap. 4.)\n\n\n _Freedom shall be granted to slaves who wish to embrace the monastic\n state, yet without neglecting useful precautions to ascertain the\n reality of their vocation._\n\n(Concilium Romanum sub S. Gregorio I., anno 597.)\n\n\"Multos de ecclesiastica seu s\u00e6culari familia, novimus ad omnipotentis\nDei servitium festinare, ut ab humana servitute liberi in divino\nservitio valeant familiarius in monasteriis conversari, quos si passim\ndimittimus, omnibus fugiendi ecclesiastici juris dominium occasionem\npr\u00e6bemus: si vero festinantes ad omnipotentis Dei servitium, incaute\nretinemus, illi invenimur negare qu\u00e6dam qui dedit omnia. Unde necesse\nest, ut quisquis ex juris ecclesiastici vel s\u00e6cularis militi\u00e6 servitute\nad Dei servitium converti desiderat, probetur prius in laico habitu\nconstitutus: et si mores ejus atque conversatio bona desiderio ejus\ntestimonium ferunt, absque retractatione servire in monasterio\nomnipotenti Domino permittatur, ut ab humano servitio liber recedat,\nqui in divino obsequio districtiorem appetit servitutem.\" (S. Greg.\nepist. 44. lib. iv).\n\n\n _The abuse of ordaining slaves without the consent of their masters\n had spread; this abuse is checked._\n\n(Ex epistolis Gelasii Pap\u00e6.)\n\n\"Ex antiquis regulis et novella synodali explanatione comprehensum est,\npersonas obnoxias servituti, cingulo c\u0153lestis militi\u00e6 non pr\u00e6cingi. Sed\nnescio utrum ignorantia an voluntate rapiamini, _ita ut ex hac causa\nnullus pene Episcoporum videatur extorris_. Ita enim nos frequens et\nplurimorum querela nos circumstrepit, ut ex hac parte nihil penitus\nputetur constitutum.\" (Distin. 54. c. 9.)\n\n\"_Frequens equidem, et assidua nos querela, circumstrepit_ de his\npontificibus, qui nec antiquas regulas nec decreta nostra noviter\ndirecta cogitantes, obnoxias possessionibus obligatasque personas,\nvenientes ad clericalis officii cingulum non recusant.\" (Ibid. c. 10.)\n\n\"Actores siquidem fili\u00e6 nostr\u00e6 illustris et magnific\u00e6 femin\u00e6, Maxim\u00e6,\npetitorii nobis insinuatione conquesti sunt, Sylvestrum atque Candidum,\noriginarios suos, contra constitutiones, qu\u00e6 supradict\u00e6 sunt, et\ncontradictione pr\u00e6eunte a Lucerino Pontifice diaconos ordinatos.\" (Ibid\nc. 11.)\n\n\"_Generalis etiam querel\u00e6 vitanda pr\u00e6sumptio est, qua propemodum\ncausantur universi_, passim servos et originarios, dominorum jura,\npossessionumque fugientes, sub religios\u00e6 conversationis obtentu,\nvel ad monasteria sese conferre, vel ad ecclesiasticum famulatum,\nconniventibus quippe pr\u00e6sulibus, indifferenter admitti. Qu\u00e6 modis\nomnibus est amovenda pernicies, ne per Christiani nominis institutum\naut aliena pervadi, aut publica videatur disciplina subverti.\" (Ibid.\nc. 12.)\n\n\n _The parish priests are allowed to choose some clerics from the slaves\n of the Church._\n\n(Concilium Emeritense, anno 666.)\n\n\"Quidquid unanimiter digne disponitur in sancta Dei ecclesia,\nnecessarium est ut a parochitanis presbyteris custoditum maneat. Sunt\nenim nonnulli, qui ecclesiarum suarum res ad plenitudinem habent, et\nsollicitudo illis nulla est habendi clericos, cum quibus omnipotenti\nDeo laudum debita persolvant officia. Proinde instituit h\u00e6c sancta\nsynodus, ut omnes parochitani presbyteri, juxta ut in rebus sibi a Deo\ncreditis sentiunt habere virtutem, de ecclesi\u00e6 su\u00e6 familia clericos\nsibi faciant; quos per bonam voluntatem ita nutriant, ut et officium\nsanctum digne paragant, et ad servitium suum aptos eos habeant. Hi\netiam victum et vestitum dispensatione presbyteri merebuntur, et domino\net presbytero suo, atque utilitati ecclesi\u00e6 fideles esse debent. Quod\nsi inutiles apparuerint ut culpa patuerit, correptione disciplin\u00e6\nferiantur; si quis presbyterorum hanc sententiam minime custodierit, et\nnon adimpleverit, ab episcopo suo corrigatur: ut plenissime custodiat,\nquod digne jubetur.\" (Canon 18.)\n\n\n _It is prescribed to the Bishops to confer liberty on the slaves of\n the Church before they admit them into the clerical body._\n\n(Concilium Toletanum nonum, anno 655.)\n\n\"Qui ex familiis ecclesi\u00e6 servituri devocantur in clerum ab episcopis\nsuis, necesse est, ut libertatis percipiant donum: et si honest\u00e6 vit\u00e6\nclaruerint meritis, tunc demum majoribus fungantur officiis.\" (Canon\n11.)\n\n\n _It is allowed to ordain the slaves of the Church, liberty having been\n previously conferred on them._\n\n(Concilium quartem Toletanum, anno 633.)\n\n\"De familiis ecclesi\u00e6 constituere presbyteros ut diaconos per parochias\nliceat; quos tamen vit\u00e6 rectitudo et probitas morum commendat: ea\ntamen ratione, _ut antea manumissi libertatem status sui percipiant_,\net denuo ad ecclesiasticos honores succedant; irreligiosum est enim\nobligatos existere servituti, qui sacri ordinis suscipiunt dignitatem.\"\n\n\n\u00a7 VII.\n\nWe have shown in the text by what means, with what wisdom and\nperseverance Christianity abolished slavery in the ancient world;\nChristian and Catholic Europe was free at the time when Protestantism\nappeared. Let us now see what Catholicity has done in modern times,\nwith respect to slaves in other parts of the world. We can present to\nour readers in one document, which is the evidence of the ideas and\nfeelings of the Sovereign Pontiff Gregory XVI., an interesting history\nof the solicitude of the Roman See in favor of the slaves of the whole\nuniverse. I mean the apostolical letters published at Rome, November\n3, 1839, against the slave-trade; and I recommend the perusal of them.\nIt will be there seen, in the most authentic and decisive manner, that\nthe Catholic Church, on this important subject of slavery, has always\nshowed, and shows still, the most lively spirit of charity, without in\nthe least offending against justice, or for a moment departing from the\npath of prudence.\n\n\n \"_Gregorius P. P._ XVI. _ad futuram rei memoriam_.\n\n\"Raised to the supreme degree of the apostolical dignity, and filling,\nalthough without any merit on our part, the place of Jesus Christ, the\nSon of God, who, by the excess of His charity, has deigned to become\nman, and die for the redemption of the world; we consider that it\nbelongs to our pastoral solicitude to exert all our efforts to prevent\nChristians from engaging in the trade in blacks or any other men,\nwhoever they may be.\n\n\"As soon as the light of the Gospel began to spread, the unfortunate\nmen who fell into the hard fate of slavery during the numerous wars\nof that period, felt their condition improved; for the apostles,\ninspired by the Spirit of God, on the one hand, taught slaves to obey\ntheir earthly masters, as Jesus Christ Himself, and to be resigned\nfrom the bottom of their heart to the will of God; but, on the other,\nthey commanded masters to behave well to their slaves, to grant them\nwhat was just and equitable, and not to treat them with anger, knowing\nthat the Lord of both is in heaven, and that with Him there is no\ndistinction of persons.\n\n\"The law of the Gospel having very soon universally and fundamentally\nordained sincere charity towards all, and the Lord Jesus having\ndeclared that He would regard as done or refused to Himself all the\nacts of beneficence and mercy done or refused to the poor and little\nones--it naturally followed that Christians not only regarded their\nslaves as brethren, above all when they were become Christians, but\nthat they were more inclined to give liberty to those who rendered\nthemselves worthy of it. This usually took place particularly on the\nsolemn feasts of Easter, as St. Gregory of Nyssa relates. There were\neven found some who, inflamed with more ardent charity, _embraced\nslavery for the redemption of their brethren_; and an apostolic man,\nour predecessor, Pope Gregory I., of sacred memory, attests that he\nhad known a great many who performed this work of mercy. Wherefore\nthe darkness of Pagan superstition being entirely dissipated in the\nprogress of time, and the manners of the most barbarous nations being\nsoftened,--thanks to the benefit of faith working by charity,--things\nadvanced so far, that for many centuries there have been no slaves\namong the greater part of Christian nations. Yet (we say it with\nprofound sorrow) men have been since found, even among Christians, who,\nshamefully blinded by the desire of sordid gain, have not hesitated\nto reduce into slavery, in distant countries, Indians, Negroes, and\nother unfortunate races; or to assist in this scandalous crime, by\ninstituting and organizing a traffic in these unfortunate beings, who\nhad been loaded with chains by others. A great number of the Roman\nPontiffs, our predecessors of glorious memory, have not forgotten to\nstigmatize, throughout the extent of their jurisdiction, the conduct\nof these men as injurious to their salvation, and disgraceful to the\nChristian name; for they clearly saw that it was one of the causes\nwhich tended most powerfully to make infidel nations continue in their\nhatred to the true religion.\n\n\"This was the object of the apostolical letters of Paul III., of the\n29th of May, 1537, addressed to the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo,\nunder the ring of the fisherman, and other letters, much more copious,\nof Urban VIII., of the 22d April, 1639, addressed to the collector of\nthe rights of the Apostolic Chamber in Portugal,--letters, in which\nthe most severe censures are cast upon those who venture to reduce the\ninhabitants of the East or West Indies into slavery, buy, sell, give,\nor exchange them, separate them from their wives and children, strip\nthem of their property, take or send them into strange places, or\ndeprive them of their liberty in any way; to retain them in slavery;\nor aid, counsel, succor, or favor those who do these things under any\ncolor or pretence whatever; or preach or teach that this is lawful,\nand, in fine, co-operate therewith in any way whatever. Benedict XIV.\nhas since confirmed and renewed these pontifical ordinances before\nmentioned by new apostolical letters to the Bishops of Brazil and some\nother countries, dated the 20th December, 1741, by means of which he\ncalls forth the solicitude of the Bishops for the same purpose. A\nlong time before, another of our more ancient predecessors, Pius II.,\nwhose pontificate saw the empire of the Portuguese extended in Guinea\nand in the country of the blacks, addressed letters, dated the 7th of\nOctober, 1482, to the Bishop of Ruvo, who was ready to depart for those\ncountries: in these letters he did not confine himself to giving to\nthis prelate the means requisite for exercising the sacred ministry\nin those countries with the greatest fruit, but he took occasion very\nseverely to blame the conduct of those who reduced the neophytes into\nslavery. In fine, in our days, Pius VII., animated by the same spirit\nof charity and religion as his predecessors, zealously interposed his\ngood offices with men of authority for the entire abolition of the\nslave-trade among Christians.\n\n\"These ordinances, and this solicitude of our predecessors, have\navailed not a little, with the aid of God, in defending the Indians,\nand other nations who have just been mentioned, against the barbarity\nof conquest, and the cupidity of Christian merchants; but the Holy See\nis far from being able to boast of the complete success of its efforts\nand zeal, for, if the slave-trade has been partially abolished, it\nis still carried on by a great many Christians. Wherefore, desiring\nto remove such a disgrace from all Christian countries, after having\nmaturely considered the matter with many of our venerable brethren, the\nCardinals of the Holy Roman Church, assembled in Council, following\nthe example of our predecessors, by virtue of the apostolic office,\nwe warn and admonish in the Lord all Christians, of whatever condition\nthey may be, and enjoin upon them that, for the future, no one shall\nventure unjustly to oppress the Indians, Negroes, or other men, whoever\nthey may be; to strip them of their property or reduce them into\nservitude: or give aid or support to those who commit such excesses, or\ncarry on that infamous traffic, by which the blacks, as if they were\nnot men, but mere impure animals, reduced like them into servitude,\nwithout any distinction, contrary to the laws of justice and humanity,\nare bought, sold, and devoted to endure the hardest labors; and on\naccount of which dissensions are excited and almost continual wars are\nfomented among nations by the allurements of gain offered to those who\nfirst carry away the Negroes.\n\n\"Wherefore, by virtue of the apostolical authority, we condemn all\nthese things aforesaid, as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name;\nand, by the same authority, we absolutely prohibit and interdict all\necclesiastics and laymen from venturing to maintain that this traffic\nin blacks is permitted, under any pretext or color whatsoever; or\nto preach or teach in public or in private, in any way whatever,\nanything, contrary to these apostolic letters. And in order that these\nletters may come to the knowledge of all, and that no one may pretend\nignorance, we ordain and decree that they be published and posted\nup, according to custom, by one of our officers, on the doors of the\nbasilica of the Prince of the Apostles, of the Apostolic Chancery, of\nthe Palace of Justice, of Monte Citorio, and at the Campo di Fiori.\nGiven at Rome, at St. Mary Major's, under the seal of the fisherman,\nthe 3d of November, 1839, the ninth year of our Pontificate.\n\n LOUIS, CARDINAL LAMBRUSCHINI.\"\n\nI again particularly invite attention to the document which I have just\ninserted--to these letters which magnificently crown the united efforts\nof the Church for the abolition of slavery. As the abolition of the\nslave-trade--the object of a treaty recently made between the great\npowers--is at this moment one of the affairs which occupy the chief\nattention of Europe, it is proper to pause a few moments, to reflect on\nthe contents of the apostolic letters of the Sovereign Pontiff Gregory\nXVI. Let us observe, in the first place, that in the year 1482, Pope\nPius II. addressed apostolical letters to the Bishop of Ruvo, about to\ndepart for the newly discovered countries--letters, in which he did not\nexclusively confine himself to giving the prelate the powers necessary\nto exercise his holy ministry with the greatest fruit in those\ncountries, but in which he takes occasion to censure very severely\nthe conduct of Christians who reduced the neophytes into slavery.\nExactly at the end of the fifteenth century, at the time when it may be\nsaid that the Church gathering the last fruit of her long labors, at\nlength saw Europe emerge from the chaos in which the irruption of the\nbarbarians had plunged her; at the time when the social and political\ninstitutions were developed with daily increasing ardor, and began to\nform a regular and coherent body; at this moment the Church resumes\nher secular contest with another barbarism which reappeared in distant\ncountries; she opposes the abuse of the superiority of strength and\nintelligence, which the conquerors possessed over the conquered nations.\n\nThis fact alone proves that, for the true liberty and well-being of\nnations, for the just pre-eminence of right over might, and for the\ntriumph of justice over force, the intelligence and refinement of\nnations are not enough--religion also is required. In ancient times,\nwe see nations cultivated to the highest point commit unheard of\natrocities; and in modern times, Europeans, so proud of their knowledge\nand advancement, introduce slavery among the unfortunate nations who\nhave fallen under their dominion. Now, who was the first to raise a\nvoice against such injustice--against such horrible barbarity? It was\nnot policy, which perhaps rejoiced to see its conquests consolidated\nby slavery; it was not commerce which found in this infamous traffic\nan easy means of making shameful but abundant profits; it was not\nphilosophy, which, fully explaining the doctrines of Plato and\nAristotle, would perhaps have seen without concern the resuscitation\nof the degrading theory of _races born for slavery_; but it was the\nCatholic religion, expressing herself by the mouth of the Vicar of\nJesus Christ.\n\nIt is certainly a consolatory spectacle for Catholics to see a Roman\nPontiff, four centuries ago, condemn what Europe, with all her\ncivilization and refinement, condemns only at the present day. Still,\nEurope only does so with difficulty; and all those who take part in\nthis tardy condemnation are not exempt from the suspicion of being\nactuated by motives of interest. No doubt the Roman Pontiff did not\neffect all the good he intended; but doctrines do not remain sterile\nwhen they emanate from a high quarter, whence, diffusing themselves\nto great distances, they descend on persons who receive them with\nveneration, if it were only on account of him who teaches them. The\nconquering nations were then Christians, and sincere ones; it is\ntherefore indubitable, that the admonitions of the Pope, transmitted by\nthe mouths of Bishops and other priests, must have had very salutary\neffects. If, in cases like this, where we see a measure taken against\nan evil, the evil nevertheless resists and continues, we imagine, by a\ngrievous mistake, that the measure has been vain, and that its author\nhas produced no effect. It is one thing to extirpate, and another\nto diminish an evil; and it cannot be doubted that, if the Bulls of\nthe Popes had not all the effect intended, they must nevertheless\nhave served to diminish the evil, by improving the lot of nations\nfallen under the yoke. The evil prevented and avoided is not seen;\nthe preservative has hindered its existence: but the existing evil is\npalpable--it affects us, it excites our regret, and we often forget the\ngratitude due to the hand which has preserved us from greater evils.\nHow often is it thus with respect to religion! She cures many things,\nbut she prevents still more. If she takes possession of the heart of\nman, it is in order to destroy there even the very roots of a thousand\nevils.\n\nLet us imagine the Europeans of the fifteenth century invading the East\nand West Indies, without any check, guided only by the inspirations of\ncupidity, and by the caprices of arbitrary power, full of the pride\nof conquerors, and of the contempt with which the Indians must have\ninspired them, on account of the inferiority of their knowledge, and\nof their backwardness in civilization and refinement: what must have\nhappened? If, in spite of the incessant cries of religion, in spite of\nthe influence which she had on laws and manners, the conquered nations\nhave had so much to suffer, would not the evil have been carried to an\nintolerable extent, without those powerful causes which incessantly\ncombated, prevented or diminished it? The conquered would have been\nreduced into slavery _en masse_; they would have been condemned _en\nmasse_ to perpetual degradation; they would have been deprived even of\nthe hope of one day entering on the career of civilization.\n\nIf the conduct of Europeans at that time with respect to men of\nother races--if the conduct of some nations of our own days is to be\ndeplored, it cannot be said at least that the Catholic religion has not\nopposed such excesses with all her strength; it cannot be said that the\nHead of the Church has ever allowed these evils to pass without raising\nhis voice to recall to mind the rights of men, to stigmatize injustice,\nto excite abhorrence of cruelty, and energetically to plead the cause\nof humanity, without distinction of races, climates, or colors.\n\nWhence does Europe derive this lofty idea and this generous feeling,\nwhich urge her to declare herself so strongly against the traffic in\nmen, and to demand the complete abolition of slavery in the colonies?\nWhen posterity shall call to mind these glorious facts; when it shall\nadopt them as marking a new era in the annals of civilization; when,\nstudying and analyzing the causes which have conducted European\nlegislation and manners to so high a pitch, and, passing over temporary\nand unimportant motives, insignificant circumstances, and secondary\nagents, it shall seek for the vital principle which impelled European\ncivilization towards so glorious an end, it will find that this\nprinciple was Christianity; and if, desiring to fathom the question\nmore and more, it should inquire whether this was Christianity, under\na vague and general form--Christianity without authority--Christianity\nwithout Catholicity--the answer of history will be this: Catholicity,\nexclusively prevailing in Europe, abolished slavery among the European\nraces; she introduced the principle of the abolition of slavery into\nEuropean civilization, by showing practically, and in opposition to the\nopinion of antiquity, that slavery was not necessary for society; and\nshe made it understood, that the sacred work of enfranchisement was the\nfoundation of all great and life-giving civilization. She has therefore\ninoculated European civilization with the principle of the abolition\nof slavery; it is owing to her that, wherever this civilization has\ncome into contact with slavery, it has been profoundly disturbed--an\nevident proof that there were at the bottom two opposite elements, two\ncontending principles, which were compelled to struggle incessantly,\nuntil the more powerful, noble, and fruitful prevailing, and reducing\nthe other under the yoke, in the end annihilated it. I will say\nmore: by searching whether facts really confirm this influence of\nCatholicity, not only in all that concerns the civilization of Europe,\nbut also in the countries which Europeans have conquered two centuries\nago, in the East and West, we shall meet with Catholic Bishops and\npriests working without intermission in improving the lot of colonial\nslaves; we shall call to mind what is due to the Catholic missions; we\nshall read and understand the apostolical letters of Pius II., issued\nin 1482, and mentioned above; those of Paul III., in 1537; those of\nUrban VIII., in 1639; those of Benedict XIV., in 1741; and those of\nGregory XVI., in 1839.\n\nIn these letters there is taught and defined all that has been or\ncan be said on this point in favor of humanity. We shall there find\nblamed, condemned, and punished, all that European civilization has\nat length resolved to condemn and punish; and when calling to mind\nalso that it was Pius VII., who, at the beginning of this century,\n_zealously interposed his good offices with men in power for the\ncomplete abolition of slavery among Christians_, we shall not be\nable to avoid acknowledging and confessing that Catholicity has had\nthe principal share in this great work. It is she indeed who has\nlaid down the principle on which the work rests, who has established\nthe precedents which guide it, who has constantly proclaimed the\nprinciples which have suggested it and has constantly condemned those\nwho have opposed it; it is she, in fine, who at all times has declared\nopen war against cruelty and cupidity,--the support and perpetual\nmotives for injustice and inhumanity. Let us hear the testimony of a\ncelebrated Protestant author, Robertson, the historian of America:\n\"From the time that ecclesiastics were sent as instructors into\nAmerica, they perceived that the rigor with which their countrymen\ntreated the natives rendered their ministry altogether fruitless. The\nmissionaries, in conformity with the mild spirit of that religion\nwhich they were employed to publish, soon remonstrated against the\nmaxims of the planters with respect to the Americans, and condemned\nthe _repartimientos_, or distributions, by which they were given\nup as slaves to their conquerors, as no less contrary to natural\njustice and the precepts of Christianity, than to sound policy. The\nDominicans, to whom the instruction of the Americans was originally\ncommitted, were the most vehement in attacking the _repartimientos_.\nIn the year 1511, Motesino, one of their most eminent preachers,\ninveighed against this practice in the great church at St. Domingo,\nwith all the impetuosity of his natural eloquence. Don Diego Columbus,\nthe principal officers of the colony, and all the laymen who had\nbeen his hearers, complained of the monk to his superiors; but they,\ninstead of condemning, applauded his doctrine, as equally pious and\nseasonable. The Franciscans, influenced by the spirit of opposition\nand rivalship which subsists between the two orders, discovered some\ninclination to take part with the laity, and to espouse the defence of\nthe _repartimientos_. But as they could not with decency give their\napprobation to a system of oppression so repugnant to the spirit of\nreligion, they endeavored to palliate what they could not justify,\nand alleged in excuse for the conduct of their countrymen, that it\nwas impossible to carry on any improvement in the colony, unless the\nSpaniards possessed such dominion over the natives, that they could\ncompel them to labor. The Dominicans, regardless of such political and\ninterested considerations, would not relax in any degree the rigor\nof their sentiments, and even refused to absolve, or admit to the\nsacrament, such of their countrymen as continued to hold the natives\nin servitude. Both parties applied to the king for his decision in a\nmatter of such importance. Ferdinand empowered a committee of his Privy\nCouncil, assisted by some of the most eminent civilians and divines in\nSpain, to hear the deputies sent from Hispaniola in support of their\nrespective opinions. After a long discussion, the speculative point\nin controversy was determined in favor of the Dominicans; the Indians\nwere declared to be a free people, entitled to all the natural rights\nof man; but notwithstanding this decision, the _repartimientos_ were\ncontinued upon their ancient footing. As this determination admitted\nthe principle upon which the Dominicans founded their opinion, they\nrenewed their efforts to obtain relief for the Indians with additional\nboldness and zeal. At length, in order to quiet the colony, which was\nalarmed by their remonstrances and censures, Ferdinand issued a decree\nof his Privy Council (1513), declaring that after mature consideration\nof the apostolic Bull, and other titles by which the Crown of Castile\nclaimed a right to its possessions, in the new world, the servitude of\nthe Indians was warranted both by the laws of God and man; that unless\nthey were subjected to the dominion of the Spaniards, and compelled\nto reside under their inspection, it would be impossible to reclaim\nthem from idolatry, or to instruct them in the Christian faith; that\nno further scruple ought to be entertained concerning the lawfulness\nof the _repartimientos_, as the King and Council were willing to take\nthe charge of that upon their own consciences; and that therefore the\nDominicans, and monks of other religious orders, should abstain for\nthe future from those invectives which, from an excess of charitable\nbut ill-informed zeal, they had uttered against the practice. That\nhis intention of adhering to this decree might be fully understood,\nFerdinand conferred new grants of Indians upon several of his\ncourtiers. But in order that he might not seem altogether inattentive\nto the rights of humanity, he published an edict in which he endeavored\nto provide for the mild treatment of the Indians under the yoke to\nwhich he subjected them; he regulated the nature of the work which they\nshould be required to perform; he prescribed the mode in which they\nshould be clothed and fed, and gave directions with respect to their\ninstruction in the principles of Christianity. But the Dominicans, who,\nfrom their experience of what had passed, judged concerning the future,\nsoon perceived the inefficacy of those provisions, and foretold that,\nas long as it was the interest of individuals to treat the Indians\nwith rigor, no public regulations would render their servitude mild\nor tolerable. They considered it as vain to waste their own time and\nstrength in attempting to communicate the sublime truths to men whose\nspirits were broken, and their faculties impaired by oppression. Some\nof them, in despair, requested the permission of their superiors to\nremove to the continent, and pursue the object of their mission among\nsuch of the natives as were not hitherto corrupted by the example of\nthe Spaniards, or alienated by their cruelty from the Christian faith.\nSuch as remained in Hispaniola continued to remonstrate, with decent\nfirmness, against the servitude of the Indians.\n\n\"The violent operations of Albuquerque, the new distributor of\nthe Indians, revived the zeal of the Dominicans against the\n_repartimientos_, and called forth an advocate for that oppressed\npeople who possessed all the courage, the talents, and the activity\nrequisite in supporting such a desperate cause. This was Bartholomew\nde las Casas, a native of Seville, and one of the clergymen sent out\nwith Columbus in his second voyage to Hispaniola, in order to settle in\nthat Island. He early adopted the opinion prevalent among ecclesiastics\nwith respect to the unlawfulness of reducing the natives to servitude;\nand that he might demonstrate the sincerity of his conviction, he\nrelinquished all the Indians who had fallen to his share in the\ndivision of the inhabitants among their conquerors, declaring that he\nshould ever bewail his own misfortune and guilt, in having exercised\nfor a moment this impious dominion over his fellow-creatures. From\nthat time he became the avowed patron of the Indians; and by his bold\ninterpositions in their behalf, as well as by the respect due to his\nabilities and character, he had often the merit of setting some bounds\nto the excesses of his countrymen.\" (_History of America_, book 3.)\n\nIt would be too long to relate here the energetic efforts of De las\nCasas in favor of the colonies of the new world; all know them--all\nmust know that, filled with zeal for the liberty of the Indians, he\nconceived and undertook an attempt at civilization analogous to that\nwhich was realized later, to the immortal honor of the Catholic clergy,\nin Paraguay. If the efforts of De las Casas had not all the success\nthat might naturally have been expected, we find the cause of this\nin the thousand passions with which history makes us acquainted, and\nperhaps also in the impetuosity of this man, whose sublime zeal was not\nalways accompanied by the consummate prudence which the Church displays.\n\nHowever this may be, Catholicity has completely accomplished her\nmission of peace and love; without injustice or catastrophe, she\nhas broken the chains under which a large portion of the human\nrace groaned; and if it had been given her to prevail for some\ntime in Asia and Africa, she would have achieved their destruction\nin the four quarters of the globe, by banishing the degradations\nand the abominations introduced and established in those countries\nby Mahometanism and idolatry. It is melancholy, no doubt, that\nChristianity has not yet exercised over these latter countries all the\ninfluence which would have been necessary to ameliorate the social\nand political condition of those nations, by changing their ideas and\nmanners. But if we seek for the causes of this lamentable delay, we\ncertainly shall not find them in the conduct of Catholicity. This is\nnot the place to point out these causes; nevertheless, while reserving\nthe analysis and complete examination of this matter for another part\nof the work, I will make the remark _en passant_, that Protestantism\nmay justly criminate itself for the obstacles which, during three\ncenturies, it has opposed to the universality and efficacy of the\nChristian influence on infidel nations. These few words will suffice\nhere; we shall return to this important subject later.\n\n\nNOTE 16, p. 131.\n\nWe can scarcely believe how far the ideas of the ancients went astray\nwith regard to the respect which is due to man. Can it be believed\nthat they went so far, as to regard the lives of all who could not be\nuseful to society as of no value? and yet nothing is more certain.\nWe might lament that this or that city had adopted a barbarous law;\nthat a ferocious custom was introduced among a people by the effect of\nparticular circumstances; yet as long as philosophy protested against\nsuch attempts, human reason would have been unstained, and could not\nhave been accused without injustice of taking part in infamous attempts\nat abortion or infanticide. But when we find crime defended and taught\nby the most important philosophers of antiquity; when we see it triumph\nin the minds of the most illustrious men, who, with fearful calmness\nand serenity, prescribe the atrocities which we have named, we are\nconfounded, and our blood runs cold; we would fain shut our eyes, not\nto see so much infamy thrown upon philosophy and human reason. Let us\nhear Plato in his _Republic_, in that book in which he undertook to\ncollect all the theories in his opinion the most distinguished and\nthe best adapted to lead human society towards its _beau ideal_. This\nis his scandalous language: \"Oportet profecto secundum ea qu\u00e6 supra\nconcessimus, optimos viros mulieribus optimis ut plurimum congredi:\ndeterrimos autem contra, deterrimis. Et illorem quidem prolem nutrire,\nhorum minime, si armentum excellentissimum sit futurum. Et h\u00e6c omnia\ndum agantur, ab omnibus pr\u00e6terquam a principibus ignorari, si modo\narmentum custodum debeat seditione carere.\" \"Prope admodum;\" \"Very\ngood,\" replies another speaker. (_Plat. Rep._ l. v.)\n\nBehold, then, the human race reduced to the condition of mere\nbrutes; in truth, the philosopher had reason to use the word flock\n(_armentum_)! There is this difference, however, that magistrates\nimbued with such feelings must have been more harsh towards their\nsubjects than a shepherd towards his flock. If the shepherd finds among\nthe lambs which have just been born a weak and lame one, he does not\nkill it or allow it to die of hunger; he carries it to the sheep who\nought to nourish it, he caresses it to stop its cries.\n\nBut perhaps the expressions which we have just quoted escaped the\nphilosopher in a moment of inadvertence; perhaps the idea which they\nreveal was only one of those sinister inspirations which glide into the\nmind of a man, and pass away without leaving any more impression than\nis made by a reptile moving through the grass. We wish it were so, for\nthe fame of Plato; but unhappily he returns to it so often, and insists\non the point with so systematic a coldness, that no means of justifying\nhim are left. \"With respect,\" he says lower down, \"to the children of\ncitizens of inferior rank, and even those of other citizens, if they\nare born deformed, the magistrates shall hide them, as is proper,\nin some secure place, which it shall be forbidden to reveal.\" \"Yes,\"\nreplies one of the interlocutors; \"if we desire to preserve the race of\nwarriors in its purity.\"\n\nPlato also lays down various rules with respect to the relations\nof the two sexes; he speaks of the case in which the man and woman\nshall have reached an advanced age: \"Quando igitur jam mulieres et\nviri \u00e6tatem generationi aptam egressi fuerint, licere viris dicemus,\ncuicumque voluerint, pr\u00e6terquam fili\u00e6 atque matri et filiarum natis\nmatrisve majoribus: licere et mulieribus cuilibet, pr\u00e6terquam filio\natque patri, ac superioribus et inferioribus eorumdem. Cum vero h\u00e6c\nomnia mandaverimus, interdicemus f\u0153tum talem (si contigeret) edi et\nin lucem produci. Si quid autem matrem parere coegerit, ita exponere\npr\u00e6cipiemus, quasi ei nulla nutritio sit.\"\n\nPlato seems to have been very well pleased with his doctrine; for, in\nthe very book in which he writes what we have just seen, he lays down\nthe famous maxim, that the evils of states will never be remedied, that\nsocieties will never be well governed, until philosophers shall become\nkings, or kings become philosophers. God preserve us from seeing on the\nthrone a philosophy such as his! Moreover, his wish for the reign of\nphilosophy has been realized in modern times. What do I say? It has had\nmore than empire; it has been deified, and divine honors have been paid\nto it in public temples. I do not believe, however, that the happy days\nof the worship of reason are now much regretted.\n\nThe horrible doctrine which we have just seen in Plato was transmitted\nwith fidelity to future schools. Aristotle, who on so many points took\nthe liberty of departing from the doctrines of his master, did not\nthink of correcting those which regard abortion and infanticide. In\nhis _Politics_ he teaches the same crimes with the same calmness as\nPlato: \"In order,\" he says, \"to avoid nourishing weak or lame children,\nthe law should direct them to be exposed or made away with.\" \"Propter\nmultitudinem autem liberorum, ne plures sint quam expediat, si gentium\ninstituta et leges vetent procreata exponi, definitum esse oportet\nprocreandorum liberorum numerum. Quod si quibus inter se copulatis et\ncongressis, plures liberi, quam definitum sit, nascantur, priusquam\nsensus et vita inseratur, abortus est f\u0153tui inferendus.\" (_Polit._ l.\nvii. c. 16.)\n\nIt will be seen how much reason I had to say that man, _as man_, was\nesteemed as nothing among the ancients; that society entirely absorbed\nhim; that it claimed unjust rights over him, and regarded him as an\ninstrument to be used when of service, and which it had a right to\ndestroy.\n\nWe observe in the writings of the ancient philosophers, that they make\nof society a kind of _whole_, consisting of individuals, as the mass\nof iron consists of the atoms that compose it; they make of it a sort\nof unity, to which all must be sacrificed; they have no consideration\nfor the sphere of individual liberty; they do not appear to dream\nthat the object of society is the good, the happiness of individuals\nand families. According to them, this unity is the principal good,\nwith which nothing else can be compared; the greatest evil that can\nhappen is, that this unity should be broken--an evil which must be\navoided by all imaginable means. \"Is not the worst evil of a state,\"\nsays Plato, \"that which divides it, and _makes many out of one_? and\nis not the greatest excellence of a state, that which binds all its\nparts together, and makes it _one_?\" Relying on this principle, and\npursuing the development of his theory, he takes individuals and\nfamilies, and kneads them, as it were, in order to form them into ONE\ncompact whole. Thus, besides education and life in common, he wishes\nalso to have women and children in common; he considers it injurious\nthat there should be personal enjoyments or sufferings; he desires\nthat all should be common and social; he allows individuals to live,\nthink, feel, and act only as parts of a great whole. If you read his\n_Republic_ with attention, and particularly the fifth book, you will\nsee that the prevailing idea of this philosopher is what we have just\nexplained. Let us hear Aristotle on the same point: \"As the object of\nsociety,\" he says, \"is _one_, it is clear that the education of all\nits members ought necessarily to be one and identical. Education ought\nto be public, and not private; as things now are, each one takes care\nof his children as he thinks proper, and teaches them as he pleases.\nEach citizen is a particle of society, and the care to be given to\na particle ought naturally to extend to what the whole requires.\"\n(_Polit._ l. viii. c. 1.) In order to explain to us what he means by\nthis common education, he concludes by quoting with honor the education\nwhich was given at Sparta, which every one knows consisted in stifling\nall feelings except a ferocious patriotism, the traits of which still\nmake us shudder.\n\nWith our ideas and customs, we do not know how to confine ourselves\nto considering society in this way. Individuals among us are attached\nto the social body, forming a part of it, but without losing their\nown sphere--that of the family; and they preserve around them a vast\ncareer, where they are allowed to exert themselves, without coming\ninto collision with the colossus of society. Nevertheless, patriotism\nexists; but it is no longer a blind instinctive passion, urging man\non to the sacrifice, like a victim, with bandaged eyes, but it is no\nreasonable, noble, and exalted feeling, which forms heroes like those\nof Lepanto and Baylen; which converts peaceful citizens, like those\nof Gyronna and Saragossa, into lions; which, as by an electric spark,\nmakes a whole people rise on a sudden without arms, and brave death\nfrom the artillery of a numerous and disciplined army: such was Madrid,\nfollowing the sublime _Mourons_ of Daoiz and of Velarda.\n\nI have already hinted, in the text, that society among the ancients\nclaimed the right of interfering in all that regards individuals.\nI will add, that the thing went to a ridiculous extent. Who would\nimagine that the law ought to interfere in the food of a woman who\nwas _enceinte_, or in the exercise which she should take every day?\nThis is what Aristotle gravely says: \"It is necessary that women who\nare _enceinte_ should take particular care of their bodies; that\nthey should avoid indulgence in luxury, and using food which is too\nlight and weak. The legislator easily attains his end by prescribing\nand ordering them a daily walk, in order to go to honor and venerate\nthe gods, to whom it has been confided by fate to watch over the\nformation of beings. Atque hoc facile assequitur scriptor legum, si\neis iter aliquod quotidianum ad cultum venerationemque deorum eorum,\nquibus sorte obtigit, ut pr\u00e6sint gignendis animantibus, injunxerit ac\nmandaverit.\" (_Polit._ l. vii. c. 16.)\n\nThe action of laws extended to every thing; it seems that, in certain\ncases, even the tears of children could not escape this severity.\n\"Those,\" says Aristotle, \"who, by means of laws, forbid children to cry\nand weep, are wrong; cries and tears serve as exercise for children,\nand assist them in growing; they are an effort of nature, which\nrelieves and invigorates those who are in pain.\" (_Polit._ l. vii. c.\n17.)\n\nThese doctrines of the ancients--this manner of considering the\nrelations of individuals with society--very well explain how castes\nand slavery could be regarded as natural among them. Who can be\nastonished at seeing whole races deprived of liberty, or regarded as\nincapable of partaking of the rights of other superior classes, when\nwe see generations of innocent beings condemned to death, and these\nconscientious philosophers not having the slightest scruple with\nrespect to the legitimacy of so inhuman an act? It was not that these\nphilosophers had not happiness in view as the object of society; but\nthey had monstrous ideas with respect to the means of obtaining that\nhappiness.\n\n\nNOTE 17, p. 146.\n\nThe reader will easily dispense with my entering into details on the\nabject and shameful condition of women among the ancients, and in which\nthey still are among the moderns where Christianity does not prevail;\nmoreover, my pen would be checked every moment by strict laws of\nmodesty, if I were to attempt to represent the characteristic features\nof this wretched picture. The _inversion_ of ideas was such, that we\nhear men the most renowned for their gravity and moderation rave in\nthe most incredible manner on this point. We will lay aside hundreds\nof examples which it would be easy to adduce; but who is ignorant of\nthe scandalous advice of the _sage_ Solon, with respect to the lending\nof women for the purpose of improving the race? Who has not blushed to\nread what the _divine_ Plato, in his _Republic_, says of the propriety\nand manner of making women share in the public games? Let us throw\na veil over recollections so dishonourable to human wisdom. When\nthe chief legislators and sages so far forgot the first elements of\nmorality, and the most ordinary inspirations of nature, what must have\nbeen the case with the vulgar? How fearfully true those words of the\nsacred text which represent to us the nations deprived of the light of\nChristianity as sitting _in darkness and in the shadow of death!_\n\nThere is nothing more fatal to woman, nothing more apt to degrade\nher, than that which is injurious to modesty; and yet we see that\nthe unlimited power granted to man over woman contributed to this\ndegradation, and reduced her, among certain nations, to be nothing but\na slave. Losing sight of the manners of other nations, let us consider\nthose of the Romans for a moment. Among them the formula, _ubi tu\nCayus ego Caya_, seemed to indicate a subjection so slight, that it\nmight almost be called an equality; but in order to appreciate this\nequality, it is enough to recollect that, at Rome, a husband could\nput his wife to death by his own authority, and that not only in the\ncase of adultery, but for offences infinitely less serious. In the\ntime of Romulus, Egnacius Menecius was acquitted of a similar crime,\nalthough his wife had done nothing more than drink wine from a cask.\nThese traits describe a nation, whatever importance you may besides\nthink proper to attach to the solicitude of the Romans to prevent their\nmatrons from becoming addicted to wine. When Cato directed an embrace,\nas a proof of affection, among relations, for the purpose, as Pliny\nrelates, of ascertaining whether the women smelt of wine, _an temetum\nolerent_, it is true he showed his strictness; but it was an unworthy\noutrage offered to the honor of the women themselves whose virtue it\npretended to preserve. There are some remedies worse than the disease.\n\n\nNOTE 18, p. 157.\n\nThe antichristian philosophy must have had considerable influence on\nthe desire to find among the barbarians the origin of the elevation\nof the female character in Europe, and of some other principles of\nour civilization. Indeed as soon as you discover the source of these\nadmirable qualities in the forests of Germany, Christianity is stripped\nof a portion of its honors; and what was its own and peculiar glory\nis divided among many. I will not deny that the Germans of Tacitus\nare sufficiently poetical; but it is difficult to believe that the\nreal Germans were so to any extent. Some passages inserted in the text\nadd great force to our conjecture; but what appears to me eminently\ncalculated to dissipate all these illusions is, the history of the\ninvasion by the barbarians, above all that which has been written by\neye-witnesses. The picture, far from continuing poetical, then becomes\ndisgusting in the extreme. This interminable succession of nations\npasses before the eyes of the reader, like an alarming vision in an\nevil dream; and certainly the first idea which occurs to us at the\nsight of this picture is, not to seek for any of the qualities of\nmodern civilization in these invading hordes; but the great difficulty\nis, to know how this chaos has been reduced to order, and how it has\nbeen possible to produce from such barbarism the noblest and most\nbrilliant civilization that has ever been seen on earth. Tacitus\nappears to be an enthusiast; but Sidonius, who wrote at no great\ndistance from the barbarians, who saw them, and suffered from meeting\nthem, does not partake of this enthusiasm. \"I find myself,\" he said,\n\"among long-haired nations, compelled to hear the German language,\nand to applaud, at whatever cost, the song of the drunken Burgundian,\nwith hair plastered with rancid grease. _Happy your eyes who do not\nsee them; happy your ears who do not hear them?_\" If space permitted,\nit would be easy for me to accumulate a thousand passages which would\nevidently show what the barbarians were, and what could be expected\nfrom them in all respects. It is as clear as the light of day, that it\nwas the design of Providence to employ these nations to destroy the\nRoman empire, and change the face of the world. The invaders seem to\nhave had a feeling of their terrible mission. They march, they advance,\nthey know not whither they go; but they know well that they go to\ndestroy. Attila called himself the scourge of God. The same barbarian\nhimself defined his formidable duty in these words: \"_The star falls,\nthe sea is moved; I am the hammer of the earth._ Where my horse passes,\nthe grass never grows.\" Alaric, marching towards the capital of the\nworld, said: \"_I cannot stop; there is some one urges me, who excites\nme to sack Rome._\" Genseric prepares a naval expedition; his troops\nare on board, he himself embarks: no one knows the point towards which\nhe will direct his sails. The pilot approaches the barbarian, and asks\nhim; \"_My lord, against what nations will you wage war?_\" \"_Against\nthose who have provoked the anger of God_,\" replies Genseric.\n\nIf Christianity, in the midst of this catastrophe, had not existed in\nEurope, civilization would have been lost and annihilated, perhaps\nforever. But a religion of light and love was sure to triumph over\nignorance and violence. Even during the times of the calamities of\nthe invasion, that religion prevented many disasters, owing to the\nascendency which it began to exercise over the barbarians; the most\ncritical moment being past, the conquerors having become in some degree\nsettled, she immediately employed a system so vast, so efficacious, so\ndecisive, that the conquerors found themselves conquered, not by arms,\nbut by charity. It was not in the power of the Church to prevent the\ninvasion; God had decreed it, and His decree must be accomplished. Thus\nthe pious monk who went to meet Alaric approaching Rome, could not stop\nhim on his march, because the barbarian answered him, that he could not\nstop,--that there was some one who urged him on, and that he advanced\nagainst his own will. But the Church awaited the barbarians after the\nconquest, knowing that Providence would not abandon His own work, that\nthe hope of the future lot of nations was left in the hands of the\nspouse of Jesus Christ; on this account does Alaric advance on Rome,\nsack, and destroy it; but on a sudden, finding himself in presence of\nreligion, he stops, becomes mollified, and appoints the Churches of\nSt. Peter and St. Paul as places of refuge. A remarkable fact, and an\nadmirable symbol of the Christian religion preserving the universe from\ntotal ruin.\n\n\nNOTE 19, p. 165.\n\nThe great benefit conferred on modern society by the formation of\na pure and correct public conscience, would acquire extraordinary\nvalue in our eyes, if we compared our moral ideas with those of all\nother nations, ancient and modern; the result of such an examination\nwould be, to show in how lamentable a manner good principles become\ncorrupted, when they are confided to the reason of man. I will content\nmyself, however, with a few words on the ancients, in order to show how\ncorrect I was in saying that our manners, however corrupt they may be,\nwould have appeared a model of morality and dignity to the heathens.\n\nThe temples consecrated to Venus in Babylon and Corinth are connected\nwith abominations such as to be even incomprehensible. Deified passion\nrequired sacrifices worthy of it; a divinity without modesty required\nthe sacrifice of modesty; and the sacred name of Temple was applied\nto asylums of the most unbridled licentiousness. There was not a veil\neven for the greatest crimes. It is known how the daughters of Chypre\ngained a dowry for their marriage; all have heard of the mysteries of\nAdonis, Priapus, and other impure divinities. There are vices which,\nas it were, want a name among the moderns; or if they have one, it is\naccompanied by the recollection of a terrible chastisement inflicted on\nsome criminal cities. In reading the histories of antiquity descriptive\nof the manners of their times, the book falls from our hands. On this\nsubject we must be content with these few hints, calculated to awaken\nin the minds of our readers the recollection of what has a thousand\ntimes excited their indignation in reading the history and studying the\nliterature of pagan antiquity. The author is compelled to be satisfied\nwith a recollection: he abstains from a description.\n\n\nNOTE 20, p. 171.\n\nIt is now so common to exalt beyond measure the power of ideas, that\nsome persons will perhaps consider exaggerated what I have said with\nrespect to their want of power, not only to influence society, but even\nto preserve themselves, while, remaining in the mere sphere of ideas,\nthey do not become realized in institutions, which are their organ, and\nat the same time their rampart and defence.\n\nI am very far, as I have clearly stated in the text, from denying or\ncalling in question what is called the power of ideas: I only mean to\nshow that, alone and by themselves, ideas have little power; and that\nscience, properly so called, as far as the organization of society is\nconcerned, is a much less important thing than is generally supposed.\nThis doctrine has an intimate connection with the system followed by\nthe Catholic Church, which, while constantly endeavoring to develop\nthe human mind by means of the propagation of the sciences, has\nnevertheless assigned to them a secondary part in the regulation of\nsociety. While religion has never been opposed to true science, never,\non the other hand, has she ceased to show a certain degree of mistrust\nwith respect to all that was the exclusive production of human thought;\nand observe that this is one of the chief differences between religion\nand the philosophy of the last age; or, we should rather say, it was\nthe cause of their violent antipathy. Religion did not condemn science;\non the contrary, she loved, protected, and encouraged it; but at the\nsame time she marked out its limits, warned it that it was blind on\nsome points, announced to it that it would be powerless in some of its\nlabors, and that in others its action would be destructive and fatal.\nPhilosophy, on the contrary, loudly proclaimed the sovereignty of\nscience, declared it to be all-powerful, and deified it; it attributed\nto it strength and courage to change the face of the world, and wisdom\nand foresight enough to work this change for the good of humanity. This\npride of knowledge, this deification of thought, is, if you observe\nclosely, the foundation of Protestant doctrine. All authority being\ntaken away, reason is the only competent judge, the intellect receives\ndirectly and immediately from God all the light which is necessary.\nThis is the fundamental doctrine of Protestantism, that is to say, the\npride of the mind.\n\nIf we closely observe, even the triumph of revolutions has in no degree\nnullified the wise anticipations of religion; and knowledge, properly\nso called, instead of gaining any credit from this triumph, has\nentirely lost what it had: there remains nothing of the revolutionary\nknowledge; what remains is the effects of the revolution, the interests\ncreated by it, the institutions which have arisen from those interests,\nand which, since that time, have sought in the department of science\nitself our principles to support them,--principles altogether different\nfrom those which had been proclaimed in the beginning.\n\nI have said that every idea has need of being realized in an\ninstitution; this is so true, that revolutions themselves, warned\nby the instinct which leads them to preserve, with more or less\nintegrity, the principles whence they have arisen, tend from the first\nto create those institutions in which the revolutionary doctrines may\nbe perpetuated, or to constitute successors to represent them when\nthey shall have disappeared from the schools. This may lead to many\nreflections on the origin and present condition of several forms of\ngovernments in different countries of Europe.\n\nWhen speaking of the rapidity with which scientific theories succeed\neach other, when pointing out the immense development which the press\nhas given to the field of discussion, I have shown that this was not an\ninfallible sign of scientific progress, still less a guarantee for the\nfertility of human thought in realizing great things in the material\nand social order. I have said that grand conceptions proceed rather\nfrom _intuition_ than from _discourses_; and on this subject I have\nrecalled to mind historical events and personages which place this\nmatter beyond a doubt. In support of this assertion, ideology might\nhave furnished us with abundant proofs, if it were necessary to have\nrecourse to science itself to prove its own sterility. But mere good\nsense, taught by the lessons of experience daily, is enough to convince\nus that the men who are the most able in theory are, often enough, not\nonly mediocre, but even weak in the exercise of authority. With regard\nto the hints which I have thrown out with respect to \"intuition\" and\n\"discourses,\" I leave them to the judgment of any one who has applied\nto the study of the human mind. I am confident that the opinion of\nthose who have reflected will not differ from my own.\n\n\nNOTE 21, p. 175.\n\nI have attributed to Christianity the gentleness of manners which\nEurope now enjoys. Yet, in spite of the decline of religious belief\nin the last century, this gentleness of manners, instead of being\ndestroyed, has only been raised to a higher degree. This contrast, the\neffect of which, at first sight, is to destroy what I have established,\nrequires some explanation. First of all, we must recollect the\ndistinction pointed out in the text between effeminacy and gentleness\nof manners. The first is a fault, the second a valuable quality; the\nfirst emanates from enervation of the mind and weakening of the body;\nthe second is owing to the preponderance of reason, the empire of the\nmind over the body, the triumph of justice over force, of right over\nmight. There is a large portion of real gentleness in manners at the\npresent day, but luxury has also a considerable part therein. This\nluxury of manners has certainly not arisen from religion, but from\ninfidelity; the latter, never extending its view beyond the present\nlife, causes the lofty destinies, and even the very existence of the\nsoul, to be forgotten, puts egotism upon the throne, constantly excites\nand keeps alive the love of pleasure, and makes man the vile slave of\nhis passions. On the contrary, at the first sight, we perceive that\nour manners owe all their gentleness to Christianity; all the ideas,\nall the feelings, on which this gentleness is founded, bear the mark\nof Christianity. The dignity of man, his rights, the obligation of\ntreating him with the respect which is due to him, and of appealing to\nhis mind by reason rather than to his body by violence, the necessity\nimposed on every one of keeping within the line of his duty, of\nrespecting the property and the persons of others,--all this body of\nprinciples, to which real gentleness of manners is owing, is due, in\nEurope, to the influence of Christianity, which, after a struggle of\nmany centuries against the barbarism and ferocity of invading nations,\nsucceeded in destroying the system of violence which these same nations\nhad made general.\n\nAs philosophy has taken care to change the ancient names consecrated\nby religion, and authorized by the usage of a succession of ages,\nit happens that some ideas, although the produce of Christianity,\nare scarcely acknowledged as such, only because they are disguised\nunder a worldly dress. Who does not know that mutual love among men\nand fraternal charity are ideas entirely due to Christianity? Who\ndoes not know that pagan antiquity did not acknowledge them, that\nit even despised them? And nevertheless, this affection, which was\nformerly called _charity_, because charity was the virtue from which\nit took its legitimate origin, has constantly taken care to assume\nother names, as if it were ashamed to be seen in public with any\nappearance of religion. The mania for attacking the Christian religion\nbeing passed, it is openly confessed that the principle of universal\ncharity is owing to her; but language remains infected with Voltairian\nphilosophy even since the discredit into which that philosophy has\nfallen. Whence it follows, that we very often do not appreciate as we\nought the influence of Christianity on the society which surrounds us,\nand that we attribute to other ideas and other causes the phenomena\nwhich are evidently owing to religion. Society at present, in spite of\nall its indifference, is more indebted to religion than is commonly\nsupposed; it resembles those men, who, born of an illustrious family,\nin which good principles and a careful education are transmitted as an\ninheritance from generation to generation, preserve in their manners\nand behavior, even in the midst of their disorders, their crimes, and I\nwill even venture to say, their degradation, some traits which denote\ntheir noble origin.\n\n\nNOTE 22, p. 183.\n\nA few regulations of Councils, quoted in the text, are sufficient to\ngive an idea of the system pursued by the Church for the purpose of\nreforming and softening manners. It may be remarked that, on previous\noccasions during this work, I have a strong inclination to call to mind\nmonuments of this kind; I will state here that I have two reasons for\ndoing this: 1. When having to compare Protestantism with Catholicity,\nI believe that the best means of representing the real spirit of the\nlatter is, to show it at work; this is done when we bring to light the\nmeasures which were adopted, according to different circumstances,\nby Popes and Councils. 2. Considering the direction which historical\nstudies take in Europe, and the taste, which is daily becoming more\ngeneral, not for histories, but for historical documents, it is proper\nalways to bear in mind that the proceedings of Councils are of the\nhighest importance, not only in historical and ecclesiastical matters,\nbut also in political and social ones; so that to pay no attention to\nthe data which are found in the records of Councils, is monstrously to\nmutilate, or rather wholly to destroy, the history of Europe.\n\nOn this account it is very useful, and even necessary in many things,\nto consult these records, although it may be painful to our indolence,\non account of their enormous extent and the ennui of finding many\nthings devoid of interest for our times. The sciences, above all those\nwhich have society for their object, lead to satisfactory results only\nby means of painful labors. What is useful is frequently mixed and\nconfounded with what is not. The most valuable things are sometimes\nfound by the side of repulsive objects; but in nature, do we find gold\nwithout having removed rude masses of earth?\n\nThose who have attempted to find the germ of the precious qualities\nof European civilization among the barbarians of the north, should\nundoubtedly have attributed the gentleness of our manners to the same\nbarbarians; they would have had in support of this paradox a fact\ncertainly more specious than that which they have relied on to give\nthe honor of elevating European women to the Germans. I allude to the\nwell-known custom of avoiding the infliction of corporal punishments,\nand of chastising the gravest offences by fines only. Nothing is more\nlikely to make us believe that these nations were happily inclined to\ngentleness of manners, since, in the midst of their barbarism, they\nused the right of punishment with a moderation which is not found even\namong the most civilized and refined nations. If we regard the thing\nin this point of view, it seems as if the influence of Christianity on\nthe barbarians had the effect of rendering their manners more harsh\ninstead of more gentle; indeed, after Christianity was introduced, the\ninfliction of corporal punishments became general, and even that of\ndeath was not excluded.\n\nBut when we attentively consider this peculiarity of the criminal code\nof the barbarians, we shall see that, far from showing the advancement\nof their civilization and the gentleness of their manners, it is, on\nthe contrary, the most evident proof that they were behindhand; it is\nthe strongest index of the harshness and barbarism which reigned among\nthem. In the first place, inasmuch as crimes among them were punished\nby means of fines, or, as it was called, by _composition_, it is clear\nthat the law paid much more attention to _repairing an injury_ than to\n_punishing a crime_; a circumstance which clearly shows us how little\nthey thought about the morality of the action, as they attended not\nso much to the action itself, as to the wrong which it inflicted.\nTherefore this was not an element of civilization but of barbarism;\nthis tended to nothing less than the banishment of morality from the\nworld. The Church combated this principle, as fatal in public as in\nprivate affairs; she introduced into criminal legislation a new set of\nideas, which completely changed its spirit. On this point M. Guizot has\ndone full justice to the Catholic Church. I am delighted to acknowledge\nand to insert this homage here by transcribing his own words. After\nhaving pointed out the difference which existed between the laws of\nthe Visigoths, derived in great part from the Councils of Toledo, and\nthe other barbarian laws, M. Guizot signalizes the immense superiority\nof the ideas of the Church in matters of legislation, of justice, and\nin all that concerns the search after truth and the lot of men; he\nadds: \"In criminal matters, the relation of crimes to punishments is\nfixed (in the laws of the Visigoths) according to sufficiently just,\nphilosophical, and moral notions. We there perceive the efforts of an\nenlightened legislator, who contends against the violence and rashness\nof barbarian manners. The chapter _De c\u00e6de et morte hominum_, compared\nwith the corresponding laws of other nations, is a very remarkable\nexample of this. Elsewhere, it is almost exclusively the injury\nwhich seems to constitute the crime, and the punishment is sought in\nthat material reparation which is the result of composition. Here,\nthe crime is referred to its real and moral element, the intention.\nThe different shades of criminality, absolutely voluntary homicide,\nhomicide by inadvertence, provoked homicide, homicide with or without\npremeditation, are distinguished and defined almost as well as in our\nown codes, and the punishments vary in a proportion equally just. The\njustice of the legislator has gone still further. He has attempted,\nif not to abolish, at least to diminish the diversity of legal value\nestablished among men by the other barbarian laws. The only distinction\nwhich it preserves is that of freeman and slave. With respect to\nfreeman, the punishment varies neither with the origin nor the rank\nof the deceased, but only according to the different degrees of the\nculpability of the murderer. With regard to slaves, not venturing\ncompletely to withdraw from the masters the right of life and death, it\nhas been attempted at least to restrain it by subjecting it to a public\nand regular procedure. The text of the law deserves to be cited.\n\n\"'If no one guilty of, or an accomplice in, a crime ought to remain\nunpunished, with how much more reason ought he to be condemned who\nhas wickedly and rashly committed a homicide! Thus, as masters, in\ntheir pride, often put their slaves to death without any fault of\nthe latter, it is proper altogether to extirpate this license, and\nto ordain that the present law shall be forever observed by all. No\nmaster or mistress shall put to death, without public trial, any of\ntheir slaves, male or female, or any person dependent on them. If a\nslave or any other servant shall commit a crime which may subject him\nto capital punishment, his master or his accuser shall immediately\ninform the judge or the count or duke of the place where the deed\nhas been committed. After the affair has been inquired into, if the\ncrime be proved, let the criminal undergo, either by the judge or his\nown master, the sentence of death which he has deserved; so that,\nnevertheless, if the judge be unwilling to put the accused to death,\nhe shall draw up in writing a capital sentence, and then it shall be\nin the power of the master to put him to death or not. Indeed, if the\nslave, with a fatal audacity, resisting his master, has struck, or\nattempted to strike, him with a weapon, with a stone, or with any other\nkind of blow, and if the master, in defending himself, has killed the\nslave in his passion, the master shall be in no way subject to the\npunishment of homicide. But it shall be necessary to prove that the\nevent took place thus, and that by the testimony or oath of the slaves,\nmale or female, who shall have been present, and by the oath of the\nauthor of the deed himself. Whoever from mere malice, either by his own\nhand or that of another, shall have killed his slave without public\ntrial, shall be marked with infamy, declared incapable of appearing as\na witness, shall be obliged to pass the rest of his life in exile and\npenance, and his goods shall go to the nearest relations to whom they\nare given by the law.'--For. Jud. liv. vi. tit. xv. l. 12.\" (_Hist.\nG\u00e9n\u00e9r. de la Civilisation en Europe_, le\u00e7on 6.)\n\nI have copied this passage from M. Guizot with pleasure, because I\nfind there a confirmation of what I have just said on the subject of\nthe influence of the Church in softening manners, and of what I have\nbefore stated with respect to the great amelioration which the Church\nmade in the condition of slaves, by limiting the excessive power of\ntheir masters. This truth is proved in its place by so many documents,\nthat it seems useless to revert to it here; it is enough now for my\npurpose, to point out that M. Guizot fully allows that the Church gave\nmorality to the legislation of the barbarians, by making them consider\nthe wickedness of the crime, whereas they had previously attended only\nto the injury of which it was the cause; she has thus transferred the\naction from the physical to the moral order, giving to punishments\ntheir real character, and not allowing them to remain reduced to the\nlevel of a mere material reparation. Hence we see that the criminal\nsystem of the barbarians, which, at the first _view_, seemed to\nindicate progress in civilization, was, in reality, owing to the little\nascendency which moral principles exercised over these nations, and to\nthe fact, that the views of the legislator were very slightly raised\nabove the purely material order.\n\nThere is another observation to be made on this point, viz. that\nthe mildness with which crimes were punished is the best proof of\nthe frequency with which they were committed. When in a country\nassassinations, mutilations, and other similar attempts are very\nrare, they are regarded with horror; those who are guilty of them are\nchastised with severity. But when crimes are very frequently committed,\nthey insensibly lose their enormity; not only those who commit them,\nbut all the world become accustomed to their hideous aspect, and the\nlegislator is then naturally induced to treat them with indulgence.\nThis is shown us by the experience of every day; and the reader will\nhave no difficulty in finding in society at the present time more than\none crime to which the remark which I have just made is applicable.\nAmong the barbarians, it was common to appeal to force, not only with\nrespect to property, but also to persons; wherefore it was natural\nthat crimes of this kind should not be regarded by them with the same\naversion, it may be said with the same horror, as among a people where\nthe triumph of the ideas of reason, justice, right, and law, render\nit impossible to conceive even the existence of a society where each\nindividual should believe himself self-entitled to do justice to\nhimself. Thus the laws against these crimes naturally became milder,\nthe legislator contenting himself with repairing the injury, without\npaying much attention to the culpability of the delinquent. And this\nis intimately connected with what I have said above with respect to\npublic conscience; for the legislator is always more or less the organ\nof this public conscience. Where an action, in any society whatever,\nis regarded as a heinous offence, the legislator cannot decree a mild\npunishment for it; on the other hand, it is not possible for him to\nchastise with great severity what the society absolves or excuses. It\nwill sometimes happen that this proportion will be altered, that this\nharmony will be destroyed; but things soon quitting the path into which\nviolence forced them, will not be long in returning to their ordinary\ncourse. Manners being chaste and pure, offences against them will be\ncovered with abhorrence and infamy; but if morals be corrupted, the\nsame acts will be regarded with indifference; at the most they will be\ndenominated slight weaknesses. Among a people where religious ideas\nexercise great influence, the violation of all that is consecrated\nto God is regarded as a horrible outrage, worthy of the greatest\nchastisements; among another people, where infidelity has made its\nravages, the same violation is not even placed on the list of ordinary\noffences; instead of drawing on the guilty the justice of the law,\nscarcely does it draw on them the slight correction of the police.\nThe reader will understand the appropriateness of this digression on\nthe criminal legislation of the barbarians, when he reflects that,\nin order to examine the influence of Catholicity on the civilization\nof Europe, it is indispensable to take into consideration the other\nelements which have concurred in forming that civilization. Without\nthis, it would be impossible properly to appreciate the respective\naction of each of these elements, either for good or evil; impossible\nto bring to light the share which the Church can exclusively claim in\nthe great work of our civilization; impossible to resolve the high\nquestion which has been raised by the partisans of Protestantism on the\nsubject of the assumed advantages which the religious revolution of\nthe sixteenth century has conferred on modern society. It is because\nthe barbarian nations are one of these elements, that it is so often\nnecessary to attend to them.\n\n\nNOTE 23, p. 189.\n\nIn the middle ages, almost all the monasteries and colleges of canons\nhad a hospital annexed to them, not only to receive pilgrims, but also\nto aid in the support and consolation of the poor and the sick. If you\ndesire to see the noblest symbol of religion sheltering all kinds of\nmisfortune, consider the houses devoted to prayer and the most sublime\nvirtues converted into asylums for the miserable. This was exactly what\ntook place at that time, when the public authority not only wanted the\nstrength and knowledge necessary to establish a good administration for\nthe relief of the unfortunate, but did not even succeed in covering\nwith her \u00e6gis the most sacred interests of society; this shows us\nthat when all was powerless, religion was still strong and fruitful;\nthat when all perished, religion not only preserved herself, but even\nfounded immortal establishments. And pay attention to what we have\nso many times pointed out, viz. that the religion which worked these\nprodigies was not a vague and abstract religion--the Christianity of\nthe Protestants; but religion with all her dogmas, her discipline, her\nhierarchy, her supreme Pontiff, in a word, the Catholic Church.\n\nThey were far from thinking in ancient times that the support of the\nunfortunate could be confided to the civil administration alone,\nor to individual charity; it was then thought, as I have already\nsaid, that it was a very proper thing that the hospitals should be\nsubjected to the Bishops; that is to say, that there should be a kind\nof assimilation made between the system of public beneficence and the\nhierarchy of the Church. Hence it was that, by virtue of an ancient\nregulation, the hospitals were under the control of the Bishops as well\nin temporals as in spirituals, whether the persons appointed to the\ncare of the establishments were clerical or lay, whether the hospital\nhad been erected by order of the Bishop or not.\n\nThis is not the place to relate the vicissitudes which this discipline\nunderwent, nor the different causes which produced the successive\nchanges; it is enough to observe, that the fundamental principle, that\nis, the interference of the ecclesiastical authority in establishments\nof beneficence, always remained unimpaired, and that the Church never\nallowed herself to be entirely deprived of so noble a privilege. Never\ndid she think that it was allowable for her to regard with indifference\nthe abuses which were introduced on this point to the prejudice of the\nunfortunate; wherefore she has reserved at least the right to remedy\nthe evils which might result from the wickedness or the indolence\nof the administrators. The Council of Vienne ordains, that if the\nadministrators of a hospital, lay or clerical, become relaxed in the\nexercise of their charge, proceedings shall be taken against them by\nthe Bishops, who shall reform and restore the hospital of their own\nauthority, if it has no privilege of exemption, and by delegation, if\nit has one. The Council of Trent also granted to Bishops the power\nof visiting the hospitals, even with the power of delegates of the\nApostolic See in the cases fixed by law; it ordains, moreover, that the\nadministrators, lay or clerical, shall be obliged every year to render\ntheir accounts to the ordinary of the place, unless the contrary has\nbeen provided in the foundation; and that if, by virtue of a particular\nprivilege, custom, or statute, the accounts must be presented to any\nother than the ordinary, at least he shall be added to those who are\nappointed to receive them.\n\nWithout paying attention to the different modifications which the laws\nand customs of various countries may have introduced in this matter,\nwe will say that one thing remains manifest, viz. the vigilance of the\nChurch in all that regards beneficence; it is her constant tendency, by\nvirtue of her spirit and maxims, to take part in affairs of this kind,\nsometimes to direct them exclusively, sometimes to remedy the evils\nwhich may have crept in. The civil power acknowledged the motives of\nthis holy and charitable ambition; we see that the Emperor Justinian\ndoes not hesitate to give public authority over the hospitals to the\nBishops, thereby conforming to the discipline of the Church and the\ngeneral good.\n\nOn this point there is a remarkable fact, which it is necessary to\nmention here, in order to signalize its beneficent influence; I mean,\nthe regulation by which the property of hospitals was looked upon as\nChurch property,--a regulation which was very far from being a matter\nof indifference, although at first sight it might appear so. Their\nproperty, thereby invested with the same privileges as that of the\nChurch, was protected by an inviolability so much the more necessary as\nthe times were the more difficult, and the more abounding in outrages\nand usurpations. The Church which, notwithstanding all the public\ntroubles, preserved great authority and a powerful ascendency over\ngovernments and nations, had thus a simple and powerful claim to extend\nher protection over the property of hospitals, and to withdraw them as\nmuch as possible from the cupidity and the rapacity of the powerful.\nAnd it must not be supposed that this doctrine was introduced with any\nindirect design, nor that this kind of community, this assimilation\nbetween the Church and the poor, was an unheard-of novelty; on the\ncontrary, this assimilation was so well suited to the common order of\nthings, it was so entirely founded on the relations between the Church\nand the poor, that if the property of the hospitals had the privilege\nof being considered as the property of the Church, that of the Church,\non the other hand, was called the property of the poor. It is in these\nterms that the holy Fathers express themselves on this point: these\ndoctrines had so much affected the ordinary language, that when, at\na later period, the canonical question with respect to the ownership\nof the goods of the Church had to be solved, there were found by the\nside of those who directly attributed this property to God, to the\nPope, to the clergy, some who pointed out the poor as being the real\nproprietors. It is true that this opinion was not the most conformable\nto the principles of law; but the mere fact of its appearing on the\nfield of controversy is a matter for grave consideration.\n\n\nNOTE 24, p. 196.\n\nA few reflections, in the form of a note, on a certain maxim of\ntoleration professed by a philosopher of the last century, Rousseau,\nwould not be out of place here; but the analogy of the following\nchapter with that which we have just finished induces us to reserve\nthem for note 25. The considerations to which the opinion of Rousseau\nwill lead, apply to the question of toleration in religious matters, as\nwell as to the right of coercion exercised by the civil and political\npower; I therefore beg my reader to reserve for the following note the\nattention which he might be willing to afford me now.\n\n\nNOTE 25, p. 203.\n\nFor the purpose of clearing up ideas on toleration as far as lay\nin my power, I have presented this matter in a point of view but\nlittle known; in order to throw still more light upon it, I will say\na few words on religious and civil intolerance,--things which are\nentirely different, although Rousseau absolutely affirms the contrary.\nReligious or theological intolerance consists in the conviction,\nthat the only true religion is the Catholic,--a conviction common to\nall Catholics. Civil intolerance consists in not allowing in society\nany other religions than the Catholic. These two definitions are\nsufficient to make every man of common sense understand that the two\nkinds of intolerance are not inseparable; indeed, we may very easily\nconceive that men firmly convinced of the truth of Catholicity may\ntolerate those who profess another religion, or none at all. Religious\nintolerance is an act of the mind, an act inseparable from faith;\nindeed, whoever has a firm belief that his own religion is true,\nmust necessarily be convinced that it is the only true one; for the\ntruth is one. Civil intolerance is an act whereby the will rejects\nthose who do not profess the same religion; this act has different\nresults, according as the intolerance is in the individuals or in\nthe government. On the other hand, religious tolerance consists in\nbelieving that all religions are true; which, when rightly understood,\nmeans that none are true, since it is impossible for contradictory\nthings to be true at the same time. Civil tolerance is, to allow men\nwho entertain a different religion to live in peace. This tolerance,\nas well as the co-relative intolerance, produces different effects,\naccording as it exists in individuals or in the government.\n\nThis distinction, which, from its clearness and simplicity, is within\nthe reach of the most ordinary minds, has nevertheless been mistaken\nby Rousseau, who affirms that it is a vain fiction, a chimera, which\ncannot be realized, and that the two kinds of intolerance cannot be\nseparated from each other. Rousseau might have been content with\nobserving, that religious intolerance, that is to say, as I have\nexplained above, the firm conviction that a religion is true, if it is\ngeneral in a country, must produce, in the ordinary intercourse of life\nas well as in legislation, a certain tendency not to tolerate any one\nwho thinks differently, principally when those who dissent are very\nlimited in number; his observation would then have been well founded,\nand would have agreed with the opinion which I have expressed on this\npoint, when I attempted to represent the natural course of ideas and\nevents in this matter. But Rousseau does not consider things under this\naspect: desiring to attack Catholicity, he affirms that the two kinds\nof intolerance are inseparable; \"for,\" says he, \"it is impossible to\nlive in peace with those whom one believes to be damned; to love them\nwould be to hate God, who punishes them.\" It is impossible to carry\nmisrepresentation further: who told Rousseau that the Catholics believe\nin the damnation of any man, whoever he may be, as long as he lives;\nand that they think that to love a man who is in error would be to\nhate God? On the contrary, could he be ignorant that it is a duty, an\nindispensable precept, a dogma, for Catholics to love all men? Could\nhe be ignorant that even children, in the first rudiments of Christian\ndoctrine, learn that we are obliged to love our neighbor as ourselves,\nand that by this word neighbor is meant whoever has gained heaven,\nor may gain it; so that no man, so long as he lives, is excluded\nfrom this number? But Rousseau will say, you are at least convinced\nthat those who die in that fatal state are condemned. Rousseau does\nnot observe that we think exactly the same with respect to sinners,\nalthough their sin be not that of heresy; now, it has not come into\nthe head of any body that good Catholics cannot tolerate sinners, and\nthat they consider themselves under the obligation of hating them.\nWhat religion shows more eagerness to convert the wicked? The Catholic\nChurch is so far from teaching that we ought to hate them, that she\ncauses to be repeated a thousand times, in pulpits, in books, and in\nconversations, those words whereby God shows that it is His will that\nsinners shall not perish, that He wills that they shall be converted\nand live, that there is more joy in heaven when one of them has\ndone penance, than upon the ninety-nine just who need not penance.\nAnd let it not be imagined that the man who thus expresses himself\nagainst the intolerance of Catholics was the partizan of complete\ntoleration; on the contrary, in society, such as he imagined it, he\ndid not desire toleration for those who did not belong to the religion\nwhich the civil power thought proper to establish. It is true that\nhe is not at all anxious that the citizens should belong to the true\nreligion. \"Laying aside,\" he says, \"political considerations, let us\nreturn to the right, and let us lay down principles on this important\npoint. The right which the social pact gives to the sovereign over\nhis subject does not exceed, as I have said, the bounds of public\nutility. Subjects, therefore, are accountable to their sovereign for\ntheir opinions, inasmuch as those opinions are of importance to the\ncommunity. Now, it is of great importance to the state, that every\ncitizen should have a religion which shall make him love his duties;\nbut the dogmas of that religion interest the state and its members only\ninasmuch as those dogmas affect morality and the duties which those who\nprofess it are bound to perform towards others. As for the rest, each\none may have what opinions he pleases, without being subject to the\ncognizance of the sovereign, for he has no power in the other world;\nit is not his affair what may be the lot of his subjects in the life\nto come, provided they be good citizens in this. There is, therefore,\na profession of faith purely civil, the articles whereof it belongs to\nthe sovereign to fix, not exactly as dogmas of religion, but as social\nsentiments, without which it is impossible to be a good citizen or\na faithful subject. Without being able to compel any one to believe\nthem, it can banish from the state him who does not believe them; it\ncan banish him, not as wicked, but as anti-social, as incapable of\nsincerely loving the laws and justice, and of sacrificing his life to\nhis duty. If any one, after having publicly acknowledged these dogmas,\nconducts himself as if he did not believe them, let him be punished\nwith death; he has committed the greatest of crimes, he has lied\nagainst the laws.\" (_Du Contrat Social_, l. iv. c. 8.)\n\nSuch, then, is the final result of the toleration of Rousseau, viz.\nto give to the sovereign the power of fixing articles of faith, to\ngrant to him the right of punishing with banishment, or even death,\nthose who will not conform to the decisions of this new Pope, or\nwho shall violate after having embraced them. However strange the\ndoctrine of Rousseau may appear, it is not excluded from the general\nsystem of those who do not acknowledge the supremacy of authority in\nreligious matters. When this supremacy is to be attributed to the\nCatholic Church, or its head, it is rejected; and, by the most striking\ncontradiction, it is granted to the civil power. It is very singular\nthat Rousseau, when banishing or putting to death the man who quits the\nreligion fashioned by the sovereign, does not wish him to be punished\nas impious, but as anti-social. Rousseau, following an impulse very\nnatural in him, did not wish that impiety should be at all taken into\naccount when punishments were to be inflicted; but of what consequence\nis the name given to his crime to the man who is banished or put to\ndeath? In the same chapter, he allows an expression to escape him,\nwhich reveals at once the object which he had in view in all this show\nof philosophy: \"Whoever dares to affirm that _out of the Church there\nis no salvation_, ought to be driven from the state.\" Which means, in\nother words, that toleration ought to be given to all except Catholics.\nIt has been said, that the _Contrat Social_ was the code of the French\nrevolution; and, indeed, the latter did not forget what the tolerant\nlegislator has prescribed with respect to Catholics. Few persons\nnow venture to declare themselves the disciples of the philosopher\nof Geneva, although some of his timid partisans still lavish on him\nunmeasured eulogies. Let us have sufficient confidence in the good\nsense of the human race, to hope that all posterity, with a unanimous\nvoice, will confirm the stamp of ignominy with which all men of sense\nhave already marked that turbulent sophist, the impudent author of the\n_Confessions_.\n\nWhen comparing Protestantism with Catholicity, I was obliged to\ntreat of intolerance, as it is one of the reproaches which are most\nfrequently made against the Catholic religion; but my respect for truth\ncompels me to state, that all Protestants have not preached universal\ntoleration; and that many of them have acknowledged the right of\nchecking and punishing certain errors. Grotius, Puffendorf, and some\nmore of the wisest men that Protestantism can boast of, are agreed on\nthis point; therein they have followed the example of all antiquity,\nwhich, in theory as well as in practice, has constantly conformed to\nthese principles. A cry has been raised against the intolerance of\nCatholics, as if they had been the first to teach it to the world;\nas if intolerance was a cursed monster, which was engendered only\nwhere the Catholic Church prevailed. In default of any other reason,\ngood faith at least required that it should not be forgotten that the\nprinciple of universal toleration was never acknowledged in any part\nof the world; the books of philosophers, and the codes of legislators,\ncontain the principle of intolerance with more or less rigor. Whether\nit were desired to condemn this principle as false, or to limit it, or\nto leave it without application, it is clear that an accusation ought\nnot to have been made against the Catholic Church in particular, on\naccount of a doctrine and conduct, wherein she only conformed to the\nexample of the whole human race. Refined as well as barbarous nations\nwould be culpable therein, if there were any crime; and the stigma,\nfar from deserving to fall upon governments directed by Catholicity,\nor on Catholic writers, ought to be inflicted on all the governments\nof antiquity, including those of Greece and Rome; on all the ancient\nsages, including Plato, Cicero, and Seneca; on modern governments and\nsages, including Protestants. If men had had this present to their\nminds, the doctrine would not have appeared so erroneous, nor the facts\nso black; they would have seen that intolerance, as old as the world,\nwas not the invention of Catholics, and that the whole world, ought to\nbear the responsibility of it.\n\nAssuredly the toleration which, in our days, has become so general,\nfrom causes previously pointed out, will not be affected by the\ndoctrines, more or less severe, more or less indulgent, which shall be\nproclaimed in this matter; but for the very reason, that intolerance,\nsuch as it was practised in other times, has at last become a mere\nhistorical fact, whereof no one can fear the reappearance, it is proper\nto enter into an attentive examination of questions of this kind, in\norder to remove the reproach which her enemies have attempted to cast\nupon the Catholic Church.\n\nThe recollection of the encyclical letter of the Pope against the\ndoctrines of M. de Lamennais, and the profound wisdom contained\ntherein appropriately presents itself here. That writer maintained\nthat universal toleration, the absolute liberty of worship, is the\nnormal and legitimate state of society,--a state which cannot be\nchanged without injury to the rights of the man and the citizen. M. de\nLamennais, combating the encyclical letter, attempted to show that it\nestablished new doctrines, and attacked the liberty of nations. No; the\nPope, in his encyclical letter, does not maintain any other doctrines\nthan those which have been professed up to this time by the Church--we\nmay say by all governments--with respect to toleration. No government\ncan sustain itself if it is refused the right of repressing doctrines\ndangerous to social order, whether those doctrines are covered with\nthe mantle of philosophy, or disguised under the veil of religion. The\nliberty of man is not thereby assailed; for the only liberty which is\nworthy of the name, is liberty in conformity with reason. The Pope did\nnot say that governments cannot, in certain cases, tolerate different\nreligions; but he did not allow it to be established as a principle,\nthat absolute toleration is an obligation on all governments. This\nproposition is contrary to sound religious doctrines, to reason, to\nthe practice of all governments, in all times and countries, and the\ngood sense of mankind. The talent and eloquence of the unfortunate\nauthor have not availed against this, and the Pope has obtained the\nmost solemn assent of all sensible men of all creeds; while the man\nof genius, covering his brow with the shades of obstinacy, has not\nfeared to seize upon the ignoble arms of sophistry. Unhappy genius! who\nscarcely preserves a shadow of himself, who has folded up the splendid\nwings on which he sailed through the azure sky, and now, like a bird of\nevil omen, broods over the impure waters of a solitary lake.\n\n\nNOTE 26, p. 219.\n\nWhen speaking of the Spanish Inquisition, I do not undertake to\ndefend all its acts either in point of justice, or of the public\nadvantage. Without denying the peculiar circumstances in which this\ninstitution was placed, I think that it would have done much better,\nafter the example of the Inquisition of Rome, to avoid as much as\npossible the effusion of blood. It might have perfectly watched over\nthe preservation of the faith, prevented the evils wherewith religion\nwas threatened by the Moors and the Jews, and preserved Spain from\nProtestantism, without employing that excessive rigor, which drew upon\nit the severe and deserved reprimands and admonitions of the Sovereign\nPontiffs, provoked the complaints of the people, made so many accused\nand condemned persons appeal to Rome, and furnished the adversaries\nof Catholicity with a pretext for charging _that_ religion with being\nsanguinary which has a horror of the effusion of blood. I repeat, that\nthe Catholic religion is not responsible for any of the excesses which\nhave been committed in her name; and when men speak of the Inquisition,\nthey ought not to fix their eyes principally on that of Spain, but on\nthat of Rome. There, where the Sovereign Pontiff resides, and where\nthey best understand how the principle of intolerance should be\nunderstood, and what use ought to be made of it, the Inquisition has\nbeen mild and indulgent in the extreme. Rome is the part of the world\nwhere humanity has suffered the least for the sake of religion; and\nthat, without the exception of any countries, either of those where\nthe Inquisition has existed, or of those where it has been unknown; of\nthose where Catholicity has been predominant, or where Protestantism\nhas triumphed. This fact, which cannot be denied, should suffice to\nconvince every sincere man what is the spirit of Catholicity in this\nmatter.\n\nI make these remarks in order to show my impartiality, to prove that\nI am not ignorant of evils, and that I do not hesitate to admit them\nwherever I find them. Notwithstanding this, I am desirous that the\nfacts and the observations contained in the text, as well with respect\nto the Inquisition itself, and to the different epochs of its duration,\nas to the policy of the kings who founded and established it, shall not\nbe forgotten. The same desire makes me transcribe here a few documents\nlikely to throw a stronger light upon this important subject. In the\nfirst place, I will quote the preamble of the Pragmatic Sanction of\nthe Catholic princes Ferdinand and Isabella, for the expulsion of the\nJews; we there find stated in a few words, the outrages which the Jews\ninflicted on religion, and the dangers with which they threatened the\nstate.\n\n\"Book viii. chap. 2, second law of the new _Recopilacion_. Don\nFerdinand and Donna Isabella, at Granada, 30th March, 1492. Pragmatic\nSanction.\n\n\"Having been informed that there existed in these kingdoms bad\nChristians, who judaized and apostatized from our holy Catholic faith,\nwhereof the communication between the Jews and Christians was in great\npart the cause, we ordained, in the Cortes held by us in Toledo, in\n1480, that the Jews in all the cities, towns, and other places of\nour kingdoms and lordships, should be confined in the Juiferies and\nplaces appointed for them to live and dwell in, hoping that this\nseparation would serve as a remedy; we also provided and gave orders\nthat an Inquisition should be appointed in our said kingdoms; which\nInquisition, as you know, is and has been practised for more than\ntwelve years, and has discovered a great number of delinquents, as\nis notorious. As we have been informed by the Inquisitors, and many\nother religious persons, lay and ecclesiastical, it is certain that\ngreat injury to the Christians had been and is the result of the\nparticipation, intercourse, and communication which they have had,\nand still have, with the Jews; it has been proved that the latter, by\nall the means in their power, constantly labor to subvert the faith\nof Christians, to withdraw them from our holy Catholic faith, to lead\nthem away from it, to attract them, and to pervert them to their own\nnoxious creed and opinions; instructing them in the ceremonies and\nobservances of their own law; holding meetings to teach them what\nthey ought to believe and observe according to that law; taking care\nto circumcise them and their children, giving them books in order to\nrecite their prayers, teaching them the fasts which they ought to\nobserve, assembling to read with them, teaching them the histories of\ntheir laws; notifying to them the Paschal times before they arrive,\nadmonishing them as to what they ought to do and observe during those\ntimes; giving them, bringing for them, from their own homes, the bread\nof azimes, meats killed according to their ceremonies; instructing\nthem as to the things from which they ought to abstain, in order to\nobey the law, as well in eating as in other things; persuading them,\nas far as they can, to adopt and keep the Law of Moses, and making\nthem understand that no other law than that is true. All these things\nare certain from numerous testimonies, from the acknowledgments of the\nJews themselves, and of those who have been perverted and deceived by\nthem, which has inflicted great injury, detriment, and dishonor on our\nholy Catholic faith. Although we were already informed of these things\nfrom many quarters, and although we were aware that the real remedy\nfor all these evils and inconveniences was to place an insurmountable\nbarrier to the communication of the Jews with the Christians, and to\nbanish the Jews from our kingdoms, we wished to be satisfied with\nenjoining them to quit all the cities, towns, and places of Andalusia,\nwhere it seemed that they had done the most mischief, believing that\nthat would be enough to hinder those of the other cities, towns, and\nplaces of our kingdoms and lordships from doing and committing what has\nbeen mentioned. But being informed that this measure, as well as the\nacts of justice exercised on some of the Jews who were found guilty\nof these offences and crimes against our holy Catholic faith, do not\nsuffice to remedy the evil thoroughly; for the purpose of obviating\nand abolishing so great an opprobrium, such an offence against the\nfaith and the Christian religion, since it appears that the same Jews,\nwith a fatal ardor, redouble their perverse attempts wherever they\nlive and associate; wishing to suppress the occasion of offending more\nagainst our holy Catholic faith, as well on account of those persons\nwhom it has pleased God up to this time to preserve, as of those who,\nafter having fallen, have repented and returned to our holy mother\nthe Church; wishing to prevent the offences which, on account of the\nweakness of our human nature, and the suggestions of the devil, which\ncontinually make war on us, might easily occur, if the principal cause\nof the evil were not removed by the expulsion of the Jews from our\nkingdoms; considering, besides, that when a great and detestable crime\nhas been committed by some members of a college or university, it is\nreasonable that that college or that university should be dissolved\nand destroyed, that some may be punished on account of the others, and\nthe lesser number on account of the greater; that those who pervert\nthe good and virtuous mode of life of cities and towns, by a contagion\nwhich may injure others, may be banished from those towns; and that\nif it be allowed to act thus for other slight causes prejudicial to\nthe state, there is still more reason to allow it for the greatest,\nthe most dangerous, the most contagious of crimes, that which is in\nquestion: for all these reasons we, having consulted our Council, and\ntaken the advice of some prelates,\" &c.\n\nWe are not now examining whether or not there is any exaggeration\nin these imputations against the Jews, although, according to all\nappearances, there must have been a great deal of foundation for\nthem, in consequence of the situation in which the two rival nations\nwere placed. Observe, besides, that if the preamble of the Pragmatic\nSanction is silent with respect to a hundred accusations brought\nagainst the Jews by the generality of the people, the report of these\ncrimes had not the less weight with the public; consequently, the\nsituation of the Jews was aggravated in an extraordinary degree, and\nthe princes were so much the more inclined to treat them with severity.\n\nWith respect to the mistrust with which the Moors and their descendants\nmust have been regarded, besides the facts pointed out above, others\nmight be related which show the disposition of men's minds to see\nin the presence of these men a permanent conspiracy against the\nChristians. Almost a century had elapsed since the conquest of Granada,\nand it was still feared that this kingdom might be the centre of plots\ncontrived by the Moors against the Christians, the source of perfidious\nprojects, and the place whence came the means of maltreating in all\nways the defenceless persons upon our coasts.\n\nThus spoke Philip II. in 1567:\n\n\"Book viii. chap. 2, of the new _Recopilacion_.\n\n\"Law xx., which decrees severe punishments against the inhabitants of\nthe kingdom of Granada who shall have hidden, received, or favored the\nTurks, Moors, or Jews, or given them intelligence, or corresponded with\nthem.\n\n\"D. Philip II., Madrid, 10 December, 1567.\n\n\"Having been informed that, notwithstanding what has been ordained\nby us, as well by sea as by land, particularly for the kingdom of\nGranada, for the purpose of insuring the defence and security of our\nkingdoms, the Turks, Moors, and corsairs have already committed, and\nstill commit, in the ports of this kingdom, on the coasts, in maritime\nplaces, and those bordering on the sea, robberies, misdeeds, injuries,\nand seizures of Christians; evils which are notorious, and which, it\nis said, have been, and are, committed with ease and security, by\nfavor of the intercourse and understanding which the ravishers have\nhad, and still have, with some of the inhabitants of the country, who\ngive them intelligence, guide them, receive them, hide them, and lend\nthem favor and assistance; some of them even going away with the Moors\nand Turks, leading away and carrying with them their wives, their\nchildren, their goods, Christian captives, and the things which they\nwere able to ravish from the Christians; while other inhabitants of the\nsame kingdom, who have participated in these projects, or have been\nacquainted with them, remain in the country, without having been or\nbeing punished; for it appears that measures are not executed with due\nseverity, nor as completely, or with as much care as they ought to be:\nas, moreover, it seems very difficult to get accurate information, as\nit appears that even the justices and the judges, to whom it belongs to\nmake inquiries and to punish, have displayed remissness and negligence\nin their employment;--this having been agitated and discussed in our\nCouncil, with the view of providing, as is proper in a thing of such\ngreat importance, for the service of God our Master, for our own and\nthe public good; the thing having been consulted upon by us, it has\nbeen agreed that we ought to publish this present letter,\" &c.\n\nYears passed away; the hatred between the two nations still endured; in\nspite of the numerous checks which the Mahometan race had received, the\nChristians were not satisfied. It was very probable that a nation who\nhad suffered, and might still suffer, such great humiliations, would\nattempt to avenge them. It is also by no means difficult to believe in\nthe reality of the conspiracies which were charged against the Moors.\nHowever this may be, the report of these conspiracies was general, and\nthe government was seriously alarmed by them. Those who desire a proof\nof this, may read what Philip III. said, in 1609, in the law which\nexpelled the Moriscoes.\n\n\"Book viii. chap. 2, of the new _Recopilacion_.\n\n\"Law XXV. By virtue of which the Moriscoes were banished from the\nkingdom: causes of this expulsion--means which were adopted for the\nexecution of the measure.\n\n\"D. Philip III., Madrid, 9 December, 1609.\n\n\"For a long time it has been endeavored to save the Moriscoes in these\nkingdoms: the holy office of the Inquisition has inflicted divers\npunishments; numerous edicts of mercy have been granted; neither means\nnor diligence have been spared to instruct them in our holy faith,\nwithout being able to obtain the desired result, for none of them have\nbeen converted. On the contrary, their obstinacy has increased; the\nperil which threatens our kingdoms, if we keep the Moriscoes, has been\nrepresented to us by persons very well informed and full of the fear of\nGod, who, thinking it proper that a prompt remedy should be applied to\nthis evil, have represented to us that the delay might be charged upon\nour royal conscience, considering the grave offences which our Lord\nreceives from that people. We have been assured that we might, without\nscruple, punish them in their lives and properties, since they were\nconvicted by their continued offences of being heretics, apostates,\nand traitors of _l\u00e8se-majest\u00e9_ divine and human. Although it would\nhave been allowable to proceed against them with the rigor which their\noffences deserve, nevertheless, desiring to bring them back by means of\nmildness and mercy, I ordained, in the city and kingdom of Valencia,\nan assembly of the patriarchs, and other prelates and wise men, in\norder to ascertain what could be resolved upon and settled; but having\nlearned that, at the very time they were engaged in remedying the\nevil, the Moriscoes of the said kingdom of Valencia, and of our other\ndomains, continued to urge forward their pernicious projects; knowing,\nmoreover, from correct and certain intelligence, that they had sent to\ntreat at Constantinople with the Turks, and at Morocco with the king,\nMuley Fidon, in order that there might be sent into the kingdom of\nSpain the greatest number of forces possible to aid and assist them;\nbeing sure that there would be found in our kingdom more than 150,000\nmen, as good Moors as those from the coasts of Barbary, all ready to\nassist them with their lives and fortunes, whereby they were persuaded\nof the facility of the enterprise; knowing that the same treaties have\nbeen attempted with heretics and other princes our enemies: considering\nall that we have just said, and to fulfill the obligation which we are\nunder of preserving and maintaining the holy Roman Catholic faith in\nour kingdoms, as well as the security, peace, and repose of the said\nkingdoms, with the counsel and advice of learned men, and others, very\nzealous for the service of God and for our own, we ordain that all the\nMoriscoes, inhabitants of these kingdoms, men, women, and children, of\nall conditions,\" &c.\n\nI have said that the Popes labored, from the commencement, to soften\nthe rigors of the Spanish Inquisition, sometimes by admonishing the\nkings and inquisitors, sometimes by giving the accused and condemned a\nright of appeal. The kings feared that the religious innovations would\nproduce a public disturbance; I add, that their policy embarrassed\nthe Popes, and prevented them from carrying as far as they would have\nwished their measures of mildness and indulgence. Among the other\ndocuments which support this assertion, I will cite one which proves\nthe irritation of the Spanish kings at the assistance which the accused\nfound at Rome.\n\n\"Book viii. chap. 3, law 2, of the new _Recopilacion_, enjoining\npersons condemned by the Inquisition, and absent from these kingdoms,\nnot to return there under pain of death and losing their goods.\n\n\"D. Ferdinand and D. Isabella, at Saragossa, 2d August, 1498. Pragmatic\nSanction.\n\n\"Some persons condemned as heretics by the Inquisition have absented\nthemselves from our kingdoms, and have gone to other countries,\nwhere, by means of false reports and undue formalities, they have\nsurreptitiously obtained exemptions, absolutions, mandates, securities,\nand other privileges, in order to be exempt from the condemnations and\npunishments which they had incurred, and to remain in their errors,\nwhich, nevertheless, does not prevent their attempting to return to\nthese kingdoms, wherefore, wishing to extirpate so great an evil, we\ncommand these condemned persons not to be so bold as to return. Let\nthem not return into our kingdoms and lordships, by any way, in any\nmanner, for any cause or reason whatsoever, under pain of death and\nthe loss of their goods; which punishment we will and ordain to be\nincurred by the act itself. One-third of the property shall be for the\npersons who shall have denounced, another for the courts, and the third\nfor our exchequer. Whenever the said justices, in their own places\nand jurisdiction, shall know that any of the said persons are in any\npart of their jurisdiction, we order all and each of them, without\nexception, to go to the place where such persons are, without being\notherwise called upon, to apprehend them forcibly and immediately,\nand without delay to execute, and cause to be executed, on them and\ntheir properties the punishments which we have appointed; and this\nnotwithstanding all exemption, reconciliation, securities, and other\nprivileges which they may have, these privileges, in the present case,\nand with respect to the said penalties, not availing them. We order\nthem to do and accomplish this under pain of the loss and confiscation\nof all their property. The same penalty shall be incurred by all other\npersons who shall have hidden or received the said condemned persons,\nand who knowing that they were so, shall not have given information\nto our courts. We order all great men and councillors, and other\npersons of our kingdoms, to give favor and assistance to our courts,\nwhenever it shall be demanded and required from them, to accomplish and\nexecute what has been said above, under the penalties which the courts\nthemselves shall appoint on this subject.\"\n\nWe see from this document, that, after the year 1498, things had\nreached such a point, that the kings attempted to maintain against\nevery one all the rigor of the Inquisition, and that they were offended\nthat the Popes interfered to soften it. It will be understood thereby\nwhence proceeded the harshness with which the guilty were treated; and\nthis shows us one of the causes which made the Inquisition sometimes\nuse its power with excessive severity. Although it was not a mere\ninstrument of the policy of kings, as some have said, the Inquisition\nfelt more or less the influence of that policy; and we know that\npolicy, when about to defeat an adversary, does not commonly display an\nexcess of compassion. If the Spanish Inquisition had been at that time\nunder the exclusive authority and direction of the Popes, it would have\nbeen infinitely milder and more moderate in its method of acting.\n\nAt that time the object ardently desired by the kings of Spain was, to\nobtain that the judgments of the Inquisition should be definitive in\nSpain, without appeal to Rome; Queen Isabella had expressly demanded\nthis of the Pope. The Sovereign Pontiffs would not accede to these\nsolicitations, no doubt fearing the abuse which might be made of so\nfearful an arm when the restraint of the moderating power should become\nwanting.\n\nIt will be understood from the facts which I have just quoted, how much\nreason I had to say that, if you excuse the conduct of Ferdinand and\nIsabella with respect to the Inquisition, you must not condemn that\nof Philip II., since the Catholic sovereigns showed themselves still\nmore harsh and severe than the latter monarch. I have already pointed\nout the reason why the conduct of Philip II. has been so rigorously\ncondemned; but it is also necessary to show why there has been a sort\nof obstinacy in excusing that of Ferdinand and Isabella.\n\nWhen it is wished to falsify an historical fact by calumniating a\nperson or an institution, it is necessary to begin with an affectation\nof impartiality and good faith; great success is obtained in this\nby manifesting indulgence for the same thing which it is desired\nto condemn, but taking care that this indulgence has strongly the\nappearance of being a concession gratuitously made to our adversaries,\nor of a sacrifice of our opinions, of our feelings, on the altars\nof reason and justice, which are our guide and our idol. We thus\npredispose our hearers or readers to regard the condemnation which\nwe are about to pronounce as a judgment dictated by the strictest\njustice; a judgment in which neither passion, nor partiality, nor\nperverse views, have any part. How can we doubt the good faith, the\nlove of truth, the impartiality of the man who begins by excusing what,\naccording to all appearances, and considering his opinions, ought to\nbe the object of his anathemas? Such is the situation of the men of\nwhom we speak. They intended to attack the Inquisition; now it happened\nthat the protectress, and, in some sort, the foundress of that tribunal\nwas Queen Isabella,--that distinguished name which Spaniards have\nalways pronounced with respect, that immortal queen, one of the noblest\nornaments of our history. What was to be done in this difficulty? The\nmeans were simple. Although the Jews and heretics had been treated\nwith the greatest severity in the time of the Catholic sovereigns, and\nalthough they had carried severity further than all those who have\nsucceeded them, it was necessary to close the eye to these facts, to\nexcuse the conduct of these sovereigns, and to point out the important\nmatters which urged them to employ the rigors of justice. They thus\navoided the difficulty,--for it was one to cast a stigma on the memory\nof a great queen cherished and respected by all Spaniards,--and they\nthus prepared the way for merciless accusations against Philip II. That\nmonarch had the unanimous cry of all Protestants against him, for the\nsimple reason that he had been their most powerful adversary; it would\ntherefore cost nothing to make all the weight of execration fall upon\nhim. The enigma is thus explained. Such is the cause of a partiality so\nunjust,--such is the hypocrisy of that opinion which, while excusing\nthe Catholic sovereigns, condemns Philip II. without appeal.\n\nI have not attempted to justify the policy of this monarch in all\nrespects; but I have presented a few considerations which may serve to\nmitigate the violent attacks made upon him by his adversaries: it only\nremains for me to transcribe here the documents to which I alluded when\nI said that the Inquisition was not a mere instrument of the policy of\nPhilip II., and that this prince did not intend to establish a system\nof _obscurantisme_ in Spain.\n\nDon Antonio Perez, in his _Relations_, gives a letter of the confessor\nof the king, Fray Diego de Chaves, in which letter the latter affirms\nthat the secular prince has power over the lives of his subjects and\nvassals, and adds in a note: \"I shall not undertake to relate all that\nI have heard said on the subject of the condemnation of some of these\npropositions; this is not within my province. Those who are concerned\nin this will at once understand the import of my words. I shall\ncontent myself with saying that, at the time when I was at Madrid, the\nInquisition condemned the following proposition: a preacher--it matters\nnot that I should mention his name--maintained in a sermon, at St.\nJerome's, in Madrid, in presence of the Catholic king, _that kings have\nan absolute power over the persons of their subjects, as well as over\ntheir properties_. Besides some other separate matters, the preacher\nwas condemned to retract this publicly, in the same place, with all\nthe ceremonies of a juridical act, which he did in the same pulpit,\nsaying that he had advanced such a proposition on such a day, and that\nhe retracted it as erroneous. 'For, messieurs,' said he, reading\nliterally from a paper, '_kings have no other power over their subjects\nthan what is given them by the divine and human law; they have none\nproceeding from their own free and absolute will_.' I even know who\ncondemned the proposition, and appointed the words which the accused,\nto the great gratification of the former, was obliged to pronounce;\nindeed, he rejoiced to see torn up so poisonous a weed, which he felt\nwas increasing, as the event proved. Master Fray Hernando del Castillo\n(I will mention his name) was the one who prescribed what the accused\nwas to say; he was consultee of the holy office, and preacher to the\nking; he was a man of singular learning and eloquence, very well known\nand esteemed by his own nation, and especially by the Italians. Dr.\nVelasco, an important personage of that time, said of him, that the\nguitar in the hands of Fabricio Dentici was not so sweet as the tongue\nof Master Fray Hernandez del Castillo to the ears of those who heard\nhim.\" And at page 47 in the text: \"I know,\" says Don Antonio Perez,\n\"that they were denominated very scandalous by persons very important\nby their rank, their learning, and their Christian purity of heart;\nthere was one among them who had held supreme rank in the spiritual\norder in Spain, and had previously filled an office in the tribunal\nof the Inquisition.\" Perez afterwards says, that this person was the\nnuncio of his Holiness. (_Relaciones de Anton. Perez._ Paris, 1624.)\n\nThe letter of Philip II. to Doctor D. Benito Arias Montano contains the\nfollowing, in addition to the remarkable passage which we have quoted.\n\n\"Concerning what you, Dr. &c., my chaplain, will have to do at Antwerp,\nwhither we send you. Dated at Madrid, 25th March, 1568.\n\n\"Besides that you will render this good office and service to the said\nPlantinus, know that, from this time, in proportion as the six thousand\ncrowns are recovered from his hands, I apply them to buy books for the\nmonastery of St. Laurent-le-Royal, of the order of St. Jerome, which\nI am building near the Escurial, as you know. Thus you are admonished\nthat such is my intention; you will comply with this, and will be\ndiligent in collecting all the choice books, printed and MS., that your\nexcellent discernment shall think proper, in order to bring them and\nplace them in the library of the said monastery. Indeed, it is one of\nthe chief possessions which I would wish to leave to the religious who\nare intended to dwell there, for it is the most useful and necessary.\nWherefore I have also commanded my ambassador in France, D. Francis\nde Alaba, to collect the best books which he shall be able in that\nkingdom: you will communicate with him on that subject. I will direct\nhim to communicate in writing also with you, to send you a list of the\nbooks which are to be had, as well as their price, before buying them;\nyou will advise him as to which he had better take or leave, and what\nhe may give for such. He will send to you at Antwerp those which he has\nthus bought; you will acknowledge them, and forward them here, all at\nonce, at the proper time.\"\n\nDuring the reign of Philip II.,--of that prince who is represented\nto us as one of the principal authors of _obscurantisme_,--choice\nworks, both printed and MS., were sought in foreign countries, in order\nto enrich the Spanish libraries; in our age, which we call that of\nenlightenment, the libraries of Spain have been plundered, and their\ntreasures have gone to add to those of foreigners. Who is ignorant\nof the collections which have been made of our books and MS., in\nEngland? Consult the catalogues of the British Museum and other private\nlibraries. The author of these lines states only what he has seen with\nhis own eyes--what he has heard lamented by persons worthy of respect.\nWhile we show so much negligence in preserving our treasures, let us\nnot be so unjust and so puerile as to lose our time in vain declamation\nagainst those who have bequeathed them to us.\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n _A few words on Puigblanch, Villeneuve, and Llorente._\n\nHere, in the Spanish edition, the notes relating to the Inquisition\nterminate; but I think it may not be useless in the French edition\nto add a few words, to explain the matter to my foreign readers:\nlittle versed as they are in the knowledge of our affairs, they might\noften happen to drink at corrupted sources, which they imagine to be\npure and salutary. Le Compte de Maistre, with respect to the Spanish\nInquisition, cites _L'Inquisition d\u00e9voil\u00e9e de Natana\u00ebl Jomtob_: I will\nsay a few words, lest the authority of the author who quotes should\ngive too much importance to him who is quoted. This Natana\u00ebl Jomtob\nis no other than Dr. D. Antonio Puigblanch, a Spaniard, who died not\nlong ago in London. This author, in the prologue to his works published\nin London, himself explains the reason which made him adopt a strange\nname. \"These Hebrew words,\" he says, \"are two proper significative\nnames, which, together, form the inscription, _Dedit Deus diem bonum_.\nI wished thus to express the happiness of being able to speak and write\nfreely against the tribunal of the Inquisition, and the happiness of\nseeing it abolished.\" (_Prolog._ p. cxv.)\n\nIn order that the reader may judge of the value that belongs to this\nwork, I will observe, that the first qualification in an historian,\nespecially on a matter so delicate, is complete impartiality united\nto a great fund of moderation: these two qualifications were wanting\nin M. Puigblanch, who was lamentably infected with the contrary\nfaults. It is impossible to be more violent than he is against all\nthat he meets with; his ill-humor and anger blind him; he attacks\ninstitutions and men with perfect fury; he respects nothing: add\nto this a pitiable vanity. It would be easy for me to produce here\nvarious proofs of the impiety of Puigblanch; but I should fear to soil\nmy paper by transcribing the impious satires of this man. This is\nenough to give an idea of the point of view in which he could regard\nthings relating to religious affairs and to the clergy. He misses no\nopportunity of ridiculing the ministers of religion, of indulging in\ninvectives against them, and of giving vent to the incomprehensible\nrage which he has against them. The unbecoming manner in which he\ntreats his adversaries, real or imaginary, even when they have more\nor less sympathy with his opinions, is a good apology for the things\nwhich he combats on the other hand. I cannot repeat his words here, so\ncoarse are they; besides, they attack persons who are still living;\nsuffice it to say, that not content with insulting them in the most\ndisgusting way, Puigblanch descends so low as to reproach them with\ntheir physical defects, after the manner of a market-woman. What was\nto be hoped from such a mind in a matter so important and delicate?\nWere such dispositions suitable for an historian of the Inquisition,\nwho published his work precisely in the year 1811, that is to say,\nat a time of reaction and effervescence? With respect to talent and\nknowledge, I will not refuse to M. Puigblanch either reading or\nerudition, or a certain aptitude for criticism, yet it must not be\nforgotten that his mind was far from being so cultivated as it ought\nto have been, in order to keep pace with our age. A work like his\nrequired that he should have followed the march of the times, that he\nshould not have been altogether devoid of the philosophy of history,\nthat he should not have relied exclusively upon certain books, while\naccumulating crude erudition, and incessantly perusing etymologies and\ngrammatical questions: this is what was wanting in M. Puigblanch. To\nsum up all in one sentence, I have found the following description,\nwhich I heard in London, from the mouth of a distinguished man who had\nintercourse with Puigblanch for a long time, to be perfectly correct:\n\"Puigblanch,\" he told me, \"knew what a learned man of the seventeenth\ncentury in Spain might have known.\" The Christian reader may imagine\nwhat was the result of the amalgamation of this kind of instruction\nwith all the bile of Voltairian passion.\n\nD. Joaquin Lorenzo Villanueva is another of those Spaniards who have\ndistinguished themselves by declaiming against the Inquisition; in\nhis Literary Life (_Vida Literaria_) he had asserted that the public\ninformation on this question, and the abolition of that famous\ntribunal, were in great part owing to him. Puigblanch strongly\nrecriminates against Villanueva, who attempted to usurp his glory\nby availing himself of his work without acknowledging it, and other\nsimilar things, which do as little honor to the one as to the other.\nVillanueva has been already judged in Spain by all sensible men;\nforeigners who desire to understand this question will be under the\nunpleasant obligation of reading the two large volumes in 8vo, in\nwhich he has written his literary life. The bile of Villanueva against\nall the clergy who are not of his coterie, and, above all, his hatred\nagainst Rome, show themselves at every page of his book, and from time\nto time produce explosions which are much too violent to accord with\nthe extreme mildness which he is pleased to affect. Moreover, let the\nreader prepare and arm himself with patience, if he undertake to get\nthrough these two large volumes, which contain, written by the man\nhimself, who so well deserved it, the most complete panegyric of his\nprofound knowledge, his vast erudition, his great humility, and his\nvirtues of all kinds. It certainly would have been very well, if the\nauthor, with a slight recollection of modesty, had not candidly told\nus, that they went so far as to call him the _father of the poor_,\nthat his poetic fire was not cooled by age, that his activity in labor\ndid not allow him to remain idle, even in the midst of the greatest\npersecutions; in fine, if he had not undertaken to make us believe\nthat all his life was a continual sacrifice on the altars of knowledge\nand virtue. To those who desire to derive their information from\nVillanueva, we have a right to say: Do not forget that you must beware\nof believing all--that the tree is known by its fruits--that the wolf\noften assumes sheep's clothing.\n\nAmong those who have made the most noise with respect to the\nInquisition, is Llorente, the author of a history of that famous\ninstitution. The impartiality which may be expected from this writer\nshows itself every moment in his book, which has evidently been written\nfor the purpose of blackening, as much as possible, the Catholic clergy\nand the Holy See. Happily the author has made himself too well known\nby his other works, for any Catholic to allow himself to be deceived\nby his insidious writings. No one, especially in Spain, is ignorant\nof the project of the religious constitution with which Llorente\nattempted to disturb consciences, and introduce schism and heresy into\nour country. Does he who attempts to destroy the universal discipline\nestablished from the earliest ages, who expresses doubts on the most\nsacred mysteries of our holy religion, who contests the infallible\nauthority of the Church, and does not hold the first four \u0152cumenical\nCouncils to be legitimate, deserve the least credit when writing\nthe history of the Inquisition,--that history which affords so many\nopportunities of declaiming against the clergy and against Rome? Here\nis a proof of his impartiality. In his history of the Inquisition, he\ncould not avoid relating the conduct of the Apostolic See in the early\ntimes of the Inquisition in Spain, and the efforts made by the Holy See\nfor the purpose of softening the rigors of that tribunal, the appeals\nwhich were made, and the merciful judgments which were almost always\nobtained at Rome; all these facts clearly showed that Rome, far from\nbeing, as he pretended, a monster of cruelty, was rather a model of\nmildness and prudence. How do you think he gets out of this difficulty?\nBy saying, that what the Court of Rome wanted was, to extort money from\nus. An explanation as unworthy as it is impudent--an odious means of\ndepriving the most beneficent and generous actions of their lustre, and\nwhich shows a fixed design to find evil every where, even to the extent\nof assigning evil motives for benefits which are the most worthy of\ngratitude.\n\nWith respect to Llorente, I am unwilling to pass over in silence a\nremarkable fact which he has had the kindness to communicate to the\npublic in the same work. King Joseph, the intruder, intrusted Llorente,\nby express orders, with the archives of the Supreme Council and the\nTribunal of the Inquisition of the capital. This excellent man was so\nperfect an archivist, that he burnt all the reports of proceedings,\nwith the approbation of his master (as he himself tells us), with the\nexception of those which could appertain to history, by the celebrity\nor the renown of the persons who figured in them, such as those of\nCaranza, of Macanaz, and a few others; although he preserved entire,\nhe adds, the registers of the decisions of the Council, the royal\nordinances, and the bulls and briefs from Rome. (Edition Fran\u00e7aise,\n1818, t. 4, p. 145.) After having heard this remarkable confession, we\nwill ask every impartial man, whether there is not room for greatly\nmistrusting an historian who claims to be sole and _unique_, because he\nhas had the opportunity of consulting the original documents whereon\nhe founds his history, and who, nevertheless, burns and destroys these\nsame documents? Was there no place to be found in Madrid to place them,\nwhere they could be examined by those who, after Llorente, might wish\nto write the history of the Inquisition from the original documents?\nLlorente has preserved, he tells us, those which belonged to history;\nbut the history of the Inquisition had equally need of others, even the\nmost obscure--even the most apparently insignificant; for it not seldom\nhappens that a fact, a circumstance, a word, shows us an institution,\nand paints for us an age. And observe, that this destruction took\nplace at a critical moment of public disturbance, when the whole\nnation, devoted to an immortal struggle in defence of her independence,\ncould not fix her attention on such matters. The most remarkable\nmen, scattered on all sides, then led their fellow-citizens in arms,\nor were engaged in the most important interests of the country;\nconsequently they could not watch over the conduct of an archivist,\nwho, after having left his brethren, whose blood was flowing upon the\nbattle-field, accepted employment under a foreign intruder, and burned\nthe documents of an institution whereof he undertook to write the\nhistory.\n\n\nNOTE 27, p. 281.\n\nThe plan of my work required that questions relating to the religious\ncommunities should be examined at some length but it did not allow me\nto give to this matter all the development of which it is susceptible.\nIndeed, it would be possible, in my opinion, in writing the history of\nreligious communities, to give side by side that of the nations among\nwhom these communities arose, so as to show in detail a truth we have\nnow proved, viz. that the establishment of religious institutions,\nbesides the superior and divine object which they have had in view,\nhas been at all times the fulfilment of a social and religious\nnecessity. Although my strength does not enable me to aspire to such\nan enterprise, by which the courage may well be daunted, even by\ncontemplating the immense extent of such a work, I wish to suggest the\nidea of it here; perhaps a man may be found with sufficient capacity,\nlearning, and leisure, to undertake it, and enrich our age with this\nnew monument of history and philosophy. By conceiving the plan in this\npoint of view, and making it subordinate to this unity of object,\nwhereof the foundation, which shows itself in well-known facts, is\ndiscovered in obscure and conjectured in hidden ones, there would be no\ndifficulty in giving all desirable variety to this work. The subject\nitself leads to variety; for it invites the writer to descend to\nextremely interesting particulars, which will be like the episodes of\na grand and unique poem. The disposition of men's minds, now become\nfavorable to religious institutions, thanks to the deceptions which are\nthe consequence of vain theories, and to the lessons of experience,\nwhich destroy the calumnies invented by philosophy, render the road\nevery day more easy. The path is already sufficiently beaten; it is\nonly required to enlarge and extend it, in order to conduct a greater\nnumber of men towards the region of truth.\n\nHaving pointed out this, it only remains for me to state here, in\nconclusion, divers facts which could not be given in the text, and\nwhich I have preferred to collect in a note. As these facts belonged to\nthe same subject, it appeared to me proper to collect them apart, while\nleaving the reader to pay full attention to the observations which form\nthe body of my work.\n\nThere were known among the pagans, under the name of ascetics, persons\nwho devoted themselves to abstinence and the practice of the austere\nvirtues; so that, even before Christianity, there already existed the\nidea of those virtues which have been since exercised in Christianity.\nThe lives of the philosophers are full of examples which prove the\ntruth of my assertion. Yet it will be understood that, deprived of the\nlight of faith and the aid of grace, the pagan philosophers afforded\nbut a very faint shadow of what was afterwards realized in the lives\nof the Christian ascetics. We have stated that the monastic life is\nfounded on the Gospel, inasmuch as the Gospel contains asceticism. From\nthe foundation of the Church we see the monastic life established under\none form or another. Origen tells us of certain men, who, in order to\nreduce their bodies into subjection, abstained from eating meat and\nfrom all that had life. (Origen, _Contr. Celsum_, lib. v.) Tertullian\nmakes mention of some Christians who abstained from marriage, not\nbecause they condemned it, but in order to gain the kingdom of heaven.\n(Tertul. _De Cult. Femin._ lib. ii.)\n\nIt is remarkable, that the weaker sex participated in a singular manner\nin that strength of mind which Christianity communicated for the\nexercise of the heroic virtues. In the early ages of the Church there\nwere already reckoned, in great numbers, virgins and widows consecrated\nto the Lord, bound by a vow of perpetual chastity; and we see that\nspecial care was taken in the ancient Councils of the Church of that\nchosen portion of her flock. It is one of the objects of the solicitude\nof the Fathers to regulate discipline on this point in a proper manner.\nThe virgins made their public profession in the church; they received\nthe veil from the hands of the bishop, and, for greater solemnity, they\nwere distinguished by a kind of consecration. This ceremony required a\ncertain age in the person who was consecrated to God; we also observe\nthat discipline has been very different on this point. In the East\nthey received persons seventeen years old, and even sixteen, as we\nlearn from St. Basil (_Epist._ can. 18); in Africa at twenty-five,\nas we see from the fourth canon of the third Council of Carthage; in\nFrance at forty, as appears from the nineteenth canon of the Council\nof Agde. Even when the virgins and widows dwelt in the houses of\ntheir fathers, they did not cease to be reckoned among ecclesiastical\npersons; they received the support of the Church by this title, in\ncases of necessity. If they violated their vow of chastity, they were\nexcommunicated, and could not return to the communion of the faithful,\nexcept by submitting to public penance. (For these details, see the\nthirty-third canon of the third Council of Carthage, the nineteenth\ncanon of the Council of Ancyra, and the sixteenth canon of that of\nChalcedon.)\n\nIn the first three centuries, the state of the Church, subject to an\nalmost continual persecution, must naturally have hindered persons who\nloved the ascetic life, men or women, from assembling in the towns to\nobserve it in common. Some think that the propagation of the ascetic\nlife in the desert is in great part due to the persecution of Decius,\nwhich was very cruel in Egypt, and made a great number of Christians\nretire into the deserts of the Thebais, or other solitudes in the\nneighbourhood. Thus commenced the establishment of that method of life\nwhich, in the end, was to gain so prodigious an extension. St. Paul, if\nwe are to believe St. Jerome, was the founder of the solitary life.\n\nIt appears that some abuses were introduced into the monastic life from\nthe earliest ages, as we see certain monks detested at Rome in the time\nof Jerome. _Quousque genus detestabile monacorum urbe non pellitur_,\nsays the saint by the mouth of the Romans in a letter to Paula; but\nthe reputation of the monks, which had perhaps been compromised by the\nSaraba\u00eftes and the Gyrovagues, a kind of vagabonds whose last care\nwas the practice of the virtues of their state, and who indulged in\ngluttony and other pleasures with shameful licentiousness, was soon\nrestored. St. Athanasius, St. Jerome himself, St. Martin, and other\ncelebrated men, among whom St. Bennet distinguished himself in a\nparticular manner, renewed the splendor of the monastic life by the\nmost eloquent apology, that which consisted in giving, as they did, the\nmost sublime example of the most austere virtues.\n\nIt is remarkable that, in spite of the multiplication of monks in\nthe east and west, they were not divided into different orders, so\nthat, during the first six centuries, all, as Mabillon observes,\nwere considered as forming one institute. There was something noble\nin this unity, which, as it were, formed all the monasteries into\none family; but it must be acknowledged that the diversity of orders\nafterwards introduced was essentially calculated to attain the various\nand numerous objects which successively attracted the attention of\nreligious institutions.\n\nThe discipline, by virtue whereof no new order could be instituted\nwithout the previous approbation of the sovereign Pontiff, it may be\nsaid, was very necessary, considering the ardor which afterwards urged\nmany persons to establish new institutions; so that, without this\nprudent check, disorder would have been introduced in consequence of\nthe exaggerated transports which urged some imaginations to exceed all\nbounds.\n\nSome people take delight in relating the excesses into which some\nindividuals of the mendicant orders fell; and they borrow the\nnarratives of Matthew Paris, without forgetting the lamentations of\nSt. Bonaventura himself. I wish not to excuse evil, wherever it is\nfound; but I will observe, that the circumstances of the times when\nthe mendicant orders were established, and the kind of life they were\nobliged to embrace, in order to fulfill the purpose for which they were\nintended, as I have pointed out in the text, rendered almost inevitable\nthose evils which pious men sincerely deplored, and which the enemies\nof the Church lament with no less affectation than exaggeration.\n\n\nNOTE 28, p. 305.\n\nI have already shown, by numerous testimonies of scholastic\ntheologians, how the divine origin of the civil power is to be\nunderstood; and it is evident that it contains nothing but what is\nperfectly conformable to sound reason, and adapted, at the same\ntime, to the high aims of society. It would have been easy for me to\naccumulate testimonies; but I think I have adduced a sufficient number\nto throw light on the subject, and to satisfy every reader who, free\nfrom unjust prejudices, is sincerely desirous of listening to truth. In\norder, however, to view this subject under every aspect, I will add a\nfew explanations on that celebrated passage of St. Paul to the Romans,\nchap. xiii., in which the Apostle speaks of the origin of powers, and\nof the submission and obedience due to them. Let it not be thought,\nhowever, that I purpose attaining this end by any reasoning more or\nless specious. Whenever a passage of Scripture is to be expounded in\nits true sense, we should not rely principally upon what our wavering\nreason suggests to us, but rather upon the interpretation of the\nCatholic Church; for this reason we should consult those writers whose\nhigh authority, founded on their wisdom and their virtue, leads us to\nhope that they have not deviated from the maxim, _Quod semper, quod\nubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est_.\n\nWe have already seen a remarkable passage of St. John Chrysostom,\nexplaining this point with as much clearness as solidity; we have\nalso learned, from the testimony of the Fathers, what motives induced\nthe Apostles to inculcate so pressingly the obligation of obedience\nto the lawful authorities. It only remains for us to insert here the\ncommentaries of some illustrious writers on the text of the Apostle. In\nthem we shall find, as it were, a code of doctrine; and when we come to\nappreciate the reasons on which the precepts inculcated in the sacred\ntext are founded, we shall more easily discover their true meaning.\n\nObserve, in the first place, with what wisdom, prudence, and piety this\nimportant subject is expounded by a writer who was not of the golden\nera, but, on the contrary, who lived in what is generally termed the\nbarbarous age--St. Anselm. In his commentaries on the 13th chapter of\nthe Epistle to the Romans, this doctor thus expresses himself:\n\n\"_Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit. Non est enim\npotestas nisi a Deo. Qu\u00e6 autem sunt, a Deo ordinat\u00e6 sunt. Itaque qui\nresistit potestati, Dei ordinationi resistit. Qui autem resistunt, ipsi\nsibi damnationem acquirunt._\n\n\"Sicut superius reprehendit illos, qui gloriabantur de meritis, ita\nnunc ingreditur illos redarguere, qui postquam erant ad fidem conversi\nnolebant subjici alicui potestati. Videbatur enim quod infideles, Dei\nfidelibus non deberent dominari, etsi fideles deberent esse pares. Quam\nsuperbiam removet, dicens: _Omnis anima_, id est, _omnis_ homo, _sit_\nhumiliter _subdita potestatibus_ vel secularibus, vel ecclesiasticis,\nsublimioribus se: hoc est, omnis homo sit subjectus superpositis sibi\npotestatibus. A parte enim majore significat totum hominem, sicut\nrursum a parte inferiore totus homo significatur ubi Propheta dicit:\n_Quia videbit omnis caro salutare Dei_. Et recte admonet, ne quis ex\neo quod in libertatem vocatus est, factusque Christianus, extollatur\nin superbiam, et non arbitretur in hujus vit\u00e6 itinere servandum esse\nordinem suum, et _potestatibus_, quibus pro tempore rerum temporalium\ngubernatio tradita est, non se putet esse subdendum. Cum enim constemus\nex anima et corpore, et quamdiu in hac vita temporali sumus, etiam\nrebus temporalibus ad subsidium ejusdem vit\u00e6 utamur, oportet nos ex\nea parte, qu\u00e6 ad hanc vitam pertinet, subditos esse _potestatibus_,\nid est, res humanas cum aliquo honore administrantibus: ex illa vero\nparte, qua Deo credimus, et in regnum ejus vocamur, non debemus\nsubditi esse cuiquam homini, id ipsum in nobis evertere cupienti,\nquod Deus ad vitam \u00e6ternam donare dignatus est. Si quis ergo putat\nquoniam Christianus est, non sibi esse vectigal reddendum, sive\ntributum, aut non esse honorem exhibendum debitum eis qu\u00e6 h\u00e6c curant\n_potestatibus_, in magno errore versatur. Item si quis sic se putat\nesse subdendum, ut etiam in suam fidem habere potestatem arbitretur\neum, qui temporalibus administrandis aliqua sublimitate pr\u00e6cellit, in\nmajorem errorem labitur. Sed modus iste servandus est, quem Dominus\nipse pr\u00e6cipit, ut reddamus _C\u00e6sari qu\u00e6 sunt Cesaris, et Deo qu\u00e6 sunt\nDei_. Quamvis enim ad illud regnum vocati simus, ubi nulla erit\npotestas hujusmodi, in hoc tamen itinere conditionem nostram pro ipso\nrerum humanarum ordine debemus tolerare, nihil simulate facientes,\net in hoc non tam hominibus, quam Deo, qui hoc jubet, obtemperantes.\nItaque _omnis anima sit subdita sublimioribus potestatibus_, id est,\nomnis homo sit subditus primum divin\u00e6 potestati, deinde mundan\u00e6. Nam si\nmundana potestas jusserit quod non debes facere, contemne potestatem,\ntimendo sublimiorem potestatem. Ipsos humanarum rerum gradus adverte.\nSi aliquid jusserit procurator, nonne faciendum est? Tamen si contra\nproconsulem jubeat, non utique contemnis potestatem, sed eligis majore\nservire. Non hinc debet minor irasci, si major pr\u00e6lata est. Rursus si\naliquid proconsul jubeat, et aliud imperator, numquid dubitatur, illo\ncontempto huic esse serviendum. Ergo si aliud imperator, et aliud Deus\njubeat, quid faciemus? Numquid non Deus imperatori est pr\u00e6ferendus?\nIta ergo _sublimioribus potestatibus anima_ subjiciatur, id est, homo.\nSive idcirco ponitur _anima_ pro homine, qui secundum hanc discernit,\ncui subdi debeat, et cui non. Vel homo, qui promotione virtutem\nsublimatus est, _anima_ vocatur a digniore parte. Vel, non solum\ncorpus sit subditum, sed _anima_, id est, voluntas: hoc est, non solum\ncorpore, sed et voluntate serviatis. Ideo debetis subjici, quia _non\nest potestas nisi a Deo_. Numquam enim posset fieri nisi operatione\nsolius Dei, ut tot homines uni servirent, quem considerant unius\nsecum esse fragilitatis et natur\u00e6. Sed quia Deus subditis inspirat\ntimorem et obediendi voluntatem, contigit ita. Nec valet quisquam\naliquid posse, _nisi_ divinitus ei _datum_ fuerit. _Potestas_ omnis\n_est a Deo_. Sed ea _qu\u00e6 sunt, a Deo ordinat\u00e6 sunt_. Ergo potestas est\nordinata, id est, rationabiliter a Deo disposita. _Itaque qui resistit\npotestati_, nolens tributa dare, honorem deferre, et his similia, _Dei\nordinationi resistit_, qui hoc ordinavit, ut talibus subjiciamur. _Hoc\nenim contra illos dicitur, qui se putabant ita debere uti libertate\nChristiana, ut nulli vel honorem deferrent, vel tributa redderent._\nUnde magnum poterat adversus _Christianam religionem scandalum nasci\na principibus seculi_. De bona potestate patet, quod eam perfecit\nDeus rationabiliter. De mala quoque videri potest, dum et boni per\neam purgantur, et mali damnantur, et ipsa deterius pr\u00e6cipitatur.\n_Qui potestati resistit_, cum Deus eam ordinaverit, _Dei ordinationi\nresistit_. Sed hoc tam grave peccatum est, _quod qui resistunt, ipsi_\npro contumacia et perversitate _sibi damnationem_ \u00e6tern\u00e6 mortis\nacquirunt. Et ideo non debet quis resistere, sed subjici.\"\n\nThis remarkable passage contains all--the origin of power, its object,\nits duties, and its limits. We must observe, that St. Anselm expressly\nconfirms what I have hinted in the text on the subject of the wrong\nmeaning sometimes given in the first centuries to Christian liberty;\nmany imagining that this liberty carried with it the abolition of the\ncivil powers, and particularly of those which were infidel. He also\nshows the scandal which this doctrine might cause; thus explaining how\nthe Apostles, without attempting to attribute to the civil power any\nextraordinary and supernatural origin, like that of the ecclesiastical\npower, had nevertheless powerful reasons for inculcating that this\npower emanates from God, and that whoever resists it, resists the\nordinance of God.\n\nPassing on to centuries nearer our own time, we find the same doctrines\nin the most eminent commentators. Cornelius a Lapide interprets the\npassage of St. Paul in the same way as St. Anselm, and explains, by\nthe same reasons, the solicitude with which the Apostles recommended\nobedience to the civil powers. These are his words:\n\n\"_Omnis anima_ (omnis homo) _potestatibus sublimioribus_, id est\nprincipibus et magistratibus, qui potestate regendi et imperandi\nsunt pr\u00e6diti; ponitur enim abstractum pro concreto; _potestatibus_,\nhoc est potestate pr\u00e6ditis, _subdita sit_, scilicet iis in rebus,\nin quibus potestas illa sublimior et superior est, habetque jus et\njurisdictionem, puta in temporalibus, subdita sit regi et potestati\ncivili, quod propie hic intendit Apostolus: per potestatem enim,\ncivilem intelligit; in spiritualibus vero subdita sit Pr\u00e6latis,\nEpiscopis et Pontifici.\n\n\"Nota.--Pro _potestatibus sublimioribus_, _potestatibus_\nsupereminentibus vel _pr\u00e6cellentibus_, ut, Noster vertit, 1 Pet. ii.,\n_sive regi quasi pr\u00e6cellenti_, Syrus vertit, _potestatibus dignitate\npr\u00e6ditis_: id est magistratibus secularibus, qui potestate regendi\npr\u00e6diti sunt, sive duces, sive gubernatores, sive consules, pr\u00e6tores,\n&c.\n\n\"Seculares enim magistratus hic intelligere Apostolum patet, quia his\nsolvuntur tributa et vectigalia qu\u00e6 hisce potestatibus solvi jubet ipse\nv. 7, ita Sanctus Basilius de _Constit. Monast._ c. 23.\n\n\"Nota.--Ex Clemente Alexand. lib. iv. _Stromatum_, et S. Aug. in Psal.\ncxviii. cont. 31, _Initio Ecclesi\u00e6, puta tempore Christi et Pauli,\nrumor erat, per Evangelium politias humanas, regna et respublicas\nseculares everti_; uti jam fit ab h\u00e6reticis pr\u00e6tendentibus libertatem\nEvangelii: unde contrarium docent, et studiose inculcant Christus,\ncum solvit didrachma, et cum jussit C\u00e6sari reddi ea qu\u00e6 C\u00e6saris sunt;\net Apostoli: idque ne in odium traheretur Christiana religio, et ne\nChristiani abuterentur libertate fidei ad omnem malitiam.\n\n\"Ortus est his rumor ex secta Jud\u00e6 et Galil\u00e6orum de qua Actor. 5, in\nfine, qui pro libertate sua tuenda omne dominium C\u00e6saris et vectigal,\netiam morte proposita abnuebant, de quo Josephus, libr. xviii.\n_Antiqu._ 1. Qu\u00e6 secta diu inter Jud\u00e6os viguit; adeoque Christus et\nApostoli in ejus suspicionem vocati sunt, quia origine erant Galil\u00e6i,\net rerum novarum pr\u00e6cones. Hos Galil\u00e6os secuti sunt Jud\u00e6i omnes, et\nde facto Romanis rebellarunt: quod dicerent populum Dei liberum non\ndebere subjici et servire infidelibus Romanis; ideoque a Tito excisi\nsunt. Hinc etiam eadem calumnia in Christianos, qui origine erant et\nhabebantur Jud\u00e6i, derivata est: unde Apostoli, ut eam amoliantur, s\u00e6pe\ndocent principibus dandum esse honorem et tributum.\n\n\"Quare octo argumentis probat his Apostolus principibus et\nmagistratibus deberi obedientiam....\n\n\"His rationibus probat Apostolus Evangelium, et Christianismum, regna\net magistratus non evertere, sed firmare et stabilire: quia nil\nregna et principes ita confirmat, ac subditorum bona, Christiana et\nsancta vita. Adeo, ut etiam nunc principes Japones et Indi Gentiles\nament Christianos, et suis copiam faciant baptismi et Christianismi\nsuscipiendi, quia subditos Christianos, magis quam Ethnicos, faciles\net obsequentes, regnaque sua per eos magis firmari, pacari et florere\nexperiuntur.\"\n\nWith regard to the mode in which civil power proceeds from God, the\ncelebrated commentator agrees with the other theologians. Like them, he\ndistinguishes between direct and indirect communication, and takes care\nto define the particular meaning of the term, _divine origin_ of power,\nwhen applied to ecclesiastical authority.\n\nIn his explanation of these words, _all power is from God_, he thus\nexpresses himself:\n\n\"_Non est enim potestas, nisi a Deo_; quasi diceret principatus et\nmagistratus non a diabolo, nec a solo homine, sed a Deo ejusque divina\nordinatione et dispositione conditi et instituti sunt: eis ergo\nobediendum est.\n\n\"Nota primo.--_Potestas s\u00e6cularis est a Deo mediate; quia natura et\nrecta ratio, qu\u00e6 a Deo est, dicat, et hominibus persuasit pr\u00e6ficere\nreipublic\u00e6 magistratus, a quibus regantur. Potestas vero ecclesiastica\nimmediate est a Deo instituta; quia Christus ipse Petrum et Apostolos\nEcclesi\u00e6 pr\u00e6fecit._\"\n\nThe celebrated Dom Calmet explains the same passage with no less\nlearning; he quotes numerous passages from the holy Fathers, showing\nwhat ideas the first Christians held on the subject of civil power,\nand how calumniously they have been accused of being the disturbers of\npublic order.\n\n\"_Omnis anima potestatibus_, &c. Pergit hic Apostolus docere Fideles\nvit\u00e6 ac morum officia. Qu\u00e6 superiori capite vidimus, eo desinunt, ut\nbonus ordo et pax in Ecclesia interque Fideles servetur. H\u00e6c potissimum\nspectant ad obedientiam, quam unusquisque superioribus potestatibus\ndebet. Christianorum libertatem atque a Mosaicis legibus immunitatem\ncommendaverat Apostolus; at ne quis monitis abutatur, docet hic, qu\u00e6\ndebeat esse subditorum subjectio erga Reges et Magistratus.\n\n\"Hoc ipsum gravissime monuerant primos Ecclesi\u00e6 discipulos Petrus et\nJacobus; repetitque Paulus ad Titum scribens, sive ut Christianos,\ninsectantium injuriis undique obnoxios, in patientia contineret, _sive\nut vulgi opinionem deleret, qua discipuli Jesu Christi, omnes ferme\nGalil\u00e6i, sententiam Jud\u00e6 Gaulonit\u00e6 sequi, et principum authoritati\nrepugnare censebantur_.\n\n\"_Omnis anima_, quilibet, quavis conditione aut dignitate,\n_potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit_; Regibus, Principibus,\nMagistratibus, iis denique quibus legitima est authoritas, sive\nabsoluta, sive alteri obnoxia. Neminem excipit Apostolus, non\nPresbyteros, non Pr\u00e6sules, non Monachos, ait Theodoretus; ill\u00e6sa tamen\nEcclesiasticorum immunitate. Tunc solum modo parere non debes, cum\naliquid Divin\u00e6 Legi contrarium imperatur: tunc enim pr\u00e6ferenda est\ndebita Deo obedientia; quin tamen vel arma capere adversus Principes,\nvel in seditionem abire liceat. Repugnandum est in iis tantum, qu\u00e6\njustitiam, ac Dei legem violant; in c\u00e6teris parendum. Si imperaverint\naut idolorum cultum aut justiti\u00e6 violationem cum necis vel bonorum\njactur\u00e6 interminatione, vitam et fortunas discrimini objicito, ac\nrepugnato; in reliquis autem obtempera.\n\n\"_Non est enim potestas nisi a Deo._ Absolutissima in libertate\nconditus est homo, nulli creat\u00e6 rei, at uni Deo subditus. Nisi mundum\ninvasisset una cum Adami transgressione peccatum, mutuam \u00e6qualitatem\nlibertatemque homines servassent. At libertate abusos damnavit Deus,\nut parerent iis, quos ipse principes illis daret, ob p\u0153nam arroganti\u00e6,\nqua pares Conditori effici voluerunt. At, inquies, quis nesciat,\nquorumdam veterum Imperiorum initia et incrementa ex injuria atque\nambitione profecta. Nemrod, exempli causa, Ninus, Nabuchodonosor,\naliique quamplures, an Principes erant a Deo constituti? Nonne\nsimilius vero est, violenta Imperia primum exorta esse ab imperandi\nlibidine? liberorum vero Imperiorum originem fuisse hominum metum, qui\nsese impares propulsand\u00e6 externorum injuri\u00e6 sentientes, aliquem sibi\nPrincipem creavere, datamque sibi a Deo naturalem ulciscendi injurias\npotestatem, volentes libentesque alteri tradiderunt? Quam vere igitur\ndocet Apostolus, quamlibet potestatem a Deo esse, eumque esse posit\u00e6\ninter homines authoritatis institutorem?\"\n\nHe points out four ways in which power may be said to emanate from\nGod, and it is remarkable that none of them are extraordinary or\nsupernatural; all of them serve to confirm more and more what reason\nand the very nature of things teach us.\n\n\"Omnino Deus potestatis autor et causa est. I. Quod, hominibus tacite\ninspiraverit consilium subjiciendi se uni, a quo defenderentur.\nII. Quod imperia inter homines utilissima sint servand\u00e6 concordi\u00e6,\ndisciplin\u00e6, ac religioni. Porro quicquid boni est, a Deo ceu fonte\nproficisciter. III. Cum potestas tuendi ab aggressore vitam vel opes,\nhominibus a Deo tradita, atque ab ipsis in Principem conversa, a Deo\nprimum proveniat, Principes ea potestate ab hominibus donati, hanc ab\nipso Deo accepisse jure dicuntur; quamobrem Petrus humanam creaturam\nnuncupat, quam Paulus potestatem a Deo institutam: humana igitur et\ndivina est, varia ratione spectata, uti diximus. IV. Denique suprema\nauthoritas a Deo est, utpote quam Deus, a sapientibus institutam,\nprobavit.\n\n\"Nulla unquam gens s\u00e6cularibus potestatibus magis paruit, quam prim\u00e6\n\u00e6tatis Christiani, qui a Christo Jesu et ab Apostolis edocti, nunquam\nausi sunt Principibus a Providentia sibi datis repugnare. Discipulos\nfugere tantum jubet Christus. Ait Petrus, Christum nobis exemplum\nreliquisse, cum sese Judicum iniquitate pessime agi passus est. Monet\nhic Paulus, resistere te Dei voluntati, atque \u00e6tern\u00e6 damnationis reum\neffici, si potestati repugnas. 'Quamvis nimius et copiosus noster\npopulus, non tamen adversus violentiam se ulciscitur: patitur,' ait\nsanctus Cyprianus. 'Satis virium est ad pugnam; at omnia perpeti\nex Christo didicimus. Cui bello non idonei, non prompti fuissemus,\netiam copiis impares, qui tam libenter trucidamur? si non apud istam\ndisciplinam magis occidi liceret, quam occidere,' inquit Tertullianus.\n'Cum nefanda patimur, ne verbo quidem reluctamur, sed Deo remittimus\nultionem,' scribebat Lactantius. Sanctus Ambrosius: 'coactus, repugnare\nnon novi. Dolere potero, potero flere, potero gemere: abversus arma,\nmilites, Gothos quoque; lacrym\u00e6 me\u00e6 arma sunt. Talia enim sunt\nmunimenta Sacerdotis. Aliter ne debeo nec possum resistere.'\"\n\nI have said in the text, that there was to be remarked a singular\ncoincidence of opinions on the origin of society between the\nphilosophers of antiquity, deprived of the light of faith, and those of\nour days who have abandoned this light; both wanting the only guide,\nwhich is the Mosaic history, have found in their researches after the\norigin of things, nothing more than chaos, in the physical as well as\nin the moral order. In support of my assertion, I will insert passages\nfrom two celebrated men, in which the reader will find, with very\nlittle difference, the same language as in Hobbes, Rousseau, and other\nwriters of the same school.\n\n\"There was a time,\" says Cicero, \"when men wandered in the fields like\nthe brutes, feeding on prey like wild beasts, deciding nothing by\nreason, but every thing by force. No religion was then professed, no\nmorality observed; there were no laws of marriage; the father could not\ndistinguish his own children, and the possession of property by virtue\nof principles of equity was unknown. Hence the blind, unrestrained\npassions ruled tyrannically in the midst of error and ignorance, and\nused the powers of the body for their gratification as their most\ninjurious satellites.\"\n\n\"Nam fuit quoddam tempus cum in agris homines passim bestiarum more\nvagabantur, et sibi victu ferino vitam propagabant; nec ratione\nanimi quidquam, sed pleraque viribus corporis administrabant. Nondum\ndivin\u00e6 religionis, non humani officii ratio colebatur; nemo nuptias\nviderat legitimas, non certos quisquam inspexerat liberos; non jus\n\u00e6quabile quid utilitatis haberet, acceperat. Ita propter errorem atque\ninscitiam, c\u00e6ca ac temeraria dominatrix animi cupiditas ad se explendam\nviribus corporis abutebatur, perniciosissimis satellitibus.\" (_De Inv.\n1._)\n\nThe same doctrine is to be found in Horace:\n\n \"Cum prorepserunt primis animalia terris,\n Mutum et turpe pecus, glandem atque cubilia propter\n Unguibus et pugnis, dein fustibus, atque ita porro\n Pugnabant armis, qu\u00e6 post fabricaverat usus:\n Donec verba, quibus voces sensusque notarent,\n Nominaque invenere: dehinc absistere bello,\n Oppida c\u0153perunt munire et ponere leges,\n Neu quis fur esset, neu latro, neu quis adulter.\n Nam fuit ante Helenam mulier teterrima belli\n Causa: sed ignotis perierunt mortibus illi,\n Quos Venerem incertam rapientes, more ferarum,\n Viribus editior c\u00e6debat, ut in grege taurus.\n Jura inventa metu injusti fateare necesse est,\n Tempora si fastosque velis evolvere mundi,\n Nec natura potest justo secernere iniquum,\n Dividit ut bona diversis, fugienda petendis.\"\n\n _Satir._ lib. i. sat. 3.\n\n\"When men first began to crawl upon the earth, they were only like a\nherd of brute and speechless animals, contending with their nails or\ntheir fists for a few acorns or for a den. They afterwards contended\nwith sticks and such arms as experience taught them to invent. At\nlength they discovered the use of words to express their thoughts;\ngradually they became weary of fighting, and built cities, and made\nlaws to prevent theft, robbery, and adultery; for, before Helen, women\nhad been the cause of terrible wars. He who was the strongest, abusing\nhis power, after the manner of brutes, attacked the weak, like a bull\namong a subject herd; they thus contended for the favors of inconstant\nVenus; but their end was inglorious. If you consult the origin of\nthings, you will acknowledge that laws have been made in apprehension\nof injustice. Nature enables us to discern good from evil, what is to\nbe sought after from what is to be avoided, but she is incapable of\ndistinguishing justice from injustice.\"\n\n\nNOTE 29, p. 311.\n\nConcerning this question, as to the direct or indirect origin of civil\npower, it is remarkable, that, in the time of Louis of Bavaria, the\nimperial princes solemnly sanctioned the opinion that power emanates\ndirectly from God. In an imperial Constitution, published against the\nRoman Pontiff, they established the following proposition: \"In order\nto avoid so great an evil, we declare that imperial dignity and power\nproceed directly from God.--Ad tantum malum evitandum, declaramus,\nquod imperialis dignitas et potestas est immediate a Deo solo.\" That\nwe may form an idea of the spirit and tendency of this doctrine, let\nus see what kind of man this Louis of Bavaria was. Excommunicated by\nJohn XXII., and at a later period by Clement VI., he went so far as\nto depose this latter Pontiff, in order to exalt to the Pontifical\nChair the antipope Peter, for which reason the Pope, after repeated\nadmonitions, divested him of his imperial dignity, substituting Charles\nIV. in his stead.\n\nZiegler the Lutheran, a zealous supporter of direct communication, in\norder to explain his doctrine, compares the election of a prince to\nthat of a minister of the Church. The latter, says he, does not receive\nhis spiritual authority from the people, but immediately from God. From\nthis explanation it is evident with how much reason I have said, that\nsuch a doctrine tended to place the temporal and spiritual powers on a\nlevel, by making it appear that the latter could not claim, by reason\nof its origin, any superiority over the former. I do not mean, however,\nto assert, that this declaration, made in the time of Louis of Bavaria,\nhad directly this aim, since it may rather be regarded as a sort of\nweapon employed against the pontifical authority, the ascendency of\nwhich was dreaded. But it is well known that doctrines, besides the\ninfluence resulting immediately from them, possess a peculiar force,\nwhich continues to develop itself as opportunities occur. Some time\nafter, we see the kings of England defenders of the religious supremacy\nwhich they had just usurped, supporting the proposition advanced in the\nimperial Constitution.\n\nI know not with what foundation it can be said that Ziegler's opinion\nwas general before the time of Puffendorf; in consulting ecclesiastical\nand secular writers, we do not find the least support for such an\nassertion. Let us be just even to our adversaries. Ziegler's opinion,\ndefended by Boecler and others, was attacked by certain Lutherans,\namongst others by Boehmer, who observes, that this opinion is not\nfavorable, as its partisans pretend, to the security of states and\nprinces. To repeat what I have already explained in the text, I do\nnot consider that the opinion of _direct communication_, rightly\nunderstood, is so inadmissible and dangerous as some have imagined; but\nas it lay open to an evil interpretation, Catholic theologians have\ndone well to combat its tendency to encroach upon the divine origin of\necclesiastical power.\n\n\nNOTE 30, p. 317.\n\nI might quote a thousand remarkable passages showing the reader how\nunjust it is in the enemies of the clergy to accuse them of being\nfavorable to despotism. But, to be brief, and to spare him the fatigue\nof perusing so many texts and quotations, I shall merely present to\nhim a specimen of the current opinions on this point in Spain at the\nbeginning of the 17th century, a few years after the death of Philip\nII., the monarch who is represented to us as the personification of\nreligious fanaticism and political tyranny. Among the numerous books\npublished at that time on these delicate points, there is a very\nsingular one, which does not appear to be very well known; its title is\nas follows:\n\n_A Treatise on the State and Christian Politics, for the use of Kings\nand Princes, and those holding government appointments, by Brother John\nde Ste.-Marie, a religious in the province of St. Joseph, of the order\nof our glorious Father St. Francis._\n\nThis book, printed at Madrid in 1615, furnished with all the\nprivileges, approbations, and other formalities in use, must have\nbeen well received at that epoch, since it was reprinted at Barcelona\nin 1616, by Sebastian de Cormellas. Who shall say whether this work\ndid not inspire Bossuet with the idea of that intituled _Politics\nderived from the very words of Scripture_? The title is certainly\nanalogous, and the idea is in fact the same, although differently\ncarried out. \"I think,\" says Brother John de Ste.-Marie, \"I shall\nescape all difficulty, by laying before kings in this work, not my\nown reasonings, nor those afforded by eminent philosophers and the\nrecords of profane history, but the words of God and His saints, and\nthe divine and canonical histories, whose teaching commands respect,\nand whose authority cannot be prejudicial to any one, however powerful\na sovereign he may be; in fact, to these a Christian cannot but submit,\nsince every thing in them is dictated by the Holy Ghost, the author of\nthese divine maxims. If I cite examples of Gentile kings, if I appeal\nto antiquity, and adduce passages from philosophers unconnected with\nthe people of God, I shall do so incidentally only, and as we resume\npossession of what of right belongs to us, and has been unjustly\nusurped by others.\" (Chap. 2.)\n\nThe work is dedicated to the king. Addressing him, and praying him to\nread it, and not to allow himself to be imposed upon by those who would\ndissuade him from its perusal, the good religious says, with a pleasing\ncandor, \"Let no one tell you that these things are metaphysical,\nimpracticable, and all but impossible.\"\n\nThe following inscription is placed at the head of the 1st chapter:\n\"Ad vos (O Reges) sunt hi sermones mei, ut discatis sapientiam et non\nexcidatis: qui enim custodierint justa juste, justificabuntur: et qui\ndidiscerint ista, invenient quid respondeant.\" (_Sap._ 6, v. 10.)\n\nIn the first chapter, the title of which is, \"A treatise in which the\nimport and definition of this word commonwealth are briefly discussed,\"\nwe read these remarkable words: \"So that monarchy must degenerate if\nit be absolute and without restraint (for power and authority thus\nbecome unreasonable); in all things falling under the cognizance of\nlaw, it should be bound by the law; and in special and incidental\nmatters it should be subject to advice, from the connection which it\nought to have with the aristocracy, which is its assistant, and forms\na council of learned and powerful men. Without this wise modification,\nmonarchy will create great errors of government, will give but little\nsatisfaction, but, on the contrary, will cause great discontent among\nthe governed. The wisest and most enlightened men of every age have\ninvariably considered this form of government the best; and without\nsuch a modification no city or kingdom has ever been considered well\ngoverned. Good kings and the wisest statesmen have always been in favor\nof this system; bad kings, on the contrary, elated by their power,\nhave pursued the opposite course. Hence, if a monarch, whoever he be,\ndecides by himself, without taking advice, or against the advice of his\ncouncillors, he passes the legitimate bounds of monarchy, and even\nwhen his decisions are fortunate, he is a tyrant. History is full of\nthese examples and of their disastrous consequences; it will be enough\nto adduce one only, that of Tarquin the Proud, as related in the 1st\nbook of Livy, a king whose pride was unbounded, and who, to render\nhimself absolute, and to put every thing under his feet, strove to\nweaken the authority of the Roman Senate by diminishing the number of\nSenators, thus arrogating to himself an absolute right of decision in\nall the affairs of the empire.\"\n\nIn chapter 2, in which the author treats of \"the meaning of the word\nking,\" we read as follows: \"We meet here very opportunely with the\nthird meaning of the word king, which is the same as that of father;\nas we find in Genesis, when the Sichemites gave to their king the\nname of Abimelech, which means 'Father and Lord.' Kings were formerly\nstyled the fathers of their states. Whence King Theodoric, defining\nroyal majesty (as Cassiodorus relates), makes use of these words:\n'_Princeps et Pastor publicus et communis._--The king is the public and\ncommon father of the state.' From the extreme resemblance between the\noffice of a king and that of a father, Plato was induced to call the\nking the father of a family; and the philosopher Xenophon says: _Bonus\nPrinceps nihil differt a bono Patre_. The difference solely consists\nin one having few and the other a great number of persons under his\ndominion. And it is certainly very reasonable to give kings this title\nof father; for they ought to be the fathers of their subjects and of\ntheir kingdoms, watching over their welfare and preservation with the\nlove and solicitude of a Father. Royalty, says Homer, is nothing else\nthan a paternal government, like that of a father over his children:\n'_Ipsum namque regnum imperium est suapte natura paternum._' _The best\nmanner of governing well is, for the king to be possessed with the\nlove of a father, and to regard his subjects at his own children. The\nlove of a father for his children, his solicitude that they should\nwant for nothing, his devotedness to each of them, all this bears the\ngreatest resemblance to the love of a king for his subjects. He is\ncalled father, and this name lays him under the obligation of acting in\naccordance with the meaning it conveys._ This name, so well adapted to\nkings, and which, when well considered, is the greatest of all titles\nand epithets of majesty and power, since it embraces all, the genus and\nthe species, the father being alone the lord, the master, or the chief;\nthis name, I say, is above all human names for expressing authority\nand solicitude. Antiquity, with a view to confer upon an emperor an\nextraordinary degree of honor, called him the Father of the State,\nwhich was greater than C\u00e6sar, Augustus, or any other glorious name;\nit decreed him this title, either to flatter him, or to lay him under\nthe weighty obligations required by the name of father. In fine, to\ngive kings this name is to remind them of their duty, viz. to direct,\ngovern, and maintain their states and kingdoms in justice; like good\npastors, to feed their rational sheep; like physicians, to care for\nthem and heal them; to take care of their subjects, as a father does of\nhis children, with prudence, love, and solicitude; for the king is for\n_them_, rather than for himself. 'Kings are under greater obligations\nto their kingdoms and states than to themselves;' in fact, if we\nconsider the institution of kings and monarchs, we shall find that the\nking was appointed for the good of the kingdom, and not the kingdom for\nthe good of the king.\"\n\nIn his 3d chapter, of which the following is the title, \"Whether\nthe name of king necessarily implies an office,\" he thus expresses\nhimself:--\"Besides what we have advanced, it may be proved that the\nname of a king is the name of an office, by the common maxim, 'the\nbenefice is the reward of the office.' Since, therefore, kings receive\nsuch great benefices, not only from the considerable tributes they\nreceive from the State, but also from the advantage they derive from\nbenefices and ecclesiastical rents, they certainly do hold an office,\nand that the greatest of all, for which reason the entire kingdom so\nbountifully assists them. This is what St. Paul says in his Epistle to\nthe Romans: _Ideo et tributa pr\u00e6statis_, &c. Kingdoms do not contribute\nfor nothing; all those states, taxes, and great revenues, that name,\nthat high authority and eminent dignity, are not given gratuitously.\nThey would have their title of king for nothing if they had no subjects\nto rule and govern, and if they were freed from this obligation: _In\nmultitudine populi dignitas regis_. This great dignity, wealth, rank,\nmajesty, and honor, are possessed by them with the perpetual obligation\nof ruling and governing their states, so as to preserve them in peace\nand justice. _Let kings bear in mind, therefore, that they are only\ninvested with this title to serve their kingdoms; and the latter,\nthat kings ought to be paid._ They hold an office requiring them to\nlabor: _Qui pr\u00e6est in sollicitudine_, says St. Paul. Such is the title\nand the name of king, and of him who rules: one who is the first not\nonly as regards honors and enjoyments, but also as regards cares and\nsolicitude. _Let them not imagine that they are kings merely in name\nand representation, and appointed only to make themselves honored_;\nmerely to exhibit their royal person and sovereign dignity in a pompous\nmanner, like some of the kings of the Persians and Medes, who were\nmere shadows of kings, forgetful of their office, as though they had\nnever received it. Nothing is more destitute of life and substance than\nthe shadowy image which stirs its arm or its head only when some one\nacts upon it. God forbade the Israelites to have statues or painted\nimages, representing a hand where there was none, and a face that\ndid not exist, exhibiting to the eye an imaginary body, and feigning\nby apparently living actions to see and to speak; for God loves not\nfeigned images, painted men, or sculptured kings, like those spoken of\nby David: _Os habent et non loquentur, oculos habent et non videbunt_.\nWhat does it avail to have a tongue that speaks not, eyes that see\nnot, ears that hear not, or hands which do not work? Is it any thing\nmore than an idol of stone, bearing only the external representation\nof a king? To bear the supreme name and all authority, and not to be\ncapable of any thing, sounds badly. The names which God has given to\nthings are like the title of a book, which, in a few words, contains\nevery thing that is included in the book. This name of king was\ngiven to kings by God himself, and contains every thing to which they\nare obliged by virtue of their office. If their actions are not in\naccordance with the name, it is as if the mouth should affirm what\nthe head denies, like a buffoon, whom no one believes in earnest.\nEvery one would regard as a mockery and a delusion a signboard bearing\nthe inscription, 'Pure gold sold here,' if, in reality, nothing but\ntinsel was sold. The name of king should not be an empty thing, a mere\nsuperfluity in the royal person--it should be what it implies and gives\nitself out for. Your name indicates that you rule and govern; rule and\ngovern, therefore, in reality. Do not be mere pasteboard kings, to use\na common expression, that is, kings in name only. In France, there was\na time when kings had nothing but the name, and the government was\nentirely in the hands of their generals, whilst they, like animals,\nwere occupied only with gluttony and luxurious living. That it might be\nknown they were living, for they never went out, they used to appear in\npublic once a year, on the 1st of May, in the squares of Paris, seated\non a throne, as kings in a dramatic representation, and there they\nwere saluted, gifts were presented to them, and they, on their part,\ngranted certain favors to whomsoever they thought proper. In order to\nshow to what a degree of degradation they had fallen, Eginard tells\nus, in the beginning of his Life of Charlemagne, that they were devoid\nof courage and incapable of great actions; they merely held the empty\nname of king; for, in reality they were not kings, neither had they\nany participation in the government or riches of the kingdom; every\nthing was entrusted to the mayors of the palace, styled majors-domo\nof the royal household; and the latter usurped every thing to such a\ndegree, that they left the wretched king nothing but his title. Seated\non his throne, with his long hair and beard, the monarch played his\npart, pretending to give audiences to ambassadors arriving from all\nparts, and to furnish them with answers to convey to their masters;\nwhilst in reality they merely answered according to the instructions\nthey had received, either by word or writing, although they appeared\nto answer on their own responsibility. So that royal power for such a\nking was reduced to the mere name, to this throne and this ridiculous\nmajesty; the real kings and masters were those favorites by whom the\nmonarch was oppressed. God said of one of the kings of Samaria, that\nhe was merely to be compared to a little vapor, which, seen from afar,\nappeared something, but when touched was no longer any thing. Simia\nin tecto rex fatuus in solio suo. (St. Bernard, _de Consider ad Eug._\ncap. 7.) _A monkey on a housetop, which, presenting the appearance of\na man, is taken for such by those who know not what it is; such is a\nuseless king upon a throne. Monkeys also serve to amuse children, and\nthe king is a laughing-stock to him who looks upon him apart from any\nroyal act, invested with authority, and making no use of it. A king\ndressed in purple, seated on a throne with great majesty, suited to his\ngrandeur, grave, severe, and terrible in appearance, but in reality\nan absolute nonentity. Like a painting_ de la main du Greco, _which,\nplaced in an elevated position, and seen from a distance, looks very\nbeautiful, and produces a great effect, but when nearly approached is\nbut a rough sketch_. All pomp and majesty, properly considered, are\na mere sketch and shadow of a king. _Simulacra gentium_, says David,\nspeaking of kings who have nothing but the name; and according to the\nHebrew text: _Imago fictilis et contrita_. A figure of pounded earth,\ncrumbling on all sides; an empty phantom, great in appearance, but\na mere piece of deception. The name which Elifaz unjustly applied\nto Job is perfectly applicable here, when he designated this good\nand just king, a man void of foundation and substance, bearing only\nexternal appearances; he styled him _Myrmicoleon_, that is, the name\nof the animal which, in Latin, is called Formica-leo, because it is a\nmonstrous conformation, one half of its body, in fact, representing a\nfearful lion, an animal always used as an emblem of a king, and the\nother half an ant, that is, a most feeble and insignificant thing. Such\nare the authority, the name, throne, and majesty of a fierce lion and\nof a powerful monarch; but as regards the essence, you will find only\nthat of an ant. There have been kings whose very name filled the world\nwith terror; but these kings were void of substance in themselves, in\ntheir kingdoms they were as mere ants; their names and offices were\nvery great, but without effect. Let the king, therefore, bear in mind\nthat he has an office to fulfill, and not only an office, but that\nhe is obliged to speak and labor on all offices, of which he is the\ngeneral superintendent. St. Augustine and St. Thomas, explaining that\npassage of St. Paul which treats of episcopal dignity, say, that the\nword _bishop_, in Greek, is composed of two roots signifying the same\nthing as _superintendent_. The name of bishop, king, and every other\nsuperior, are names signifying superintendence over, and co-operation\nwith, every office. This is what is expressed by the sceptre used by\nkings in public acts, a ceremony used by the Egyptians, who borrowed\nit from the Israelites. The latter, in order to point out the duty of\na good king, painted an open eye placed in an elevated position on\nthe point of a rod in the form of a sceptre, representing, on the one\nhand, the great power of the king, the solicitude and vigilance which\nhe ought to exercise; on the other, that he ought not to be satisfied\nwith holding the supreme power, with occupying the most exalted and\nmost eminent position, and, in possession of these, passing his life in\nsleep and repose; on the contrary, he should be the first in commanding\nand counselling, he should appear in every office, incessantly watching\nand inspecting, like a man doing the business in which he is engaged.\nJeremiah also understands it in this sense, for when God asked him what\nhe saw, he answered: _Virgam vigilantem ego video_. Thou hast seen\nwell; and verily I tell thee, that I who am supreme, will watch over my\nflock; I who am a shepherd, will watch over my sheep; I who am a king\nand a monarch, will watch without ceasing over all my inferiors. _Regem\nfestinantem_, says the Chaldean, a king who is in haste; for, although\nhe has eyes and sees, if he remains in repose, in his pleasures and\namusements, if he does not go about from place to place, if he does\nnot act so as to become acquainted with all the good and evil that is\ngoing on in his kingdom, he is as though he did not exist. Let him\nconsider that he is the head, and even the head of the lion, which even\nin its sleep keeps its eyes open; that he is the rod with eyes, that he\nis the torch; let him open his eyes, therefore, and sleep no longer,\ntrusting to those who are blinded, and see no better than moles; who,\nif they have eyes, only employ them to see their own interest, and to\ndistinguish at a greater distance what may conduce to their own profit\nand aggrandizement. Such persons have eyes for themselves, and it would\nbe better if they had them not, for their eyes are those of birds of\nprey--of vultures.\"\n\nIn his fourth chapter, the title of which is, \"On the office of\nkings,\" the author thus explains the origin of royal power and its\nobligations:--\"From this it follows,\" says he, \"that the institution of\nthe state of royalty, or king, represented by the head, was not merely\nfor the use and profit of the king himself, but for that of his whole\nkingdom. Hence he ought to see, hear, feel, and understand, not only by\nhimself and for himself, but by all and for all. He ought not merely\nto fix his regards upon his own greatness, but on the good of his\nsubjects, since it is for them, and not for himself, that he was born\na king. _Adverte_, said Seneca to the Emperor Nero, _rempublicam non\nesse tuam, sed te reipublic\u00e6_.--When men first issued from solitude,\nand united to live in common, they knew that every one would naturally\nlabor for himself or his own family, and that no one would take an\ninterest in all; they agreed to select a man of great merit, that all\nmight have recourse to him; a man who, distinguished above all the rest\nby his virtue, his prudence, and courage, should be the chief over all,\nshould govern all, watch over all, and should exert himself for the\nadvantage of all--for the common weal--like a father for his children,\nor a shepherd for his sheep. Now, considering that this man, abandoning\nhis own affairs to look after those of others, could not maintain\nhimself and his family (every one was then maintained by the labor of\nhis hands), it was agreed that all should contribute to his support,\nin order that he might not be distracted by any other occupations\nthan those of the common weal and the public government. Such was the\nend for which kings were instituted--such was their beginning. The\ngood king ought to be more solicitous for the public than for his own\nprivate interest. He possesses his grandeur at the expense of great\nsolicitude; the anxiety, the disquietude of mind and body, which is\nfatigue for him, is repose, support, and protection for others. Thus\nsmiling flowers and fruits, whilst they adorn the tree, exist not so\nmuch for the tree, nor on account of the tree, as for the sake of\nothers. Do not imagine that all happiness is in the beauty and grace\nof the flower, and in those who are the flowers of the world: powerful\nkings and princes may be termed the flowers of the world, but flowers\nwho consume their lives, who are full of solicitude, and whose fruit\nwill rather contribute to the enjoyment of others than to their own.\n'For,' says the Jew Philo, 'the king is to the kingdom what the wise\nis to the ignorant man, what the shepherd is to his sheep, the father\nto his children, light to darkness, and what God is upon earth to all\nhis creatures.' The investiture he gave to Moses, when he appointed him\nthe chief and king over his people, was to tell him that he ought to be\nas God, the common father of all; for the office and dignity of a king\nrequire all this. _Omnium domos illius vigila defendit, omnium otium\nillius industria, omnium vacationem illius occupatio._ (Seneca, _Lib.\nde Consol._) This is what the prophet Samuel says to Saul, recently\nelected king, when he expounds to him the obligations of his office:\n'Consider, Saul, that God has this day constituted thee king over all\nthis kingdom; thou art bound by the office to govern the whole of it.\nThou hast not been made a king to enjoy repose, to become proud, and to\nglory in the dignity of a king; but to govern thy kingdom, to maintain\nit in peace and justice, to defend and protect it against its enemies.'\n_Rex eligitur, non, ut sui ipsius curam habeat_, says Socrates, _et\nsese molliter curet, sed ut per ipsum ii, qui elegerunt, bene beateque\nvivant_. They were not created and introduced into the world for their\nown convenience and pleasure or to be fed upon every dainty morsel of\nfood (if such were the case, no one would willingly submit to them);\nbut they were appointed for the advantage and common good of all their\nsubjects, to govern them, protect them, enrich them, preserve and serve\nthem. All this is perfectly admissible; for although the sceptre and\ncrown appear to be the emblems of domination, the office of a king\nis, strictly speaking, that of a slave. _Servus communis, sive servus\nhonoratus_, are words which have sometimes been applied to a king,\n_quia a tota republica stipendia accipit ut serviat omnibus_. And\nthe Supreme Pontiff glories in this title, _Servus servorum Dei_. In\nancient times this name of slave was one of infamy; but since Christ\nbore it it has become a name full of honor. Now, since it is neither\nrepugnant nor derogatory to the essence nor nature of the Son of God,\nneither can it be derogatory to the nature and grandeur of the king.\n\n\"Antigonus, king of Macedon, was perfectly aware of this, and said\ncandidly to his son, when he rebuked him for the severity with which\nhe governed his subjects: _An ignoras, fili mi, regnum nostrum nobilem\nesse servitutem?_ Before his time Agamemnon expressed himself in\nthe same manner: 'We live apparently in the midst of grandeur and\nexaltation; but in reality we are the servants and slaves of our\nsubjects.' Such is the office of good kings--an honorable servitude.\nFrom the moment of their being created kings, their actions no longer\ndepend upon their own will, but on the laws and rules which have been\ngiven them, and on the conditions upon which they have undertaken their\noffice. And although they may fail to comply with these conditions\n(which are the effects of a human convention), they may not fail to\ncomply with that dictated by natural and divine law, the mistress of\nkings as well as of subjects. Now, these rules are almost all included\nin the words of Jeremiah, which God, according to St. Jerome, addresses\nto kings on giving them the command:--_Facite judicium et justitiam,\nliberate vi oppressum de manu calumniatoris, et advenam, et pupillum,\net viduam nolite contristare, neque opprimatis inique, et sanguinem\ninnocentum non effundatis_. Such is the summary of the obligations\nof a king; such the laws of his institution, which lay him under the\nobligation of maintaining in peace and justice the orphan, the widow,\nthe poor, the rich and the powerful man, and him who can do nothing for\nhimself. Upon him rest the wrongs of his ministers towards some, the\ninjustice suffered by others, the sorrows of the afflicted, the tears\nof those who weep, not to mention many other burdens--a flood of cares\nand obligations--imposed upon every prince or chief of a state. For\nif he is the head to command and govern, and to bear the burdens of\nothers, he should also be the feet upon which the whole weight of the\nstate is sustained. Kings and monarchs, says the holy man Job, as we\nhave seen, bear and carry the world upon their shoulders, on account\nof their office. Hence the figure we meet with in the Book of Wisdom:\n_In veste poderis, quam habebat summus sacerdos, totus erat orbis\nterrarum_. From the moment a man is created king, let him consider\nhimself loaded with a burden so heavy that a strong carriage would\nnot support it. Moses felt this strongly; for God having made him His\nviceroy, His captain-general, His lieutenant in the government, instead\nof returning thanks for so distinguished a favor, he complains that\nso heavy a burden should be placed upon him. _Cur afflixisti servum\ntuum? Cur imposuisti pondus universi populi hujus super me?_ Again,\ncontinuing his complaint, he says, _Numquid ego concepi omnem hanc\nmultitudinem? Aut genui eam, ut dicas mihi: Porta eos?_--'Lord, have\nI conceived all this multitude, or begotten them, and thou shouldst\nsay to me, Carry them on thy shoulders?' Now, it is remarkable that\nGod said nothing of that to Moses; he merely tells him to rule and\ngovern them, to fulfill towards them the office of captain and chief.\nNevertheless, what says Moses? That God commanded him to bear them on\nhis shoulders--_Porta eos_. It appears, then, that he has no reason\nto complain, since he is merely told to be the captain, to direct,\nrule, and govern. It is a common expression, 'A word to the wise is\nsufficient.' He who knows and understands what it is to govern and\nto be the chief, knows also that government and obligation are the\nsame thing. The very words _regere_ and _portare_ are synonymous, and\nhave the same meaning: there is no government nor employment without\nobligation and labor. In the distribution of the offices which Jacob\nmade among his children, he appointed Reuben to be the first in his\ninheritance and the highest in command--_prior in donis, major in\nimperio_. And St. Jerome translates _major ad portandum_, for command\nand obligation are the same thing; and the obligation and the labor are\nso much more considerable as the command is more exalted. St. Gregory,\nin his _Morales_, says, that the power, domination, and rule of kings\nover the whole world should not be looked upon as an honor but as a\nlabor. _Potestas accepta non honor, sed onus \u00e6stimatur._ And this truth\nwas ever received by the blindest among the Gentiles. One of them,\ntaking the same view of the subject, says, speaking of another Pagan,\nthat his god Apollo had made him all glorious and happy by the gift of\na certain office: _L\u00e6tus erat, mixtoque oneri gaudebat honore_. So that\npower and command composed of a little honor and weighty obligations.\nThe Latin word for honor only differs from that for burden by one\nletter--_onos_ and _onus_. Besides, there always were and always will\nbe persons willing to undertake the responsibility for the sake of\nthe honor, although every one avoids as much as possible any thing\nthat lays him under an obligation, and seeks after what is glorious; a\ndangerous choice, for the latter is not always the most secure.\"\n\nIf such language is taxed with flattery, it would be difficult to\ncomprehend what is meant by _telling the truth_. And observe, that\nthe above truths are not told without reflection; the good religious\ntakes such pains to inculcate them, that were it not for the childlike\ncandor of his language, which discloses the purest of intentions, we\nmight accuse him of irreverence. This passage is long, but exceedingly\ninteresting, for it faithfully reflects the spirit of the age.\nInnumerable other texts might be adduced to prove how unjustly the\nCatholic clergy are accused of being favorable to despotism. I cannot\nconclude without inserting here two excellent passages from the learned\nFather Fr. Ferdinand de Zeballos, a religious of the order of St.\nJerome in the Monastery of St. Isidore del Campo, and known by a work\nintituled, \"False Philosophy, or Atheism, Deism, Materialism, and\nother new sects convicted of State Crimes against their Sovereigns and\nRulers, against the Magistrates and Lawful Authorities.\" Madrid, 1776.\nObserve with what tact the learned writer appreciates the influence of\nreligion upon society. (Book ii. dissertation 12, art. 2.)\n\n\n \"_A mild and moderate government is most agreeable to the spirit of\n the gospel._\n\n\u00a7 I.\n\n\"One excellent and estimable point in our holy religion is, that\nshe offers to human policy, in her important truths, assistance in\npreserving good order among men with less trouble. 'The Christian\nreligion,' says Montesquieu, with much truth, 'is far removed from\npure despotism. Mildness being so strongly recommended in the gospel,\nit is opposed to the despotic fury with which princes might administer\njustice and practise cruelties.' This opposition on the part of\nChristianity to the cruelty of the monarch should not be active,\nbut passive and full of mildness, which Christianity can never lose\nsight of without losing its character. This is the difference between\nCatholic Christians and the Calvinists and other Protestants. Basnages\nand Jurieu, in the name of all their reformation, wrote that it is\nallowable for the people to wage war against their princes whenever\nthey are oppressed by them, or their conduct appears tyrannical.\n\n\"The Catholic Church has never changed the doctrines she received from\nJesus Christ and His Apostles. She loves moderation, she rejoices in\ngood: but she does not resist evil, she overcomes it by patience.\nGovernments established under the direction of false religions cannot\nbe satisfied with a moderate policy. With them the despotism or tyranny\nof princes, the ferocity of penalties, the rigor of an inflexible\nand cruel legislation, are so many necessary evils. But why has it\nbeen given to the Catholic religion only to purge human governments\nfrom such inhumanity? First, on account of the forcible impression\nproduced by her dogmas; secondly, through the effect of the grace of\nJesus Christ, which renders men docile in doing good, and energetic\nin combating evil. Wherever false religion predominates, and where,\nin consequence, these two means of aid are wanting, the government is\nunder the necessity of supplying them as far as possible by efforts of\na severe, harsh, and terror-inspiring policy, in default of that virtue\nwhich ought to exist in religion to restrain citizens.\n\n\"Hence the Catholic religion, by the influence of her dogmas over human\naffairs, relieves governments from the necessity of being harsh. In\nJapan, where the prevailing religion has no dogmas, and gives no idea\nof heaven or hell, laws are made to supply this defect--laws rendered\nuseful by the cruelty with which they are conceived and the punctuality\nwith which they are executed. In every society in which deists,\nfatalists, and philosophers have promulgated this error, that our\nactions are unavoidable, it is impossible to prevent laws from becoming\nmore terrible and sanguinary than any we have known among barbarian\nnations; for in such a society, men, after the manner of brutes, being\nurged by palpable motives to do what they are commanded and omit what\nthey are forbidden, these motives, with chastisements, must be daily\nmore formidable, in order to avoid losing from habit the power of\nmaking themselves felt. The Christian religion, which admirably teaches\nand explains the dogmas of rational liberty, has no need of an iron\nrod to govern mankind. The fear of the pains of hell, whether eternal,\nto punish crimes unrepented of, or temporal, to wash away the stains\nof sins confessed, relieves judges from the necessity of augmenting\npunishments. On the other hand, the hope of gaining heaven, as a reward\nfor laudable actions, words, and thoughts, induces men to be just,\nnot only in public but also in the secrecy of the heart. What laws or\npenalties would avail governments not possessed of this dogma of hell\nand of glory, to make their citizens men of real merit? Materialists,\ndenying the dogma of a future state, and deists, holding out to the\nwicked the flattering security of paradise, place governments under\nthe painful necessity of arming themselves with all the instruments\nof terror, and of always inflicting the most cruel punishments, to\nrestrain the people from destroying one another.\n\n\"Protestants have already come to this point by rejecting the dogma\nof the eternity of hell, or, at least, by preserving merely the fear\nof a temporary pain. The first reformers, as d'Alembert observes to\nthe clergy of Geneva, denied the doctrine of purgatory, and retained\nthat of hell; but the Calvinists, and modern reformers, by their\nlimitation of the duration of hell, leave only what may be properly\ntermed purgatory. Is not the dogma of the last judgment, when each\none's secret offences, however small, shall be exposed to the whole\nworld, of singular efficacy in restraining the thoughts and desires,\nand all the perversity of the heart and of the passions? It is evident\nthat this dogma so far relieves political governments from the painful\nand continual vigilance which it would have to exercise over a town\nin which the idea of this judgment has perished, together with the\nthoughts which it inspires.\"\n\n\n\u00a7 II.\n\n\"There are certain aberrations observable among philosophers,\nwhich lead us to think that these men were possessed of some true\ndiscernment in their lucid moments, or whilst they were in the Catholic\nreligion. Hence they have said, 'that religion was invented for a\npolitical purpose, to spare sovereigns the necessity of being just,\nof making good laws, and of governing well.' This folly, which stands\nself-condemned when we come to speak of religion previously formed,\nsupposes, nevertheless, the truth we are speaking of. It is evident\nto every one, even to the philosophers whose extravagant assertion\nwe have just adduced, that the Christian religion, by her dogmas, is\nserviceable to human governments, and aids in making good citizens,\neven in this world. Yet they avail themselves of this very point to put\nforth their insane malice: but, in reality, and in spite of themselves,\nthey mean to say, that the dogmas of religion are of such service to\ngovernments, and so efficacious in facilitating a great part of their\nwork, that they appear to be formed on purpose, and according to the\ndesigns of a magistrate or a political government. We cannot say,\non this account, that religion alone is sufficient to govern men,\nwithout any judicial aid, without the intervention of the laws and\nof penalties. In speaking of this efficacy of the dogmas inculcated\nby religion, we are not rash and presumptuous; we do not reject as\nsuperfluous the office of law and police. We are told by the Apostle,\nthat for the just there would have been no need of laws; but there are\nso many wicked, who, through their forgetfulness of their destiny and\nthe terrible judgments of God, live under the exclusive rule of their\npassions, that it has been found necessary to make laws and institute\npunishments, in order to restrain them. Hence, the Catholic religion\ndoes not reject the wise vigilance of police, nor abrogate its office;\nshe seconds it, on the contrary, and receives assistance from it, to\nthe very great advantage of good governments; the people, through its\ninfluence, are ruled better, and with less austerity and severity.\"\n\n\n\u00a7 III.\n\n\"The second reason which renders the most mild and moderate governments\nsufficient in Catholic States is, the assistance which the grace of\nthe gospel affords for doing good and avoiding evil,--an assistance\nimparted by the use of the sacraments, or other means employed by the\nSpirit from above. Without this, every law is harsh; this unction\nsoftens every yoke, renders every burden light.\"\n\nIn his third article, Father Zeballos repels the accusation of\ndespotism with which the enemies of monarchy reproach it. On this\noccasion he points out the just limits of royal authority, and\noverthrows an argument which some persons have pretended to found on\nthe Scriptures, for the exaggeration of the prerogatives of the throne.\nHe expresses himself as follows:\n\n\"When the objection, that the sovereign had the power of seizing the\nproperty of every citizen, was made against monarchy, it was rather\nan argument against the nature of despotism than against the form\nof monarchical government. 'What does it avail,' says Theseus in\nEuripides, 'to amass riches for our heirs, to bring up our daughters\nwith care, if we are to be deprived of the greater portion of these\nriches by a tyrant, if our daughters are to serve the most unruly\npassions?' You perceive, then clearly, that in pretending to argue\nagainst the office of a monarch, it is a tyrant only that is spoken\nof. True, the frequent abuse of power resorted to by kings has caused\nthese names and forms to be confounded. Others have already observed\nthat the ancients were scarcely acquainted with the nature of true\nmonarchy; this was very natural, since they never witnessed any thing\nbut the abuse of it. This gives me the opportunity of making a remark\nupon the circumstance of the Hebrews asking to be governed by kings.\n'Make us a king to judge us, as all nations have,' said they to the\nprophet. Samuel saw with grief this levity, which was about to cause\na total revolution in the government appointed by God. Nevertheless,\nGod commands the prophet to take no notice of this affront, which was\nprincipally offered to the Lord; for they were abandoning Him, being\nunwilling that He should rule over them any longer. 'As they have\nforsaken Me, and served strange gods, so do they also unto thee,' and\nask for kings like unto those of the nations. Observe what an intimate\nconnection always exists between a change of government and a change in\nreligion, especially when the change is from a true to a false one.\n\n\"But what is particularly deserving of notice is, the acquiescence\ngranted to the people's demand. They wish to be ruled by kings, exactly\nas all other nations were. The Lord chastises their spirit of revolt by\nleaving them to their desires. He commands Samuel to comply with their\nrequest, but to point out to them, at the same time, _the rights of the\nking_ who was to rule over them like unto the nations, and said: 'This\nwill be the right of the king that shall reign over you: he will take\nyour sons, and will put them in his chariots, and will make them his\nhorsemen, and his running footmen, to run before his chariots; and he\nwill appoint them to be his tribunes, and his centurions, and to plough\nhis fields, and to reap his corn, and to make him arms and chariots.\nYour daughters also will he take to make him ointments, and to be his\ncooks and bakers; and he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and\nyour best olive-yards, and give them to his servants. Moreover, he will\ntake the tenth of your corn, and of the revenues of your vineyards, to\ngive to his eunuchs and servants. Your servants also, and hand-maids,\nand your goodliest young men, and your asses, he will take away, and\nput them to his work. Your flocks also he will tithe, and you shall be\nhis servants; and you shall cry out in that day from the face of the\nking whom you have chosen to yourselves; and the Lord will not hear you\nin that day, because you desired unto yourselves a king. And the people\nwould not hear the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay, but there shall\nbe a king over us, and we also will be like all nations.' (1st Kings,\nchap. viii., from verse 11 to middle of verse 20 inclusively.)\n\n\"Some persons, being determined to extend the power of kings beyond\nits limits, draw from these words the formula of royal right. A blind\npretension, and reflecting little honor on legitimate monarchs such as\nthe Catholic sovereigns. Unless a person wishes knowingly to deceive\nhimself on this portion of the Scripture, or is blind, he may see by\nthe context, and by comparing this passage with others, that it is not\nlegitimate right that is here meant, but _de facto_ right. I mean to\nsay, that the Holy Spirit does not explain what just monarchs ought to\ndo; but what had been done, and was still done, by the kings of Pagan\nnations, mere tyrants, and commonly so called. Observe, that the people\ndemanded nothing but to be placed on an equality with the Pagan nations\nin a political point of view. They had not the prudence to demand a\nking such as he ought to be, but such as was common in those days; and\nthis was what God granted them. If God, as the prophet observes, has\nsometimes given the people kings in His wrath, what people were more\ndeserving of this than those who had abandoned God himself, and refused\nto be ruled by Him? Indeed, God did chastise His people severely by\ngranting them their foolish demand. He did give them a king, but a\nking who was to exercise what, according to the perverse custom of the\ntimes, formed the royal right described in the sacred text just quoted.\n\n\"What man in our days, conversant with what has been written upon\nthe different natures of governments, upon their abuse, and without\neven understanding what is said in the Scriptures, could imagine that\nthe text of Samuel contains the legitimate form of royalty or of\nmonarchy? Does this power impart the right of seizing the property of\nthe subjects, their lands, their riches, their sons and daughters,\nand even their natural liberty? Is this the model of a monarchy, or\nof the most tyrannical despotism? To dispel every illusion on this\npoint, we need only compare with what we have just read the 21st\nchap. of the third Book of Kings, in which the history of Naboth, an\ninhabitant of Jezrael, is narrated. Achab, the king of Israel, wished\nto enlarge the palace, or pleasure-house which he possessed in that\ntown. A vineyard of Naboth's, near the palace, came within the plan of\nthe gardens that were to be added. The king did not seize it at once,\nof his own authority, but asked the proprietor to let him have it on\nthe honest condition of paying him the price at which he should value\nit, or giving him a better in another place. Naboth would not consent\nto this, because it was the inheritance of his ancestors. The king,\nnot being accustomed to meet with a refusal, threw himself upon his\ncouch oppressed with grief; the queen, Jezabel, came, and told him to\ncalm his agitation: 'Thy authority is great indeed,' said she to him;\n_Grandis authoritatis es_: she promises to put him in possession of\nthe vineyard. This abominable woman wrote to the judges of Jezrael to\ncommence an action against Naboth for a calumny, to be proved against\nhim by two suborned witnesses; and she demanded that he should be\ncondemned to death. The queen was obeyed; Naboth was stoned to death.\nAll this was necessary that the vineyard might enter into the royal\ntreasury, and that, watered by the blood of the proprietor, it might\nproduce flowers for the palace of these princes. But, in reality, it\nproduced none, neither for the king nor for the queen; it furnished\nthem with nothing but briars and mortal poisons. Elias presents himself\nbefore Achab when he was going to take possession of Naboth's vineyard;\nhe announces to him that he, and all his house, even to the dog that\napproacheth the wall, shall be erased from the face of the earth.\n\n\"You look upon royal right as explained to the people by Samuel as\nlegitimate; tell me, then why Achab and Jezabel are so severely\npunished for taking the vineyard and the life of Naboth, _since\nthe king had a right to take from his subjects their most valuable\nvineyards and olive trees_, according to the declaration of the\nprophet. If Achab possesses this right after he is established the king\nof the people of God, whence comes it that he, so violent a prince,\nshould entreat Naboth with so much civility? And why is it necessary\nto accuse Naboth of some calumny? His resistance to the king's right,\nby refusing to accept the just value of what was suitable to the\nenlargement of the palace and gardens, would have been a sufficient\nmotive for instituting an action against him. We find, however, that\nNaboth committed no injustice against the king by refusing to sell his\npatrimony, not even in the estimation of the queen, who boasted of\nher husband's _great authority_. This great authority, which Jezabel\nadmitted in the king, was neither more nor less than the royal right\nspoken of by Samuel to the people; it was, as I have said, a _de facto_\nright to take and seize upon every thing by mere force, as Montesquieu\nsays of the tyrant.\n\n\"_Do not therefore, mention this passage, nor any other of the\nScriptures, to justify the idea of a government so ill-conceived. The\ndoctrine of the Catholic religion is attached to legitimate monarchy,\nwith its suitable characteristics, and in accordance with the qualities\nwhich modern publicists recognise, viz. as a paternal and sovereign\npower, but conformable to the fundamental laws of the state. Within\nlimits so suitable, nothing can be more regular than this power, the\nmost extensive of all temporal powers, and that which is most favored\nand supported by the Catholic Church._\"\n\nSuch is the horrible despotism taught by these men so basely\ncalumniated! Happy the people who are ruled by a prince whose\ngovernment is regulated by these doctrines!\n\n\nNOTE 31, p. 330.\n\nThe importance of the matter treated of in this part of my work obliges\nme to insert here, at some length, passages proving the truth of what\nI have advanced. I did not think it advisable to give a translation\nof the Latin passages, that I might avoid augmenting excessively the\nnumber of pages; besides, among the persons who may wish to make\nthemselves thoroughly acquainted with the subject, and who will\nconsequently take an interest in consulting the original texts, there\nare few ignorant of the Latin language.\n\nObserve how St. Thomas expresses himself on royal power, and with what\nsolid and generous doctrine he points out its duties in the third book,\nchap. 11, of his treatise _De Regimine Principum_.\n\n\nDIVUS THOMAS.\n\n\"_De Regimine Principum_, liber iii. caput XI.\n\n\"Hic Sanctus Doctor declarat de dominio regali, in quo consistit, et in\nquo differt a politico, et quo modo distinguitur diversimodo secundum\ndiversas rationes.\n\n\"Nunc autem ad regale dominium est procedendum, ubi est distinguendum\nde ipso secundum diversas regiones, et prout a diversis varie invenitur\ntraditum. Et primo quidem, in Sacra Scriptura aliter leges regalis\ndominii traduntur in Deuteronomio per Moysen, aliter in 1 Regum\nper Samuelem prophetam, uterque tamen in persona Dei differenter\nordinat regem ad utilitatem subditorum, quod est proprium regum,\nut Philosophus tradit in 8 ethic. Cum, inquit, constitutus fuerit\nrex, non multiplicabit sibi equos, nec reducet populum in \u00c6gyptum,\nequitatus numero sublevatus, non habebit uxores plurimas, qu\u00e6 alliciant\nanimam ejus, neque argenti, aut auri immensa pondera: quod quidem\nqualiter habet intelligi, supra traditur in hoc lib. describetque sibi\nDeuteronomium legis hujus, et habebit secum, legetque illud omnibus\ndiebus vit\u00e6 su\u00e6, ut discat timere dominum Deum suum, et custodire verba\nejus et c\u00e6remonias, et ut videlicet possit populum dirigere secundum\nlegem divinam, unde et rex Salomon in principio sui regiminis hanc\nsapientiam a Deo petivit, ad directionem sui regiminis pro utilitate\nsubditorum, sicut scribitur in 3 lib. Regum. Subdit vero dictus Moyses\nin eodem lib. Nec elevetur cor ejus in superfluum super fratres suos,\nneque declinet in partem dexteram, vel sinistram, ut longo tempore\nregat ipse et filius ejus super Israel. Sed in primo Regum, traduntur\nleges regni, magis ad utilitatem Regis, ut supra patuit in lib. 2\nhujus operis, ubi ponuntur verba omnino pertinentia ad conditionem\nservilem, et tamen Samuel leges quas tradit cum sint penitus despotic\u00e6\ndicit esse regales. Philosophus autem in 8 ethic. magis concordat cum\nprimis legibus. Tria enim ponit de rege in eo. 4, videlicet, quod\nille legitimus est rex qui principaliter bonum subditorum intendit.\nItem, ille rex est, qui curam subditorum habet, ut bene operentur\nquemadmodum pastor ovium. Ex quibus omnibus manifestum est, quod juxta\nistum, modum despoticum multum differat a regali, ut idem Philosophus\nvidetur dicere in 1 politic. Item, _quod regnum non est propter regem,\nsed rex propter regnum_, quia ad hoc Deus _providit de eis, ut regnum\nregant et gubernent, et unumquemque in suo jure conservent_: et hic\nest _finis regiminis, quod si ad aliud faciunt in seipsos commodum\nretorquendo, non sunt reges sed tyranni_. Contra _quos dicit Dominus\nin Ezech_. V\u00e6 pastoribus Israel, qui pascunt semetipsos. Nonne greges\npascuntur a pastoribus? Lac comedebatis, et lanis operiebamini, et\nquod crassum erat occidebatis: gregem autem meum non pascebatis: quod\ninfirmum fuit, non consolidastis, et quod \u00e6grotum non sanastis, quod\nconfractum non alligastis, quod abjectum non reduxistis, et quod\nperierat non qu\u00e6sistis; sed cum austeritate imperabatis eis et cum\npotentia. In quibus verbis nobis sufficienter forma regiminis traditur\nredarguendo contrarium. Amplius autem regnum ex hominibus constituitur,\nsicut domus ex parietibus, et corpus humanum ex membris, ut Philos.\ndicit in 3 politic. Finis _ergo regis est, ut regimen prosperetur,\nquod homines conserventur per regem_. Et hinc habet commune bonum\ncujuslibet principatus participationem divin\u00e6 bonitatis: unde bonum\ncommune dicitur a Philosopho in 1 ethic. esse quod omnia appetunt,\net esse bonum divinum, _ut sicut Deus qui est rex regum, et dominus\ndominantium, cujus virtute principes imperant, ut probatum est supra,\nnos regit et gubernat non propter seipsum, sed propter nostram salutem:\nita et reges faciant et alii dominatores in orbe_.\"\n\n\nNOTE 32, p. 336.\n\nI have noticed the opinion of D. Felix Amat, Archbishop of Palmyra,\nwith respect to the obedience due to _de facto_ governments. I have\nremarked, that this writer's principles, besides being false, are\nopposed to the rights of the people. The Archbishop of Palmyra appears\nto have been at a loss to discover a maxim to which it is possible to\nconform under all circumstances that may occur, and which do occur but\ntoo often. He dreaded the obscurity and confusion of ideas when the\nlegitimacy of a given case was to be defined; he wished to remedy an\nevil, but he appears to have aggravated it to an extraordinary degree.\nObserve how he sets forth his opinion in his work entitled _Idea of the\nChurch Militant_, chap. iii. art. 2:\n\n\"The more I reflect,\" says he, \"on the difficulties I have just pointed\nout, the more I am convinced that it is impossible to resolve them,\neven those which are ancient, with any degree of certainty; and it is\nequally impossible to derive any light from them to aid us in resolving\nthose which are formed at the present day by the struggle between the\nprevailing spirit of insubordination in opposition to the judgment and\nwill of the governor, and the contrary effort made to limit more and\nmore the liberty of those who obey. Starting from the divers points\nand notions that I have laid down relative to the supreme power in all\nreally civil societies, it appears to me, that, instead of losing time\nin mere speculative discussions, it will be more useful to propose a\npractical, just, and opportune maxim for the preservation of public\ntranquillity, especially in Christian kingdoms and states, and for\naffording the means of re-establishing it when it has been troubled or\ndestroyed.\n\n\"The _Maxim_.--No one can doubt the legitimacy of the obligation of\nevery member of any civil society whatever to obey the government which\nis de facto and unquestionably established. I say '_unquestionably\nestablished_,' because there is here no question of a mere invasion\nor temporary occupation in time of war. From this maxim follow two\nconsequences: 1st, to take part in insurrections, or assemblages of\npeople, addressing themselves to the constituted authorities with a\nview to compel them to grant what they consider unjust, is always an\nact contrary to right reason; always unlawful, condemned by the natural\nlaw and by the Gospel. 2dly, individual members of society, who combine\ntogether and take up arms, in small or large numbers, for the purpose\nof attacking the established government by physical force, are always\nguilty of rebellion, a crime strongly opposed to the spirit of our\ndivine religion.\"\n\nI will not here repeat what I have already said on the unsoundness,\nthe inconveniences, and the dangers of such a doctrine, but merely\nadd, that with respect to governments only established _de facto_, to\ngrant them the right of commanding and exacting obedience involves a\ncontradiction. To say that a _de facto_ government is bound, whilst\nit does exist, to protect justice, to avoid crimes, to prevent the\ndissolution of society, is merely to maintain truths universally\nadmitted, and denied by no one; but to add, that it is unlawful, and\ncontrary to our holy religion, to combine together and raise forces for\nthe overthrow of a _de facto_ government, is a doctrine which Catholic\ntheologians have never professed, which true philosophy has never\nadmitted, and which no nation has ever observed.\n\n\nNOTE 33, p. 343.\n\nI insert here certain remarkable passages from St. Thomas and Suarez,\nin which these authors explain the opinions to which I have alluded in\nthe text, respecting the differences which may arise between governors\nand the governed. I refer to what I have already pointed out in another\nplace; we are not about to examine so much whether such or such\ndoctrines are true, as to discover what were the doctrines at the time\nwe are speaking of, and what opinion the most distinguished doctors\nformed on the delicate questions of which we are treating.\n\n\nD. THOMAS.\n\n(2. 2. Q. 42. art. 2^o ad tertium.--Utrum seditio sit semper peccatum\nmortale?)\n\n3. Arg. Laudantur qui multitudinem a potestate tyrannica liberant, sed\nhoc non de facili potest fieri sine aliqua dissensione multitudinis,\ndum una pars multitudinis nititur retinere tyrannum, alia vero nititur\neum abjicere, ergo seditio potest fieri sine peccato.\n\nAd tertium dicendum; quod regimen tyrannicum non est justum quia\nnon ordinatur ad bonum commune, sed ad bonum privatum regentis ut\npatet per Philosophum; et ideo perturbatio hujus regiminis non habet\nrationem seditionis, nisi forte quando sic inordinate perturbatur\ntyranni regimen, quod multitudo subjecta majus detrimentum patitur\nex perturbatione consequenti quam ex tyranni regimine; magis autem\ntyrannus seditiosus est, qui in populo sibi subjecto discordias et\nseditiones nutrit, ut tutius dominari possit; hoc enim tyrannicum est,\ncum sit ordinatum ad bonum proprium pr\u00e6sidentis cum multitudinis\nnocumento.\n\nCardinalis Cayetanus in hunc textum. \"Quis sit autem modus ordinatus\nperturbandi tyrannum et qualem tyrannum, puta secundum regimen tantum,\nvel secundum regimen et titulum, non est pr\u00e6sentis intentionis: sat est\nnunc, quod utrumque tyrannum licet ordinate perturbare absque seditione\nquandoque; illum ut bono reipublic\u00e6 vacet, istum ut expellatur.\"\n\n\nLIB. I.\n\n_De Regimine Principum._ (Cap. x.)\n\n Quod rex et princeps studere debet ad bonum regimen propter bonum sui\n ipsius, et utile quod inde sequitur, cujus contrarium sequitur regimen\n tyrannicum.\n\nTyrannorum vero dominium diuturnum esse non potest, cum sit multitudini\nodiosum. Non potest enim diu conservari, quod votis multorum repugnat.\nVix enim a quoquam pr\u00e6sens vita transigitur quin aliquas adversitates\npatiatur. Adversitatis autem tempore occasio deesse non potest\ncontra tyrannum insurgendi; et ubi adsit occasio, non deerit ex\nmultis vel unus qui occasione non utatur. Insurgentem autem populus\nvotive prosequitur: nec de facili carebit effectu, quod cum favore\nmultitudinis attentatur. Vix ergo potest contingere, quod tyranni\ndominium protendatur in longum. Hoc etiam manifeste patet, si quis\nconsideret unde tyranni dominium conservatur. Non n. conservatur amore,\ncum parva, vel nulla sit amicitia subject\u00e6 multitudinis ad tyrannum\nut ex pr\u00e6habitis patet: de subditorum autem fide tyrannis confidendum\nnon est. Non n. invenitur tanta virtus in multis, ut fidelitatis\nvirtute reprimantur, ne indebit\u00e6 servitutis jugum, si possint,\nexcutiant. Fortassis autem nec fidelitati contrarium reputabitur\nsecundum opinionem multorum, si tyrannic\u00e6 nequiti\u00e6 qualitercumque\nobvietur. Restat ergo ut solo timore tyranni regimen sustentetur; unde\net timeri se a subditis tota intentione procurant. Timor autem est\ndebile fundamentum. Nam qui timore subduntur, si occurrat occasio qua\npossint impunitatem sperare, contra pr\u00e6sidentes insurgunt eo ardentius,\nquo magis contra voluntatem ex solo timore cohibebantur. Sicut si\naqua per violentiam includatur, cum aditum invenerit, impetuosius\nfluit. Sed nec ipse timor caret periculo, cum ex nimio timore plerique\nin desperationem inciderint. Salutis autem desperatio audacter ad\nqu\u00e6libet attentanda pr\u00e6cipitat. Non potest igitur tyranni dominium esse\ndiuturnum. Hoc etiam non minus exemplis, quam rationibus apparet.\n\n\nLIB. I. CAP. VI.\n\n Conclusio; quod regimen unius simpliciter sit optimum; ostendit\n qualiter multitudo se debet habere circa ipsum, quia auferenda est ei\n occasio ne tyrannizet, ei quod etiam in hoc est tolerandus propter\n majus malum vitandum.\n\nQuia ergo unius regimen pr\u00e6 eligendum est, quod est optimum, et\ncontingit ipsum in tyrannidem converti, quod est pessimum, ut ex dictis\npatet, laborandum est diligenti studio, ut sic multitudini provideatur\nde rege, ut non incidat in tyrannum. Primum autem est necessarium,\nut talis conditionis homo ab illis ad quos hoc spectat officium,\npromoveatur in regem, quod non sit probabile in tyrannidem declinare.\nUnde Samuel Dei providentiam erga institutionem regis commendans, ait,\n1 Regum xiii.: Qu\u00e6sivit sibi Dominus, virum secundum cor suum: deinde\nsic disponenda est regni gubernatio, ut regi jam instituto tyrannidis\nsubtrahatur occasio. Simul etiam sic ejus temperetur potestas, ut\nin tyrannidem de facili declinare non possit. Qu\u00e6 quidem ut fiant,\ninsequentibus considerandum erit. Demum vero curandum est, si rex\nin tyrannidem diverteret, qualiter posset occuri. Et quidem si non\nfuerit excessus tyrannidis, utilius est remissam tyrannidem tolerare\nad tempus, quam tyrannum agendo multis implicari periculis, qu\u00e6 sunt\ngraviora ipsa tyrannide. Potest, n. contingere ut qui contra tyrannum\nagunt pr\u00e6valere non possint, et sic provocatus tyrannus magis des\u00e6viat.\nQuod si pr\u00e6valere quis possit adversus tyrannum, ex hoc ipso proveniunt\nmultoties gravissim\u00e6 dissensiones in populo, sive dum in tyrannum\ninsurgitur, sive post dejectionem tyranni erga ordinationem regiminis\nmultitudo separatur in partes. Contingit etiam ut interdum dum\nalicujus auxilio multitudo expellit tyrannum, ille potestate accepta\ntyrannidem arripiat, et timens pati ab alio quod ipse in alium fecit,\ngraviori servitute subditos opprimat. Sic enim in tyrannide solet\ncontingere, ut posterior gravior fiat quam pr\u00e6cedens, dum pr\u00e6cedentia\ngravamina non deserit, et ipse ex sui cordis malitia nova excogitat:\nunde Syracusis quondam Dyonisii mortem omnibus desiderantibus, anus\nqu\u00e6dem ut incolumnis et sibi superstes esset, continue orabat: quod\nut tyrannus cognovit, cur hoc faceret interrogavit. Tum illa, puella,\ninquit, existens cum gravem tyrannum haberemus, mortem ejus cupiebam,\nquo interfecto, aliquantulum durior successit; ejus quoque dominationem\nfiniri magnum existimabam, tertium te importuniorem habere c\u0153pimus\nrectorem; itaque si tu fueris absumptus, deterior in locum tuum\nsuccedet. Et si sit intolerabilis excessus tyrannidis, quibusdam visum\nfuit, ut ad fortium virorum virtutem pertineat tyrannum interimere,\nseque pro liberatione multitudinis exponere periculis mortis: cujus\nrei exemplum etiam in veteri Testamento habetur. Nam Ajoth quidam\nEglon regem Moab, qui gravi servitute populum Dei premebat, sica\ninfixa in ejus femore interemit, et factus est populi judex. Sed hoc\nApostolic\u00e6 doctrin\u00e6 non congruit. Docet n. nos Petrus, non bonis\ntantum et modestis, verum etiam discolis Dominis reverenter subditos\nesse. 2 Petr. ii. H\u00e6c est enim gratia, si propter conscientiam Dei\nsustineat quis tristitias patiens injuste: unde cum multi Romani\nImperatores fidem Christi persequerentur tyrannice, magnaque multitudo\ntam nobilium, quam populi esset ad fidem conversa, non resistendo, sed\nmortem patienter et armati sustinentes pro Christo laudantur, ut in\nsacra Theb\u00e6orum legione manifeste apparet; magisque Ajoth judicandus\nest hostem interemisse, quam populi rectorem, licet tyrannum; unde\net in veteri Testamento leguntur occisi fuisse hi qui occiderunt\nJoas regem Juda, quamvis a cultu Dei recedentem, eorumque filiis\nreservatis secundum legis pr\u00e6ceptum. Esset autem hoc multitudini\npericulosum et ejus rectoribus, si privata pr\u00e6sumptione aliqui\nattentarent pr\u00e6sidentium necem etiam tyrannorum. Plerumque enim\nhujusmodi periculis magis exponunt se mali quam boni. Malis autem solet\nesse grave dominium non minus regum quam tyrannorum, quia secundum\nsententiam Salomonis: Dissipat impios rex sapiens. Magis igitur ex\nhujus pr\u00e6sumptione immineret periculum multitudini de amissione regis,\nquam remedium de subtractione tyranni. Videtur autem magis contra\ntyrannorum s\u00e6vitiam non privata pr\u00e6sumptione aliquorum, sed auctoritate\npublica procedendum. Primo quidem, si ad jus multitudinis alicujus\npertineat sibi providere de rege, non injuste ab eadem rex institutus\npotest destitui, vel refr\u00e6nari ejus potestas, si potestate regia\ntyrannice abutatur. Nec putanda est talis multitudo infideliter agere\ntyrannum destituens, etiamsi eidem in perpetuo se ante subjecerat:\nquia hoc ipse meruit in multitudinis regimine se non fideliter gerens,\nut exigit regis officium, quod ei pactum a subditis non reservetur.\nSic Romani Tarquinium superbum quem in regem susceperant, propter\nejus et filiorum tyrannidem a regno ejecerunt substituta minori,\nscilicet consularia potestate. Sic etiam Domitianus, qui modestissimis\nImperatoribus Vespasiano patri, et Tito fratri ejus successerat, dum\ntyrannidem exercet, a senatu Romano interemptus est, omnibus qu\u00e6\nperverse Romanis fecerat per Senatusconsultum juste et salubriter\nin irritum revocatis. Quo factum est, ut beatus Joannes Evangelista\ndilectus Dei discipulus, qui per ipsum Domitianum in Pathmos insulam\nfuerat exilio relegatus, ad Ephesum per Senatusconsultum remitteretur.\nSi vero ad jus alicujus superioris pertineat multitudini providere\nde rege, spectandum est ab eo remedium contra tyranni nequitiam. Sic\nArchelai, qui in Jud\u00e6a pro Herode patre suo regnare jam c\u0153perat,\npaternam malitiam imitantis, Jud\u00e6is contra eum querimoniam ad Cesarem\nAugustum deferentibus, primo quidem potestas diminuitur, ablato sibi\nregio nomine, et medietate regni sui inter duos fratres suos divisa:\ndeinde cum nec sic a tyrannide compesceretur a Tiberio Cesare relegatus\nest in exilium apud Lugdunum Galli\u00e6 civitatem. Quod si omnino contra\ntyrannum auxilium humanum haberi non potest, recurrendum est ad regem\nomnium Deum, quid est adjutor in opportunitatibus in tribulatione.\nEjus enim potenti\u00e6 subest, ut cor tyranni crudele convertat in\nmansuetudinem, secundum Salomonis sententiam. Proverb. xii. Cor regis\nin manu Dei quocumque voluerit inclinavit illud. Ipse enim regis\nAssueri crudelitatem, qui Jud\u00e6is mortem parabat, in mansuetudinem\nvertit. Ipse est qui ita Nabuchodonosor, crudelem regem convertit,\nquod factus est divin\u00e6 potenti\u00e6 pr\u00e6dicator. Nunc igitur, inquit, ego\nNabuchodonosor laudo, et magnifico, et glorifico regem c\u0153li, quia\nopera ejus vera et vi\u00e6 ejus judicia, et gradientes in superbia potest\nhumiliare. Dan. iv. Tyrannos vero quos reputat conversione indignos,\npotest auferre de medio vel ad infimum statum reducere, secundum\nillud Sapientes Eccles. x. Sedem ducum superborum destruxit Deus, et\nsedere fecit mites pro eis. Ipse enim qui videns afflictionem populi\nsui in \u00c6gypto, et audiens eorum clamorem Pharaonem tyrannum dejecit\ncum exercitu suo in mare; ipse est qui memoratum Nabuchodonosor prius\nsuperbientem non solum ejectum de regni solio, sed etiam de hominum\nconsortio, in similitudinem besti\u00e6 commutavit. Nec enim abreviata manus\nejus est, ut populum suum a tyrannis liberare non possit. Promittit\nenim populo suo per Isaiam, requiem se daturum a labore et confusione,\nac servitute dura, qua ante servierat, et per Ezech. xxxiv. dicit:\nLiberabo meum gregem de ore eorum pastorum, qui pascunt seipsos. Sed\nut, hoc beneficium populus a Deo consequi mereatur, debet a peccatis\ncessare, quia in ultionem peccati divina permissione impii accipiunt\nprincipatum, dicente Domino per Osee xiii.: Dabo tibi regem in furore\nmeo, et in Job. xxxiv. dicitur, quod regnare facit hominem hypocritam\npropter peccata populi. Tollenda est igitur culpa, ut cesset a\ntyrannorum plaga.\n\n\nSUAREZ.\n\n(Disp. 13. De Bello. sect. 8.--Utrum seditio sit intrinsece mala?)\n\nSeditio dicitur bellum commune intra eamdem Rempublicam, quod geri\npotest, vel inter duas partes ejus, vel inter Principem et Rempublicam.\nDico primo: Seditio inter duas partes Reipublic\u00e6 semper est mala ex\nparte aggressoris: ex parte vero defendentis se justa est. Hoc secundum\nper se est notum. Primum ostenditur: quia nulla cernitur ibi legitima\nauctoritas ad indicendum bellum; h\u00e6c enim residet in supremo Principe,\nut vidimus sect. 2. Dices, interdum poterit Princeps eam auctoritatem\nconcedere, si magna necessitas publica urgeat. At tunc jam non censetur\naggredi pars Reipublic\u00e6, sed Princeps ipse; sicque nulla erit seditio\nde qua loquimur. Sed, quid si illa Reipublic\u00e6 pars sit vere offensa ab\nalia neque possit per Principem jus suum obtinere? Respondeo, non posse\nplus efficere, quam possit persona privata, ut ex superioribus constare\nfacile potest.\n\nDico secundo: Bellum Reipublic\u00e6 contra Principem, etiamsi aggressivum,\nnon est intrinsece malum; habere tamen debet conditiones justi alias\nbelli, ut honestetur. Conclusio solum habet locum, quando Princeps\nest tyrannus; quod duobus modis contingit, ut Cajet. not. 2. 2. q. 64\narticulo primo ad tertium: primo si tyrannus sit quoad dominium, et\npotestatem: secundo solum quoad regimen. Quando priori modo accidit\ntyrannus, tota Respublica, et quodlibet ejus membrum jus habet\ncontra illum; unde quilibet potest se ac Rempublicam a tyrannide\nvindicare. Ratio est; quia tyrannus ille aggressor est, et inique\nbellum movet contra Rempublicam, et singula membra; unde omnibus\ncompetit jus defensionis. Ita Cajetanus eo loco, sumique potest ex\nD. Thom. in secundo, distinctione 44, qu\u00e6stione secunda, articulo\nsecundo. De posteriori tyranno idem docuit Joann. Hus, imo de omni\niniquo superiore; quod damnatum est in Concilio Constant. Sessione\n8 et 15. Unde certa veritas est, contra hujusmodi tyrannum nullam\nprivatam personam, aut potestatem imperfectam posse juste movere bellum\naggressivum, atque illud esset propie seditio. Probatur, quoniam ille,\nut supponitur, verus est Dominus: inferiores autem jus non habent\nindicendi bellum, sed defendendi se tantum; quod non habet locum in\nhoc tyranno: namque ille non semper singulis facit injuriam, atque\nsi invaderent, id solum possent efficere, quod ad suam defensionem\nsufficeret. At vero tota Respublica posset bello insurgere contra\nejusmodi tyrannum, neque tunc excitaretur propia seditio (hoc siquidem\nnomen in malam partem sumi consuevit). Ratio est: quia tunc tota\nRespublica superior est Rege: nam, cum ipsa dederit illi potestatem,\nea conditione dedisse censetur, ut politice, non tyrannice regeret,\nalias ab ipsa posset deponi. Est tamen observandum, ut ille vere, et\nmanifeste tyrannice agat; concurrantque ali\u00e6 conditiones ad honestatem\nbelli positas. Lege Divum Thomum 1 de regimine Principum, cap. 6.\n\nDico tertio: Bellum Reipublic\u00e6 contra Regem neutro modo tyrannum, est\npropiissime seditio, et intrinsece malum. Est certa, et inde constat:\nquia deest tunc et causa justa, et potestas. Ex quo etiam e contrario\nconstat, bellum Principis contra Rempublicam sibi subditam, ex parte\npotestatis posse esse justum, si adsint ali\u00e6 conditiones; si vero\ndesint, injustum omnino esse.[E]\n\n [E] An extract from Bellarmine de Romano Pont. is here omitted.\n\n * * * * *\n\nListen to the language of P. Marquez in Spain, in the so-called\ndespotic times: it is well known that his work intituled _El Gobernador\nCristiano_ was not one of those obscure books which are never widely\ncirculated; it met with such success that it went through several\neditions, as well in Spain as in foreign countries. I will give the\ntitle at length, and I will add, at the same time, a note of the\neditions published at different epochs, in different countries, in\ndifferent languages,--a note which is to be found in the edition of\nMadrid in 1773.\n\n\"The Christian Magistrate (_El Gobernador Cristiano_), according to\nthe Life of Moses, the Ruler of the People of God, by the R. P. M. J.\nR. John Marquez, O. S. A., preacher to his Majesty King Philip III.,\nExaminer of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, and Evening Professor\nof Theology at the University of Salamanca. New and sixth edition, with\npermission. Madrid, 1773.\"\n\n\"The Christian Magistrate, composed at the request and in honor of His\nExcellency the Duke of Feria, first published at Salamanca, in the year\n1612; a second edition in the same town in 1619; a third edition at\nAlcala in 1634, and a fourth at Madrid in 1640; the fifth edition was\npublished out of Spain, at Brussels, in 1664. This is the masterpiece\namong works of this nature which have been written among us.\n\n\"Father Martin of St. Bernard, of the Order of C\u00eeteaux, translated\nthis work into Italian, and had it printed at Naples, in 1646. It was\nalso translated into French by M. de Virion, counsellor to the Duke of\nLorraine, and it was printed at Nancy in 1621.\"\n\n\nBOOK I. CHAP. 8.\n\n\"We have now to answer the contrary objections. We maintain that\nneither the divine nor the natural law has given to states the power\nof arresting the progress of tyranny by means so violent as that of\nshedding the blood of princes, they being the vicars of God, divinely\ninvested with the right of life and death over other men. But so far\nas resisting their cruelty is concerned, it is incontestable that\nit may and ought to be done. They are not to be obeyed in any thing\nopposed to the law of God; we must, therefore, escape from their wicked\ncommands, and prevent their blows, as Jonathan did with regard to Saul,\nhis father, when he saw him take his spear to smite David, and when,\nrising from the table, he went in search of the latter, and warned\nhim of his danger. It is also sometimes allowable to resist princes\nby force of arms, in order to prevent them from executing notoriously\nrash and cruel determinations; for, according to the words of St.\nThomas, this is not to excite sedition, but to stop and prevent it.\nTertullian affirms the same thing when he says: 'Illis nomen factionis\naccommodandum est, qui in odium bonorum et proborum conspirant, cum\nboni, cum pii congregantur, non est factio dicenda, sed curia.'\n\n\"This is the reason why the blessed St. Hermenegildus, a glorious\nSpanish martyr, took up arms and entered the field against King\nLeovigildus, an Arian, to resist the great persecution directed\nby this prince against the Catholics. This fact is related by the\ncontemporary historians. True, St. Gregory of Tours condemns this act\nof our king-martyr, not for having resisted his sovereign, but because\nthe former was both his king and his father: and he maintains that\nalthough he was a heretic, his son ought not to have resisted him. This\nreply, however, is not well founded, as Baronius observes. Moreover,\nthe authority of this Gregory was combated by another Gregory, greater\nthan he, St. Gregory the Great, who, in the preface to his book of\n_Morales_, approves of the embassy of Leander, sent to Constantinople\nby St. Hermenegildus, to solicit the aid of Tiberius against\nLeovigildus, his father. It is indubitable that however strong may be\nthe obligation of filial piety, that of religion is still stronger. The\nlatter obliges us to sacrifice every thing if it be necessary; and it\nis on account of cases of this nature, that it is written of the tribe\nof Levi: 'Qui dixerunt patri suo et matri su\u00e6, nescio vos, et fratribus\nsuis ignoro vos, nescierunt filios suos.' Such was the conduct of the\nLevites when they took up arms, by the command of Moses, to punish\ntheir relations for the sin of idolatry.\n\n\"If the prince should go so far as personally to make an attempt upon\nthe life of the subject who has no other means of defending himself\nthan killing him,--as when Nero, parading the streets of Rome, followed\nby a troop of armed men, attacked the quiet and unsuspecting citizens;\nI say, that in such a case it would be allowable to kill him; for\nif it is true, as Fr. Dominic de Soto observes, that the subject in\nthis extremity is to suffer himself to be killed, and so prefer the\nmonarch's life to his own, it is solely in the case when the death of\nthe monarch would give rise to great troubles and civil wars in the\nstate; in any other case it would be monstrously inhuman to force men\nto a thing so insupportable. But when the subject's property is merely\nto be defended against the cupidity of the monarch, it should not be\nallowable to lay hands on him; for it is a privilege granted to princes\nby divine and human laws, that their blood shall not be spilt for any\noutrage which, committed by any other violator of private property,\nwould be a sufficient motive for taking away his life. The reason of\nthis is, that the life of the king is the soul and bond of the state;\nthat it is of more importance than the property of individuals; that it\nis better to tolerate grievances of this nature, than to destroy the\nhead of the state.\"\n\n\nNOTE 34, p. 348.\n\nIn order to give an idea of the means employed at this epoch to limit\nthe power of the monarch, by forming associations, whether among the\npeople themselves, or between the people, the grandees, and the clergy,\nI insert here the letter, or _Charter of Fraternity_ (_Hermandad_),\nwhich the kingdoms of Leon and Galicia made with Castile. I have\nextracted this piece literally from the collection intituled _Bullarium\nordinis militi\u00e6 sancti Jacobi Gloriosissimi Hispaniarum patroni_, p.\n223. It will prove to us the existence already, at a remote epoch of\nour history, of a lively instinct for liberty, although ideas were\nstill limited to a secondary order.\n\n\"1. In the name of God and of the blessed Virgin. Amen.\n\n\"Be it known to all those who shall read this letter, that on account\nof the innumerable acts of injustice, injuries, deeds of violence,\nmurders, imprisonments, insolent refusals of audience, opprobriums,\nand other outrages without measure, committed against us by the king\nD. Alphonso, to the contempt of God, of justice, of right, and to the\ngreat detriment of all these kingdoms; we, the infantes, the prelates,\nthe rich men, the councils, the orders, the knights of the kingdoms\nof Leon and Galicia, seeing ourselves overwhelmed with injustice and\nill-treatment, as we have stated above, and finding it insupportable;\nour lord the infante Don Sancho has thought good and appointed that we\nshould be of one mind and of one heart, he with us and we with him, to\nmaintain our laws, our privileges, and our charters, in our usages,\nour manners, our liberties, and franchises, which we enjoyed under\nking Don Alphonso, his great-grandfather, the conqueror at the battle\nof Merida, and under king Don Ferdinand, his grandfather; under the\nemperor and all the other kings of Spain, their predecessors; and under\nthe king Don Alphonso, his father,--all princes who have best merited\nour gratitude; and our said lord the infante Don Sancho has bound us to\nthis effect by oath and promise, as it is certain by letters between\nhim and us. Considering that it is agreeable to the service of God, of\nthe blessed Virgin, of the court of Heaven, to the defence and honor\nof the holy Church, of the infante Don Sancho, and of the kings who\nshall succeed him, in fine, to the advantage of the whole country, we\nordain and establish fraternity (_hermandad_), now and for ever, we the\nwhole of the kingdoms above named, with the councils of the kingdom of\nCastile, with the infantes, the rich men, the hidalgos, the prelates,\nthe orders, the knights, and all others who are in this kingdom, and\nwho are willing to be with us, as it has just been said.\n\n\"2. Be it known to them, that we will insure to our lord the infante\nDon Sancho, and to all other kings who shall succeed him, all their\nrights, all their suzerainty, wholly and entirely, as we have\npromised, and as they are contained in the privilege which he has\ngiven us to this effect. Justice shall continue to be decreed by the\nsuzerainty. The Martiniega[F] shall be paid in the place and in the\nmanner in which it was customary to pay it, according to right, to Don\nAlphonso, the conqueror at the battle of Merida. The money[G] shall be\npaid at the end of seven years in the usual place and manner, the kings\nnot enjoining the coining of money. The repast (_yantar_)[H] shall be\ntaken in the place in which it was usual for the kings to take it,\naccording to the _fuero_, once a year, while visiting the very place,\nas it was given to the king Don Alphonso, his great-grandfather, and to\nthe king Don Ferdinand, his grandfather. The _fonsadera_,[I] when the\nking is with the army, in the customary place, according to the _fuero_\nand right in the days of the above-named kings, guaranteeing to each\nthe privileges, charters, liberties, and franchises appertaining to us.\n\n [F] Tribute that was paid on St. Martin's day.\n\n [G] Another tribute.\n\n [H] A tribute for the king's repast during his journeys.\n\n [I] Tribute for maintaining the ditches of the castles in Castile, and\n the armies.\n\n\"3. Be it known to them moreover, that we will maintain all our\nrights, usages, customs, privileges, charters, all our liberties and\nfranchises, always and in such a manner, that should the king, the\ninfante Don Sancho, or the kings who shall succeed them, or any of the\nlords, alcades, merinos, or any other persons, attempt to infringe upon\nthem, in whole or in part, in any way or at any time, we will unite\ninto one entire whole, and inform the king, the infante Don Sancho, or\nthose who shall succeed them, of the nature of our complaint, and ask\nthem if they are willing to reform; and if not, we will unite into one\nentire body to defend and protect ourselves, as it is ordained in the\ncharter granted us by the infante Don Sancho.\n\n\"4. Moreover, be it known to them that no member of this _hermandad_\nshall be chastised, and nothing shall be taken from him contrary\nto right and the custom of the place, in the councils of the said\n_hermandad_; and it shall not be allowable to take from him more than\nis demanded by the _fuero_, in the place in which he shall be.\n\n\"5. We protest, that if an alcade, a merino, or any other person, on\nthe authority of a letter of the king, of the infante Don Sancho, by\nhis command, or that of the kings who shall succeed him, shall kill a\nman of our _hermandad_ without hearing him and judging him according\nto law, that we, the _hermandad_, will take away his life for such an\nact. And if we cannot arrest him, he shall be declared an enemy to the\n_hermandad_; every member of the _hermandad_ who shall have concealed\nhim shall fall under the penalty of perjury and felony, and shall be\ntreated in his turn as an enemy to this _hermandad_.\n\n\"6. We declare, moreover, that the port-duties shall be paid by us only\nin conformity to the rights and usages of the times of Don Alphonso, or\nthe king Don Ferdinand, and the councils of the _hermandad_ will not\npermit any person to receive them beyond this measure.\n\n\"7. Moreover, no infante or rich man shall be a merino or grand bailiff\nin the kingdoms of Leon and Galicia. Neither can these functions be\nexercised by an infan\u00e7on, or a knight having notoriously a great number\nof knights or other men of the country in vassalage; neither can they\nbe exercised by a stranger to the country. And we so will it, because\nsuch was the custom in the days of the king Don Alphonso and of the\nking Don Ferdinand.\n\n\"8. All those who may wish to appeal from the judgment of the king, or\nof Don Sancho, or of other kings who shall succeed him, may do so; they\nshall have recourse to the book of the _Fuero Juzgo_, in the kingdom of\nLeon, as was usual in the days of the kings who preceded this. That if\nthe right of appeal be refused to any who may wish to invoke it, we,\non our part, will act according to the injunctions contained in the\ncharters granted us by Don Sancho.\n\n\"9. That we may guarantee and execute all the acts of this _hermandad_,\nwe make a seal of two plates, bearing the following impressions: upon\none of the plates, the figure of a lion; and upon the other, the figure\nof St. James on horseback, with a sword in his right hand; in his left,\na standard with a cross at the top, and shells. The inscription shall\nbe thus expressed: '_The Seal of the Hermandad of the Kingdoms of Leon\nand Galicia._' This seal shall be affixed to the documents which shall\nbe required by this _hermandad_.\n\n\"10. We the whole _hermandad_ of Castile, make a promise and render\nhomage to all the _hermandad_ of the kingdoms of Leon and Galicia,\nthat we will assist each other well and loyally to keep and maintain\nevery one of the above-named things. That if we fail to do so, we are\ntraitors for this alone, like him who slays his lord or surrenders a\ncastle; and may we never in that case have either hands, or tongues, or\narms to protect ourselves.\n\n\"11. But lest there should be any doubt about the pact we are now\nmaking, in order that this pact may be for ever inviolate, we seal this\nletter with the two seals of the _hermandad_ of Castile, Leon, and\nGalicia, and place it in the hands of D. Pedro Nunez, and the Order of\nthe Knights of St. John, who are united with us in this _hermandad_.\nGiven at Valladolid, the 8th day of July, in the year one thousand\nthree hundred and twenty.\"\n\nSpain had passed through many centuries without knowing of any other\nreligion than the Catholic. She still preserved in all its force and\nvigor, the idea that the king should be the first to observe the\nlaws; that he could not rule the people according to his caprice;\nthat he ought to govern by principles of justice and views of public\nexpediency. Saavedra, in his _Devises_, thus expressed himself:--\n\n\"1st. Laws are vain when the prince who promulgates them does not\nconfirm and uphold them by his own life and example. A law will appear\nlenient to the people when observed by its author.\n\n \"In commune jubes si quid, censesve tenendum,\n Primus jussa sibi, tunc observantior \u00e6qui\n Fit populus, nec ferre vetat, cum videri ipsum\n Auctorem parere sibi.\n\n\"The laws promulgated by Servius Tullius were not only intended for\nthe people, but also for kings. The disputes between the monarch\nand his subjects were to be settled in conformity with these laws,\nas Tacitus relates of Tiberius: 'Although we are not subject to the\nlaws,' said the emperors Severus and Antonius, 'let us conform our\nlives to these laws.' The monarch is bound by the law not merely from\nthe fact of its being a law, but from the very reason upon which it is\nfounded, when it is natural and common to all, and not particular and\nexclusively destined to the right government of subjects; for in this\ncase the observance of the law merely concerns the subject, although\nthe monarch, if it should so happen, is bound to obey it, in order to\nrender it tolerable to others. Such appears to have been the meaning of\nthe mysterious command given by God to Ezechiel, _to eat the volume_,\nthat others seeing him the first to taste the laws and declare them\ngood, might be induced to imitate him. The kings of Spain are so far\nsubject to the laws, that the Treasury, in causes relating to the royal\npatrimony, is absolutely subject to the same laws as the least of his\nsubjects; and in doubtful cases, the Treasury is condemned. Philip\nII. thus ordained it; and on an occasion in which his grandson Philip\nIV., the glorious father of V. A., was personally brought to judgment\nin an important trial of the Chamber, before the royal council, the\njudges had the noble determination to condemn him, and his majesty had\nthe rectitude to hear the sentence without expressing any indignation.\nHappy empire, in which the cause of the monarch is always the least\nfavored!\"\n\n\nNOTE 35, p. 356.\n\nSufficient attention has not perhaps been paid to the merit of the\nindustrial organization introduced into Europe from the earliest\nages, and which became more and more diffused after the twelfth\ncentury. I allude to the trades-unions, and other associations, which,\nestablished under the influence of the Catholic religion, commonly\nplaced themselves under the patronage of some Saint, and had pious\nfoundations for the celebration of their feasts, and for assisting each\nother in their necessities. Our celebrated Capmany, in his _Historical\nmemoirs on the Marine, Commerce, and the Arts of the ancient City of\nBarcelona_, has published a collection of documents, very valuable for\nthe history of the working classes and of the development of their\ninfluence on politics. Few works have appeared in foreign countries,\nin the latter part of the last century, of such great merit as that of\nour fellow-countryman, published in 1779. One very interesting chapter\nof this work is devoted to the institution of trades-corporations. I\ngive here a copy of the chapter, which I particularly recommend to the\nperusal of those persons who imagine that nothing had been thought of\nin Europe for the benefit of the laboring classes, of those who are so\nfoolish as to look upon that as a means of slavery and exclusivism,\nwhich was in reality a means of encouragement and of mutual support.\nIt also appears to me that, by reading the philosophical remarks of\nCapmany, every sensible man will be convinced that Europe, from the\nearliest ages, has possessed systems adapted to the encouragement of\nindustry, to the preservation of it from the fatal agitations of those\ntimes, to secure esteem for it, and to the legitimate and salutary\ndevelopment of the popular element. It will be no less useful to\npresent this sketch to certain foreign writers, continually occupied\nwith social and political economy, and who, nevertheless, in compiling\nthe history of that science, have not even been acquainted with a work\nso important for every thing connected with the middle ages of Europe,\nfrom the eleventh to the eighteenth century.\n\n\n _\"Of the institution of the Trades-Corporations and other Associations\n of Artisans at Barcelona._\n\n\"No memoir has hitherto been discovered which might serve to\nenlighten and guide us in fixing the exact epoch of the institution\nof the trades-associations at Barcelona.[J] But according to all\nthe conjectures furnished by ancient monuments, it is very probable\nthat the political erection or formation of the bodies of laborers\ntook place in the time of Don Jaime I., under whose glorious reign\nthe arts were developed under a favorable influence; whilst commerce\nand navigation took a higher flight, owing to the expeditions of the\nAragonese arms beyond the seas. Increased facilities in the means\nof transport have given an impetus to industry; and an increasing\npopulation, the natural result of labor, by its reaction upon labor,\naugmented the demand for it. At Barcelona, as every where else,\ntrades-corporations naturally arose when the wants and the tastes of\nsociety had, of necessity, grown so multifarious, that artisans were\nforced, with a view to secure protection to their industry, to form\nthemselves into communities. Luxury, and the tastes of society, like\nevery other object of commerce, are subject to continual change; hence,\nnew branches of trade are continually springing up and displacing\nothers; so that at one period each separate art runs into various\nbranches, whilst at another, several arts are combined into one. At\nBarcelona, corporate industry has passed through all these vicissitudes\nin the course of five centuries. The hardware trade has comprised at\ndifferent periods eleven or twelve branches, and consequently afforded\nsubsistence to as many classes of families, whilst at the present time\nthese same branches are reduced to eight, in consequence of certain\nchanges in fashions and customs.\n\n [J] \"It is extremely difficult to ascertain the origin of the\n trades-corporations, even in those towns which have been the longest\n and the best disciplined.--Sandi, in his _Civil History of Venice_\n (t. ii. part 1, lib. iv. p. 767), after having reckoned sixty-one\n trades-corporations existing in that capital at the beginning of\n his century, declares that it is impossible to assign to each of\n these corporations the date of its origin, or that of its first\n statutes. This historian nevertheless consulted all the archives of\n the republic; he contents himself with observing, that none of the\n corporations are anterior to the fourteenth century.\" (_The notes\n which accompany this chapter are those of Capmany himself._)\n\n\"In accordance with the social system which generally prevailed at\nthat time in most European countries, it was found necessary to bestow\nliberty and privileges upon an industrious and mercantile people, who\nthus became a great source of strength and support to kings; and this\ncould not be effected without classifying the citizens. But these\nlines of demarcation could not be maintained distinct and inviolate\nwithout a political division of the various corporations in which both\nmen and their occupations were classified. This division was the more\nnecessary in a city like Barcelona, which, ever since the middle of the\nthirteenth century, had assumed a sort of democratic independence in\nits mode of government. Thus, in Italy, the first country in the West\nthat re-established the name and the influence of the people, after\nthese had been effaced in the iron ages by Gothic rule, the industrial\nclasses had already been formed into corporations, which gave stability\nto the arts and trades, and conferred great honors upon them in\nthose free cities, where, amidst the flux and reflux of invasions,\nthe artisan became a senator, and the senator an artisan. Wars and\nfactions, endemic evils in that delightful country at the time of which\nwe are speaking, could not, in spite of all their ravages, effect the\ndestruction of the associated trades, whose political existence, when\nonce their members were admitted to a share in the government, formed\nthe very basis of the constitution of both nations, inasmuch as both\nwere industrial and mercantile. At Barcelona the trades were well\nregulated, prosperous, and flourishing, under that municipal system,\nand that consular jurisprudence, of which commerce, and its invariable\nconcomitant, industry, have always stood in need. It was thus that this\ncapital became one of the most celebrated centres of the manufacturing\nindustry of the middle ages--a reputation which it has maintained and\nincreased up to the present time. In like manner, it was under the name\nand rule of corporations and brotherhoods that trades were established\nin Flanders, in France, and in England, countries in which the arts\nhave been carried to their highest degree of perfection and renown.\nThe trades-corporations of Barcelona, even when viewed merely as a\nnecessary institution for the due regulation of the primitive form of\nmunicipal government, should be regarded as most important, whether for\nthe preservation of the arts, or as forming the basis of the influence\nof the artisans themselves. It is at once evident, from the experience\nof five centuries, that trades-unions have effected unspeakable good\nin Barcelona, were it only by preserving, as an imperishable deposit,\nthe love, the tradition, and the memory of the arts. They have formed\nso many rallying points, so many banners, as it were, under which more\nthan once the shattered forces of industry have found refuge; and\nhave thus been enabled to recover their energy and activity, and to\nperpetuate their existence to our own days, in spite of pestilence,\nwars, factions, and a multitude of other calamities, which exhaust\nmen's energies, overthrow their habitations, and change their manners.\nIf Barcelona, so often visited by these physical and political plagues,\nhad possessed no community, no bond, no common interest among its\nartisans, it would certainly have witnessed the destruction of their\nskill, their economy, and their activity, as is the case with beavers,\nwhen their communities have been broken up and dispersed by the\nhunters.[K]\n\n [K] We here recognise many ideas taken from a work which saw the\n light in 1774, from the press of Sancha, under the title of _Discours\n \u00e9conomique-politique pour la defense du travail m\u00e9canique des\n ouvriers, par D. Ramon Miguel Palacio_. The author of these memoirs,\n fearing to be accused of a gross plagiarism, observes that, being\n obliged here to treat of this same matter, he was forced to adopt many\n of the ideas contained in this work, which at that time he thought it\n proper to publish without affixing his real name.\n\n\"By a happy effect of the security enjoyed by families in their\ndifferent trades, and thanks to the aid, or _mont-de-pi\u00e9t\u00e9_,\nestablished in the very bosom of the corporation for its necessitous\nmembers, who, without this assistance, might have been plunged into\nmisery, these economical establishments at Barcelona have directly\ncontributed to maintain the prosperity of the arts, by shutting out\nmisery from the workshop, and preserving the operatives from indigence.\nWithout this corporate police, by which each trade is surrounded, the\nproperty and the fortune of the artisan would have been exposed to\nthe greatest risks; moreover, the credit and stability of the trades\nthemselves would have been perilled; for then the quack, the unskilled\noperative, and the obscure adventurer, might have imposed upon the\npublic with impunity, and a pernicious latitude might have taken the\nplace of liberty. On the other hand, the trades-corporations being\npowerful associations, each one by itself being governed by a unanimity\nof intelligence and a community of interests, could purchase their\nstocks of raw materials seasonably and advantageously. They supplied\nthe wants of the masters; they made advances, or stood security, for\nthose of their members who lacked either time or funds for making\ngreat preliminary disbursements of capital at their own cost. Besides,\nthese corporations, comprehending and representing the industry of\nthe nation, and consequently feeling an interest in its maintenance,\naddressed from time to time memorials to the Municipal Council, or\nto the Cortes, relative to the injuries they were sustaining, or\nthe approach of which they, as it often happened, foresaw from the\nintroduction of counterfeit goods, or of foreign productions, which\nis a cause of ruin to our industry. In fine, without the institution\nof trades-corporations, instruction would have been void of order\nand fixed rules; for where there are no masters duly authorized and\npermanently established, neither will there be any disciples; and all\nregulations, in default of an executive power to see them observed,\nwill be disregarded and trodden under foot. Trades-corporations\nare so necessary to the preservation of the arts, that the various\ntrades known at the present day in this capital have derived their\nappellations and their origin from the economical divisions, and from\nthe arts established by these corporations. When the blacksmith in his\nshop made ploughshares, nails, keys, knives, swords, &c., the names of\nthe trades of the blacksmith, the nailer, the cutler, the armorer, &c.\nwere unknown; and as there was no special and particular instruction\nin each of these branches of labor, the separation of which afterwards\nformed so many new arts maintained by their respective communities,\nthese trades were unknown.\n\n\"The second political advantage resulting from the institution of\ntrades-corporations at Barcelona was, the esteem and consideration\nin which at all times these establishments caused both the artisans\nand the arts to be held. This wise institution won respect for the\noperative classes, by constituting them a visible and permanent order\nin the state. Hence it is that the conduct and the mode of life of the\nBarcelonians have ever been such as are to be found only amongst an\nhonorable people. Never having been confounded with any exempted and\nprivileged body (for the trades-corporations draw a circle around their\nmembers, and let them know what they are, and what they are worth),\nthese people learned that there was honor and virtue within their own\nsphere, and labored to preserve these qualities; so certain is it that\nsocial distinctions in a nation have more influence than is sometimes\nbelieved in upholding the spirit of each social class.\n\n\"Another view of this question shows us that trades-corporations form\ncommunities, governed by an economic code, which assigns to each\ncorporation certain employments and certain honors, to which every\nindividual member may aspire. Even men's prejudices, when wisely\ndirected, sometimes produce admirable effects. Thus the government, the\nadministration of these bodies, in which the artisan always enjoyed\nthe prerogative of managing the resources and the interests of his\ntrade and of his fellow-members, with the title of Counsellor, or Elder\n(_Prohombre_), won for the mechanical arts of Barcelona public and\ngeneral esteem; whilst the pre-eminence in a festival or an assembly\nserves with these men to soften the rigors of manual labor, and the\ndisadvantages of their inferior condition. At the same time that the\ntrades of Barcelona, formed into well-organized bodies, fixed and\npreserved the arts in that capital, they had the further credit, by\nacting as political bodies of the most numerous class of the people, of\ngaining a high esteem for their members. The obscure artisan, without\nmatriculation, or a common bond, continues isolated and wandering;\nhe dies, and with him perishes his art; or at the first reverse of\nfortune, he emigrates and abandons his craft. What consideration can\nwretched wandering followers of any trade obtain in a country? Just\nsuch as knife-grinders and tinkers possess in the provinces of Spain.\nAt Barcelona, all the trades have constantly enjoyed the same general\nesteem, because all have been established and governed upon a system\nwhich has rendered them fixed, respectable, and prosperous.\n\n\"The esteem in which the trades of Barcelona were held from the\ntime when the municipal government had formed them into national\ncorporations, the agents of public economy, gave rise to the laudable\nand useful custom of perpetuating trades in the same families. In fact\nthe people having learned that, without quitting the class to which\nthey belonged, they could preserve the respect and consideration due\nto useful and honorable citizens, no longer desired to quit it, and\nwere no longer ashamed of their condition. When trades are held in\nhonor, which is the consequence of the stability and civil properties\nof corporations, they naturally become hereditary. Now, the advantages\nboth to the artisan and the arts, resulting from this transmission\nof trades, are so real and so well known, that it is needless to\nspecify them here, or to dwell upon their salutary effects. This\ndemarcation and classification of trades caused many of the arts to\nbecome sure possessions for those who adopted them. Hence fathers aimed\nat transmitting their trade to their sons; and thus was formed an\nindestructible mass of national industry, which made labor honorable,\nby implanting steady and homogeneous manners, if we may so speak, in\nthe bosom of the class of artisans.\n\n\"Another circumstance contributed still more to render the exercise\nof the mechanical arts honorable at Barcelona, not only more than in\nmost other parts of Spain, but more than in any other state, ancient\nor modern. This was the admission of the trades-corporations upon the\nregister of municipal offices in this city, which enjoyed so many\nroyal grants and extraordinary privileges of independence. Thus the\nnobility--that Gothic nobility--with their great domains, sought to be\nincorporated with the operatives in the _Ayuntamiento_, there to fill\nthe offices and supreme stations in the political government, which,\nduring more than five hundred years, continued in Barcelona under a\nform and in a spirit truly democratic.[L] All mechanical offices,\nwithout any odious distinction or exclusion, were held worthy to be\ndeclared qualified for the consistorial council of magistrates; all had\na voice and a vote among the conscript fathers who represented this\ncity, the most highly privileged perhaps that ever existed; one of the\nmost renowned for its laws, its power, and its influence; one of the\nmost respected in the middle ages amongst all the states and monarchies\nof Europe, Asia, and Africa.[M]\n\n [L] \"Consult the Appendix of Notes, Nos. 28 and 30. You will there\n see what respect and power the town of Barcelona enjoyed at another\n period, by means of the municipal magistrates, who represented it\n under the ordinary name of councillors.\"\n\n [M] \"In the diplomatic collection of these memoirs, we find a\n multitude of letters and other documents proving the direct and mutual\n relations which existed between the city of Barcelona and the emperors\n of the East, of Germany, the sultans of Egypt, the kings of Tunis, of\n Morocco, and various monarchs and states, or other great powers of\n Europe.\"\n\n\"This political system, and this municipal form of government,\nresembled that which prevailed in the middle ages amongst all the\nprincipal towns of Italy, whence Catalonia borrowed many of its\ncustoms and usages. Genoa, Pisa, Milan, Pavia, Florence, Sienna, and\nother towns, had a municipal government composed of the leading men\nin commerce, and the arts, under the name of consuls, counsellors,\n&c. _Priores Artium_--such was the name of a popular form of elective\ngovernment, distributed among the different classes of citizens,\nwithout excluding the artisans, who, in the thirteenth and fourteenth\ncenturies, were in their most flourishing condition, forming the most\nrespectable part of the population, and consequently the richest, the\nmost powerful, and the most independent. This democratic liberty,\nbesides giving stability and permanency to industry in the towns\nof Italy, conferred a singular degree of honor on the mechanical\nprofessions. The grand council of these towns was summoned by the\ntolling of the bell, when the artisans arranged themselves under the\nbanners or gonfalons of their respective trades. Such was also the\npolitical constitution of Barcelona from the middle of the thirteenth\nto the commencement of the present century. With these facts before\nus, need we feel surprise that, in our own days, arts and artisans in\nBarcelona still retain undiminished esteem and consideration; that a\nlove for mechanical professions has become hereditary; that the dignity\nand self-respect of the artisan class have become traditional, even to\nthe last generations, in which the customs of their ancestors have been\ntransmitted by the succession of example, even after the extinction of\nthe political reasons in which these customs had their origin? Several\ntrades-corporations still preserve in the halls of their _juntas_ the\nportraits of those of their members who formerly obtained the first\nemployments in the state. Must not this laudable practice have engraven\non the memory of the members of the corporation all the ideas of honor\nand dignity consistent with the condition of an artisan? Assuredly\nthe popular form of the ancient government of Barcelona could not\nfail to imprint itself generally and forcibly on the manners of the\npeople; indeed, where all the citizens were equal in the participation\nof honors, it is easy to see that no one would willingly remain\ninferior to another in virtue or in merit, although inferior, in\nother respects, by his condition and fortune. This noble emulation,\nwhich must naturally have been awakened to activity in the concourse\nof all orders in the state, gave birth to the dignity, the lofty and\ninviolate probity of the artisans of Barcelona; and this character they\nhave maintained to our own times, to the admiration of Spain and of\nforeign nations. Such has been the negligence of our national authors,\nthat this narrative will have the appearance of a discovery: up to\nthe present time Barcelona and the Principality had not attracted the\nscrutinizing notice of the political historian, so that a dark shadow\nstill concealed the real principles (always unknown to the crowd) from\nwhich in all times, have sprung the virtues and the vices of nations.\n\n\"To these causes may be attributed, in great part, the esteem which\nthe artisans have acquired. Nothing could be more salutary than this\nobligation they were always under of comporting themselves with dignity\nand distinction in public employments, whether in the corporation or\nthe municipal government. Moreover the constant example of the master\nof the house, who, up to the present time, has always lived in common\nwith his apprentices in a praiseworthy manner, has confirmed the\nchildren in ideas of order and dignity; for the manners and habits\nof a people, which are as powerful as law, must be inculcated from\nthe tenderest age. Thus, in Barcelona, the operative has never been\nconfounded by the slovenliness of his dress with the mendicant, whose\nidle and dissipated habits, says an illustrious writer, are easily\ncontracted when the dress of the man of respectability is in no way\ndistinguished from that of the rabble. Nor are the laboring population\never seen wearing those cumbersome garments which, serving as a cover\nfor rags and a cloak for idleness, cramp the movements and activity\nof the body, and invite to a life of indolent ease. The people have\nnot contracted a habit of frequenting taverns, where example leads to\ndrunkenness and moral disorders. Their amusements, so necessary for\nworking people to render their daily toils supportable, have always\nbeen innocent recreations, which either afforded them repose from their\nfatigues or varied them. The games formerly permitted were either the\nring (_la bague_), nine pins, bowls, ball, shooting at a mark, fencing,\nand public dancing, authorized and watched over by the authorities;\nan amusement which from time immemorial has been general amongst the\nCatalans, in certain seasons and on certain festivals of the year.\n\n\"The respect for the artisan of Barcelona has never been diminished\non account of the material on which his art was exercised, whether\nit was silver, steel, iron, copper, wood, or wool. We have seen that\nall the trades were equally eligible to the municipal offices of the\nstate; none were excluded--not even butchers. Ancient Barcelona did not\ncommit the political error of establishing preferences that might have\nproduced some odious distinctions of trades. The inhabitants considered\nthat all the citizens were in themselves worthy of esteem, since all\ncontributed to the growth and maintenance of the property of a capital\nwhose opulence and power were founded upon the industry of the artisan\nand the merchant. In fact, Barcelona has ever been free from that\nidea, so generally entertained, that every mechanical profession is\nlow and vulgar--a mischievous and very common prejudice, which, in the\nprovinces of Spain, has made an irreparable breach in the progress of\nthe arts. At Barcelona, admission into certain trades-corporations\nhas never been refused to the members of other trades: in this city\nall the trades are held in the same estimation. In a word, neither\nBarcelona nor any other town in Catalonia has ever entertained those\nvulgar prejudices that are enough to prevent honorable men from\ndevoting themselves to the arts, or to cause the son to forsake the art\npractised by the father.\"[N]\n\n [N] See the remarks of his Excellency M. Campomanes on these abuses\n and false principles of policy, in his _Discourse on the Popular\n Education of Artisans_, from page 119 to 160.\n\n\nNOTE 36, p. 361.\n\nI have spoken of the numerous Councils held by the Church at different\nepochs; why, it will be asked, does she not hold them more frequently\nnow? I will answer this question by quoting a judicious passage from\nCount de Maistre, in his work _On the Pope_, book i. chap. 2:--\n\n\"In the first ages of Christianity,\" says he, \"it was more easy to\nassemble Councils, because the Church was not so numerous as now, and\nbecause the emperors possessed powers that enabled a sufficient number\nof Bishops to assemble, so that their decisions needed only the assent\nof other Bishops. Yet these Councils were not assembled without much\ndifficulty and embarrassment. But in modern times, since the civilized\nworld has been divided into so many sovereignties, and immeasurably\nincreased by our intrepid navigators, an \u0152cumenical Council has become\na chimera.[O] Simply to convoke all the Bishops, and to bring legally\ntogether such a convocation, five or six years would not suffice.\"\n\n [O] We ordinarily call a chimera, or an impossibility, that which\n offers great difficulties. On this occasion we cannot help observing\n to sincere persons, that, from these great difficulties, they may\n judge of the lawfulness and sincerity of the desires manifested by the\n _soi-disant_ reformers and appellants to Councils. They do not wish\n for Councils; but, under the shadow of this word, they wish to escape\n the authority of their legitimate superiors. (Note by the authors of\n the _Biblioth\u00e8que de Religion_, published in Spain.)\n\nNOTE 37, p. 369.\n\nThat my readers may be convinced of the truth and accuracy of what I\nhere affirm, I invite them to read the history of the heresies that\nhave afflicted the Church since the first ages, but particularly from\nthe tenth century down to our own days.\n\n\nNOTE 38, p. 373.\n\nIt was not, I have said, without prejudice to the liberty of the people\nthat the influence of the clergy was withdrawn from the working of the\npolitical machine. In order to ascertain how far this is true, it may\nbe well to remark, that a great number of theologians were favorable to\ntolerably liberal doctrines in political matters, and that it was the\nclergy who exercised the greatest freedom in speaking to kings, even\nafter the people had almost entirely lost the right of intervention in\npolitical affairs. Observe what opinions St. Thomas held on forms of\ngovernment.\n\n\n(Quest. cv. 1^a 2^\u00e6.)\n\n_De ratione judicialium pr\u00e6ceptorum art._ 1. Respondeo dicendum, quod\ncirca bonam ordinationem principum in aliqua civitate, vel gente, duo\nsunt attendenda, quorum unum est, ut omnes aliquam partem habeant\nin principatu; per hoc enim conservatur pax populi et omnes talem\nordinationem amant et custodiunt ut dicitur (II. _Polit._, cap. i.);\naliud est quod attenditur secundum speciem regiminis vel ordinationis\nprincipatum, cujus cum sint divers\u00e6 species, ut philosophus tradit\nin III. _Polit._ cap. v., pr\u00e6cipue tamen unum regimen est, in quo\nunus principatur secundum virtutem: et aristocratia, id est potestas\noptimorum, in qua aliqui pauci principantur secundum virtutem. Unde\noptima ordinatio principum est in aliqua civitate vel regno, in quo\nunus pr\u00e6ficitur secundum virtutem qui omnibus pr\u00e6sit et sub ipso sunt\naliqui principantes secundum virtutem, et tamen talis principatus ad\nomnes pertinet, tum quia ex omnibus eligi possunt, tum quia etiam ab\nomnibus eliguntur. Talis vero est omnis politia bene commixta ex regno\nin quantam unus pr\u00e6est, et aristocratia in quantum multi principantur\nsecundum virtutem, et ex democratia, id est potestate populi in quantum\nex popularibus possunt eligi principes, et ad populum pertinet electio\nprincipum, et hoc fuit institutum secundum legem divinam.\n\n\nDivus Thomas. (1^a 2^\u00e6 Q. 90, art. 4^o.)\n\nEt sic ex quatuor pr\u00e6dictis potest colligi definitio legis qu\u00e6 nihil\nest aliud quam qu\u00e6dam rationis ordinatio ad bonum commune ab eo qui\ncuram communitatis habet promulgata. Q. 95, art. 4.\n\nTertio est de ratione legis human\u00e6 ut instituatur a gubernante\ncommunitatem civitatis: sicut supra dictum est. (Quest. 90, art. 3.)\nEt secundum hoc distinguuntur leges human\u00e6 secundum diversa regimina\ncivitatum, quorum unum, secundum philosophum in III. _Polit._, cap.\nxi., est regnum, quando scilicet civitas gubernatur ab uno, et secundum\nhoc accipiuntur constitutiones principum; aliud vero regimen est\naristocratia, id est principatus optimorum vel optimatum, et secundum\nhoc sumuntur responsa prudentum et etiam senatusconsulta. Aliud regimen\nest oligarchia, id est principatus paucorum divitum et potentum; et\nsecundum hoc sumitur jus pr\u00e6torium, quod etiam honorarium dicitur.\nAliud autem regimen est populi, quod nominatur democratia; et secundum\nhoc sumuntur plebiscita. Aliud autem est tyrannicum, quod est omnino\ncorruptum unde ex hoc non sumitur aliqua lex. Est etiam et aliquod\nregimen ex istis commixtum, quod est optimum, et secundum hoc sumitur\nlex quam majores natu simul cum plebibus sanxerunt, ut Isidorus dicit\nlib. 5, _Etym. O._ cap. x.\n\nIf certain declaimers are to be believed, it would seem that the\nprinciple, that it is the law which governs, and not the will of\nman, is quite a recent discovery. But observe with what solidity and\nperspicuity the angelic doctor expounds this doctrine.\n\n\n(1^a 2^\u00e6 Q. 93, art. 1.)\n\nUtrum fuerit utile aliquas leges poni ab hominibus.\n\nAd 2^m dicendum, quod sicut Philosophus dicit. 1. Rhetor. Melius est\nomnia ordinari lege, quam dimittere judicum arbitrio, et hoc propter\ntria. Primo quidem, quia facilius est invenire paucos sapientes, qui\nsufficiant ad rectas leges ponendas, quam multos; qui requirerentur\nad recte judicandum de singulis. Secundo, quia illi qui leges ponunt,\nex multo tempore considerant quid lege ferendum sit: sed judicia de\nsingularibus factis fiunt ex casibus subito exortis. Facilius autem ex\nmultis consideratis potest homo videre quid rectum sit, quam solum ex\naliquo uno facto. Tertio, quia legislatores judicant in universali, et\nde futuris: sed homines judiciis pr\u00e6sidentes judicant de pr\u00e6sentibus;\nad qu\u00e6 afficientur amore vel odio, aut aliqua cupiditate; et sic\neorum depravatur judicium. Quia ergo justitia animata judicis non\ninvenitur in multis, et quia flexibilis est: ideo necessarium fuit in\nquibuscumque est possibile, legem determinare quid judicandum sit, et\npaucissima arbitrio hominum committere.\n\nIn Spain, the _Procuradores_ of the Cortes dared not raise their voices\nagainst the excesses of power; and their timidity drew down the keen\nreproaches of P. Mariana. In the examination to which he was subjected\nin the celebrated suit commenced against him on the subject of the\n_seven treatises_, he confesses having applied to the _Procuradores_\nthe epithets of _vile, superficial, and utterly venal_, only striving\nto obtain the favor of the prince, and their own particular interests,\nwithout solicitude for the public good. He added, that such was the\npublic cry, the general complaint, at least at Toledo, where he was\nresiding.\n\nI will leave unnoticed his work intituled _De Rege et Regis\ninstitutione_, of which I have spoken elsewhere. Confining myself\nto his _History of Spain_, I will observe with what liberty he\nexpresses himself on the most delicate points, without meeting with any\nopposition, either from the civil or from the ecclesiastical authority.\nIn his 1st book, chap. 4, speaking of the Aragonese, in his usual grave\nand severe tone, he says: \"The Aragonese possess and enjoy laws and\n_fueros_ very different from those of the other people of Spain; they\npossess every thing most adapted for preserving liberty against the\nexcessive power of kings, for preventing this power from degenerating\nand changing, by its natural tendency, into tyranny; for they are not\nignorant of this truth, that the right of liberty is generally lost by\ndegrees.\"\n\nIt was precisely at this epoch that the clergy expressed themselves\nwith the greatest freedom on the most delicate of all subjects, that\nof contributions. The venerable Palafox, in his memorial or petition\nto the king for ecclesiastical immunity, said: \"According to St.\nAugustine, to the great Tostat, and other weighty authors, the Son\nof God appointed that the children of God--that is the ministers of\nthe Church, his priests--should not pay tribute to the pagan princes.\nIn fact, he addressed to St. Peter the following question, already\nresolved by the eternal wisdom of the Father: _Reges gentium a quibus\naccipiunt tributum, a filiis, an ab alienis?_ St. Peter answered, _Ab\nalienis_; and our Lord concluded with these words: _Ergo liberi sunt\nfilii_. I may be allowed, sire, to make this delicate observation,\nthat the Divine Majesty does not say, _Reges gentium a quibus capiunt\ntributum_, but _a quibus accipiunt_. By this word accipiunt, we\nunderstand the mildness and mansuetude with which the payment of a\ntribute should always be exacted, in order to diminish the bitterness\nand repugnance accompanying a tribute.\n\n\"46. It is doubtless useful for the preservation of the state, that,\nin the first place, subjects should give, in order that princes may\nthen receive. It is proper that kings should receive, and employ the\ntribute paid them, for on this depends the safety of crowns; but it is\nwell that subjects should first give it voluntarily. It is doubtless\nfrom this passage of Scripture, from this expression of the Eternal\nWord, that the Catholic Crown, always so pious, has received the holy\ndoctrine, by virtue of which neither your majesty nor your illustrious\npredecessors have ever permitted a tribute to be levied without its\nhaving first received the consent of the kingdoms themselves, and been\noffered by them; and your majesty is incomparably more exalted by\nlimiting and moderating your power, than by exercising it to its utmost\nextent.\n\n\"47. Sire, if laymen, who have no exemption in matters of tribute,\nenjoy that which the kindness of your majesty and of the most Catholic\nkings grant them; if they do not pay till they choose to make a\nvoluntary offering; if nothing is received from them except on this\ncondition, will religion, your majesty's renowned piety, and the\ndevoted zeal of the Council, allow the clergy--the sons, the ministers\nof God, the privileged, those who are exempt by divine and human law in\nall the nations of the world, and among the very pagans--to enjoy less\nfavor than strangers, who are not, like them, either ministers of the\nChurch or priests of God? Is the word _capiunt_, sire, to be applied\nexclusively to the ministers of God, and the word _accipiunt_ to men of\nthe world?\"\n\nIn his work intituled _Historia Real Sagrada_, the same writer raises\nhis voice against tyranny with extreme severity:\n\n\"12. _Such_,\" says he, \"_is the law which the king whom you wish\nfor will maintain in your regard_. The word law is here employed\nironically, as if God should say: 'You imagine, without doubt, that\nthis king of yours would govern according to law; on this supposition\nyou asked for him, since you complained that my tribunal did not govern\nyou. Now, the law which this king will exercise towards you will be, to\ndisregard all law; and his law will eventually be tyranny respected.'\nThe politician who, relying upon this passage, should attribute as a\nright to the monarch a power which is merely pointed out by God to the\npeople as a chastisement, would be an uncivilized being, unworthy of\nbeing treated as a rational creature. The Lord, in this instance, does\nnot define what is the best; he does not say what he is giving them;\nthese words are no appreciation of power; he merely declares what would\nbe the case, and what he condemns. Who shall dare to found the origin\nof tyranny on justice itself? God says, that he whom they desire for a\nking will be a tyrant--not a tyrant approved of by him, but a tyrant\nthat he reprobates and chastises. And subsequent events clearly shewed\nit, since there were in Israel wicked kings, by whom the prophecy was\nfulfilled, and Saints who obtained on the throne the mercy of God.\nThe wicked kings literally accomplished the divine threat, by doing\nwhat they were forbidden; the good ones established their dignity upon\npropriety and justice within prescribed limits.\"\n\nFather Marquez, in his _Christian Prince or Magistrate_ (_Gobernador\nCristiano_), also enlarges on the same question; he expounds his\nopinion both theoretically and practically.\n\n\n(Chapter xvi. 53.)\n\n\"Thus far we have heard the words of Philo, writing on this event. As\nthese words afforded me an opportunity of reasoning on the obligations\nof Christian kings, I have taken care to quote them at length. I\nwill not expect these kings to act like Moses; for they have not the\nmiraculous aid which the Hebrew legislator received for the relief of\nthe people, nor the rod which God gave him to make water flow from the\nrock at need. But I will recommend them to reflect maturely on the\nadditional services they shall attempt to exact from their subjects,\nand the burdens they shall impose on them. Let them reflect that they\nare bound to justify the motive of their request in all truth, and\nwithout any false coloring; always and constantly aware that they are\nin the presence of God, that the eyes of God are fixed on their hands,\nthat He will require from them a strict account of their actions. For,\nas the holy doctor of Nazianzen says, the Son of God came designedly\ninto the world at the taking of a census and a resettlement of the\nimposts, in order to confound kings who would have appointed them\nthrough caprice; so that kings may now know that the Son of God takes\naccount of every item, and weighs in the balance of his strict justice\nthings which we should account of little moment.\n\n\"The above reflection will serve to dispel the false ideas of certain\nflatterers, who, to obtain the favor of princes, persuade them that\nthey are perfectly independent and the masters of the lives and\nproperty of their subjects, free to dispose of them as they may think\nproper. In support of this pretended maxim, they allege, as we have\nseen, the history of Samuel, who answered the people on the part of\nGod, when they were demanding a king, 'You shall have one, but on\nterrible conditions.' This king was to take from them their fields,\ntheir vineyards, their olive-yards, to give them to his servants; he\nwas to take their daughters for slaves, 'to make him ointments, and\nto be his cooks and bakers.' And they have not observed that, as John\nBodin says, this is the interpretation of Philip Melancthon, which\nalone is sufficient to render it suspicious. Moreover, as St. Gregory,\nand after him other doctors, have observed, this passage of Scripture\ndoes not establish the just right of kings, but rather announces\nbeforehand the tyranny of a great number of princes; in fine, these\nwords do not explain what good princes might do, but merely what bad\nones would usually do. Hence, when Achab seized upon the vineyard of\nNaboth, God was angry with him, and we know how He treated him. When\nDavid, the elect of God, demanded a spot whereon to set up the altar of\nJebusee, he only asked it on condition of paying the value of the land.\n\n\"For this reason princes should examine with scrupulous attention\nwhether contributions are just; for if they are not, doctors decide\nthat they cannot, without manifest injustice, thus more or less\ninfringe on the rights of their subjects. This doctrine is so Catholic\nand certain, that men holding sound doctrine affirm that, in this case,\nprinces cannot impose fresh tributes, even though necessary, without\nthe consent of the nation. For, say they, the prince not being (which\nhe certainly is not) the master of his subjects' property, cannot make\nuse of it without the consent of those from whom he is to receive it.\nThis custom has been long in practice in the kingdom of Castile, where\nthe laws of royalty prohibit the levying of any new impost without\nthe intervention of the Cortes: after having received the sanction\nof the Cortes, the impost is submitted to the vote of the towns; and\nthe prince does not consider his demand granted till it has received\nthe sanction of the majority of the towns. Edward I. of England made\na similar law, according to many authors of weight; and Philip of\nCommines says, that it was the same in France till the time of Charles\nVII., who, urged by an extreme necessity, suppressed these formalities,\nand levied a tax without waiting for the consent of the States, and\nthis inflicted on the kingdom so deep a wound, that it will long\ncontinue unhealed. If we may credit certain affirmations, this author\nreports, that it was then asserted that the king had escaped from the\nguardianship exercised by the kingdom; but that his own opinion is,\nthat kings cannot, without the consent of their people, exact a single\nfarthing; princes acting otherwise, says he, fall under the Pope's\nexcommunication; no doubt that of the bull _In C\u0153na Domini_. For my\nown part, I ought to confess that I do not find this in Philip de\nCommines.... With respect to this second point, it is evident, that\nthe prince cannot, on his own authority, impose new tributes without\nthe consent of the nation, whenever this nation shall have acquired by\nany of the reasons mentioned a contrary right, which I consider to be\nthe case in Castile. No one, in fact, will deny that kingdoms at their\ncommencement have a right to choose their kings on this condition, or\nrender them such services as to obtain in return that no new imposts\nshall be laid on them without their consent. Now, in either case, there\nwill be a compact made, from which kings cannot depart; and it is of\nno consequence, as some imagine it to be, whether they have obtained\ntheir kingdoms through the election of their subjects, or by mere\nforce of arms. Although it is probable, indeed, that a State yielding\nitself of its own accord, will obtain greater privileges and better\nconditions than those acquired by a just war, it would not, however,\nbe impossible for a State, in choosing a king, to confer upon him all\nits power in an absolute manner, and without this restriction, with\na view to lay him under greater obligations, and to testify to him a\ngreater degree of devotedness; and, on the other hand, a king, who had\nsubjected a kingdom by force of arms, might nevertheless voluntarily\ngrant it this privilege, with a view to obtain its gratitude, and more\naffectionate obedience on its part. The positive rule, therefore, for\nthis particular right, will be the contract made, whether virtually or\nexpressly, between the State and the prince; a contract which should be\ninviolable, especially if it is sealed by an oath.\"\n\n\n_The Prince, or Christian Magistrate._\n\n(Liv. ii. ch. xxxix. \u00a7 2.)\n\n\"Princes, it is said, may compel their subjects to sell at half-price,\nor to give gratuitously, a part of their property. This opinion is\ngenerally founded on the law which ordains that, when a ship in a\ntempest has been saved by throwing overboard a part of the cargo, the\nproprietors of the remaining part are obliged to make a proportionate\ncontribution to indemnify the sufferers for the loss they have\nsustained. Bartholus and other authors have inferred from this, that\nin a time of necessity and famine the monarch may require his subjects\nto give gratuitously, and _a fortiori_ to sell at a lower price, a\nportion of their property to those in need. The monarch, say they,\nmight, without any doubt, render property common, as it was before the\nestablishment of social rights; he may consequently take it from one of\nhis subjects and give it to another.\n\n\"It is certainly said in the laws of the kings of Israel, that he who\nshould be chosen by God might seize upon the vineyards and property of\nhis subjects, to confer them on his own servants; but the doctors do\nnot support their arguments on this text. In fact, as we have said in\nchapter 16th, book i., the question does not concern the rights of a\ngood prince, but the tyrannical acts of a bad one. Now, a careful study\nof the Scriptures will shew, that this passage must be favourable to\none or other of the two opinions; for, if it were intended to establish\nthat kings would possess in conscience the authority set forth in this\npassage, they would certainly have the right of seizing the property of\none of their subjects to give it to another. If this passage is merely\nmeant as a declaration of the injustices, of the extortions, and the\ntyrannies of wicked monarchs, it is no less certain that in Scripture\nthe deed is considered unjust; for this deed is alleged as an example\nof what tyrants would do; now if it had been permitted to a good\nking, it would not have been quoted as an example of tyranny, as the\nScriptures suppose it.\n\n\"Thus, this text alone, even were there no other in support of this\ndoctrine, would satisfy me, that kings cannot lawfully compel their\nsubjects to relinquish their property for less than its value, not even\nunder pretext of the public good. In fact, were this pretext valid, it\nwould not have been difficult for the kings of Israel to find an excuse\nfor their tyranny; they might have alleged, that it was important to\nthe public good to reward servants whose fidelity was so advantageous\nto the interests of the kingdom. Further, King Achab might have urged,\nthat the amusements of the prince formed a part of the public good,\nsince the people are so much interested in the health of the prince;\nand under this pretext might have deprived Naboth of his vineyard in\norder to enlarge his gardens. We find, however, that this pretext did\nnot justify him in compelling Naboth even to sell his vineyard; the\nking, although grieved, was not offended by this man's refusal, neither\nwas it his intention to seize the vineyard, had not the impious Jezabel\nfurnished him with the means of doing so.\n\n\"Reason is evidently in favour of this opinion. Kings are the ministers\nof justice, and have been appointed to administer and uphold justice\namong the people. As St. Thomas teaches, the contract in buying and\nselling is only just in proportion as the price is equivalent to the\nthing purchased. Public, it is true, should be preferred to individual\ninterest; in case, therefore, that a State is in danger of dissolution,\nthe monarch might demand property at a less price, or even for nothing,\njust as he might compel the citizen to expose his life, which is of\nstill greater value, in defending the common cause in a just war. This\ncase, however, as P. Molina observes, is impossible, since the monarch\nwould always be able to indemnify the individual for the loss he\nsustained, by levying for this purpose a general tax, a just tribute,\nand one that the State would be bound to pay. To prove this still more\nclearly, let us imagine the most urgent case possible; let us suppose\nthat the king is besieged in his capital by a tyrant; the tyrant is\nabout to enter sword and torch in hand; he offers to raise the siege on\ncondition of receiving a statue of gold of great value, formerly the\nproperty of his ancestors, which a subject of the besieged king, the\ncommander-in-chief of his armies, had taken in the plunder of a town,\nand made the inalienable property of the eldest son of his family. To\nrender the case still more pressing, let us suppose that the tyrant has\na dearly-cherished relation in the service of the besieged king, and\nthat he will be satisfied if a rich lord of the kingdom, possessing\na great number of estates, be despoiled, and his property conferred\non his relation. It cannot be doubted that, in order to purchase the\nlives of all, this arrangement might be entered into; and that the king\nwould be justified in acceding to the demand, in taking the statue, or\neven the whole of this property, to confer it on the tyrant's relation.\nBut no one will assert that the lord should suffer the whole loss. The\nState would be under the obligation of indemnifying him for the loss,\nby taking upon itself the indemnification, the lord merely contributing\nhis quota; for this reason, that it would be opposed to natural justice\nfor the burdens of the whole body to fall upon a single member, which\nwould be the case according to the law proposed by the opponents. If,\nin a case of shipwreck, all the cargo were thrown overboard to save the\nship and the lives and fortunes of all, the obligation being common\nto all, it would not be just that it should fall exclusively upon the\nowners; because the cargo could best be thrown overboard and most\nendangered the ship's safety: the loss should be borne by all, even\nby those who had with them things only of little weight, as jewels or\ndiamonds, for instance; since neither these latter proprietors nor\nthe vessel herself could be saved without lightening her by throwing\noverboard the heavier portion of the cargo.\n\n\"The law decrees also that the owner of the vessel shall pay his quota.\nNot that he is obliged to indemnify the owners of the merchandise\nlost, because he sees them in need; it may be supposed, indeed, that\nthese parties are rich, and, although their present loss is extreme,\nthey will nevertheless be under the obligation of returning what would\nthen have been lent to them; for, as the doctors decide, there is no\nobligation of giving to the rich man when he suffers a heavy loss, when\na loan will answer the same end. But it is said that the obligation of\nthe master of a ship is founded on the fact, that all the passengers\nand the proprietors being interested in saving their lives and their\nproperty, the risk and the loss of what was thrown overboard ought to\nfall on all, and not exclusively on the owners of what was lost. As a\nproof that this is the correct interpretation, it will be sufficient to\nnotice the summary of the title, and the very words of the law, which\nare: _Eo quod id tributum servat\u00e6 mercedes deberent_.\n\n\"But, except in this case, or in others equally pressing, if the ruin\nof the State would not result from the mere fact of an individual\nrefusing to yield up his house to the prince, the latter could not\ncompel the proprietor to give it up for a less price than its just\nvalue, and still less for nothing; for so long as the persons and\nthe property of the State are safe, it is of no importance to the\nbody corporate whether such or such persons are rich or poor; no\none, in fact, in the general community possesses a fixed degree from\nwhich he can neither descend nor rise. This instability observable\namong the members of the same State, some losing what others gain,\nand _vice vers\u00e2_, is inseparable from the state of society, such is\nthe instability of temporal affairs; and the public good, generally\nspeaking, neither loses nor gains by it.\"\n\n\nNOTE 39, p. 382.\n\nSome persons imagine, that in speaking of the loss of liberty in Spain,\nthe question may be readily reduced to one point of view, as if the\nkingdom had always possessed the unity which it only acquired in the\neighteenth century, and only then in an incomplete manner. A perusal\nof history, and especially of the codes of the different provinces of\nwhich the monarchy was composed, will convince us that the central\npower has been created and fortified among us very slowly; and that\nat the time when this difficult task was nearly accomplished in\nCastile, much still remained to be done in Aragon and Catalonia. Our\nconstitutions, our customs, our manners, in the seventeenth century,\nevidently prove that the monarchy of Philip II., such as we conceive\nit, strong and irresistible, was not yet established in the crown of\nAragon. I will abstain from adducing here documents and quoting facts\nwith which every one is acquainted; the dimensions of this volume\nrequire me to be brief.\n\n\nNOTE 40, p. 388.\n\nThe immortal work of Count de Maistre, in which he so ably refutes\nthe calumnies of the enemies of the Apostolic See, is well known.\nAmong so many and such profound observations, there is one deserving\nof particular attention: that on the moderation of the Popes in\nevery thing relating to the extension of their dominions, when he\npoints out the difference between the Roman and the other European\nCourts. \"It is,\" says he, \"a very remarkable circumstance, but either\ndisregarded or not sufficiently attended to, that the Popes have\nnever taken advantage of the great power in their possession for the\naggrandisement of their States. What could have been more natural, for\ninstance, or more tempting to human nature, than to reserve a portion\nof the provinces conquered from the Saracens, and which they gave up\nto the first occupant, to repel the Turkish ascendency, always on the\nincrease? But this, however, they never did, not even with regard to\nthe adjacent countries, as in the instance of the Two Sicilies, to\nwhich they had incontestable rights, at least according to the ideas\nthen prevailing, and over which they were nevertheless contented with\nan empty sovereignty, which soon ended in the _haquen\u00e9e_, a slight\ntribute, and merely nominal, which the bad taste of the age still\ndisputes with them.\n\n\"The Popes may have made too much, at the time, of this universal\nsovereignty, which an opinion equally universal allowed them. They may\nhave exacted homage; may indeed, if you will, have too arbitrarily\nimposed taxes. I do not wish to enter into these points here, but it\nstill remains certain that they have never sought to increase their\ndominions at the expense of justice, whilst all other governments\nfell under this anathema; and, at the present time even, with all\nour philosophy, our civilization, and our fine books, there is not\nperhaps one of the European powers in a condition to justify all its\npossessions before God and reason.\" (_Du Pape_, book ii. chap. 6.)\n\n\nNOTE 41, p. 350.\n\nI will here insert some passages in which St. Anselm explains the\nmotives that induced him to write, and the method which he intended to\nfollow in his writings.\n\n\n _Pr\u00e6fatio beati Anselmi Episcopi Cantuariensis in Monologuium._\n\nQuidam fratres s\u00e6pe me studioseque precati sunt, ut qu\u00e6dam de illis,\nqu\u00e6 de meditanda divinitatis essentia, et quibusdam aliis hujus\nmeditationi coh\u00e6rentibus, usitato sermone colloquendo protuleram,\nsub quodam eis meditationis exemplo describerem. Cujus scilicet\nscribend\u00e6 meditationis magis secundum suam voluntatem quam secundum rei\nfacilitatem aut meam possibilitatem hanc mihi formam pr\u00e6stituerunt:\nquatenus auctoritate scriptur\u00e6 penitus nihil in ea persuaderetur.\nSed quidquid per singulas investigationes finis assereret, id ita\nesse plano stylo et vulgaribus argumentis simplicique disputatione,\net rationis necessitas breviter cogeret, et veritatis claritas\npatenter ostenderet. Voluerunt etiam ut nec simplicibus peneque fatuis\nobjectionibus mihi occurrentibus obviare contemnerem, quod quidem diu\ntentare recusavi, atque me cum re ipsa comparans, multis me rationibus\nexcusare tentavi. Quanto enim id quod petebant, usu sibi optabant\nfacilius: tanto mihi illud actu injungebant difficilius. Tandem\ntamen victus, tum precum modesta importunitate, tum studii eorum non\ncontemnenda honestate, invitus quidem propter rei difficultatem, et\ningenii mei imbecillitatem, quod precabantur inc\u00e6pi, sed libenter\npropter eorum caritatem, quantum potui secundum ipsorum definitionem\neffeci. Ad quod cum ea spe sim adductus, ut quidquid facerem illis\nsolis a quibus exigebatur, esset notum, et paulo post idipsum ut vilem\nrem fastidientibus, contemptu esset obruendum, scio enim me in eo non\ntam precantibus satisfacere potuisse, quam precibus me prosequentibus\nfinem posuisse. Nescio tamen quomodo sic pr\u00e6ter spem evenit, ut non\nsolum pr\u00e6dicti fratres sed et plures alii scripturam ipsam, quisque\neam sibi transcribendo in longum memori\u00e6 commendare satagerent, quam\nego s\u00e6pe tractans nihil potui invenire me in ea dixisse, quod non\ncatholicorum patrum, et maxime beati Augustini scriptis coh\u00e6reat.\n\n\n Idem. _Quod hoc licet inexplicabile sit, tamen credendum sit._ (Cap.\n lxii.)\n\nVidetur mihi hujus tam sublimis rei secretum transcendere omnem\nintellectus aciem humani: et idcirco conatum explicandi qualiter\nhoc sit, continendum puto. Sufficere namque debere existimo rem\nincomprehensibilem indaganti si ad hoc rationando pervenerit, ut eam\ncertissime esse cognoscat, etiamsi penetrare nequeat intellectu quomodo\nita sit, nec idcirco minus his adhibendam fidei certitudinem, qu\u00e6\nprobationibus necessariis nulla alia repugnante ratione asseruntur,\nsi su\u00e6 naturalis altitudinis incomprehensibilitate explicari non\npatiantur. Quid autem tam incomprehensibile, quam id quod supra\nomnia est? Quapropter si ea qu\u00e6 de sua essentia hactenus disputata\nsunt necessariis rationibus sunt asserta, quamvis sic intellectu\npenetrari non possint ut qu\u00e6 verbis valeant explicari: nullatenus\ntamen certitudinis eorum nutat soliditas. Nam si superior consideratio\nrationabiliter comprehendit incomprehensibile esse, quomodo eadem summa\nsapientia sciat ea qu\u00e6 fecit de quibus tam multa non scire necesse est;\nquis explicet quomodo sciat aut dicat se ipsam, de qua aut nihil, aut\nvix aliquid homini sciri possibile est?\n\nIncipit pro\u0153mium in Prosologuion librum Anselmi, Abbatis Beccensis, et\nArchiepiscopi Cantuariensis.\n\nPostquam opusculum quoddam velut exemplum meditandi de ratione fidei,\ncogentibus me precibus quorumdam fratrum in persona alicujus tacite\nsecum ratiocinando qu\u00e6 nesciat investigantis edidi, considerans illud\nesse multorum concathenatione contextum argumentorum, c\u0153pi mecum\nqu\u00e6rere: si forte posset invenire unum argumentum, quod nullo alio\nad se probandum, quam se solo indigeret, et solum ad astruendum quia\nDeus vere est; et quia est summum bonum nullo alio indigens, et quo\nomnia indigent ut sint et bene sint, et qu\u00e6cumque credimus de divina\nsubstantia sufficeret. Ad quod cum s\u00e6pe studioseque cogitationes\nconverterem, atque aliquando mihi videretur jam capi posse quod\nqu\u00e6rebam, aliquando mentis aciem omnino fugeret: tandem desperans volui\ncessare, velut ab inquisitione rei quam inveniri esset impossibile.\nSed cum illam cogitationem, ne mentem meam frustra occupando ab aliis\nin quibus proficere possem impediret, penitus a me vellem excludere,\ntunc magis ac magis nolenti et defendenti, se c\u0153pit cum importunitate\nquadam ingerere. Quadam igitur die cum vehementer ejus importunitati\nresistendo fatigarer, in ipso cogitationum conflictu sic se obtulit\nquod desperabam, ut studiose cogitationem amplecterer, quam sollicitus\nrepellebam. \u00c6stimans igitur quod me gaudebam invenisse, si scriptum\nesset alicui, legenti placiturum. De hoc ipso et quibusdam aliis\nsub persona conantis erigere mentem suam ad contemplandum Deum,\net qu\u00e6rentis intelligere quod credit, subditum scripsi opusculum.\nEt quoniam nec istud nec illud cujus supra memini, dignum libri\nnomine, aut cui auctoris pr\u00e6poneretur nomen judicabam: nec tamen sine\naliquo titulo, quo aliquem in cujus manus venirent, quodammodo ad\nse legendum invitarent, dimittenda putabam, unicuique dedi titulum:\nut prius exemplum meditandi de ratione fidei, et sequens fides\nqu\u00e6rens intellectum diceretur. Sed cum jam a pluribus et his titulis\nutrumque transumptum esset, coegerunt me plures et maxime reverendus\nArchiepiscopus Lugdunensis Hugo nomine, fungens in Gallia legatione\napostolica, pr\u0153cepit auctoritate, ut nomen meum illis pr\u00e6scriberem.\nQuod ut aptius fieret illud quidem Monologuium, id est Soliloquium,\nistud vero Prosologuion, id est Alloquium nominavi.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI have said that St. Anselm excelled Descartes in his manner of proving\nthe existence of God: let the reader, indeed, peruse the following\npassages. I do not, however, intend to pronounce an opinion on the\nmerits of this demonstration; my business is, to notice the progress of\nthe human mind, and not to resolve philosophical questions.\n\n\nPROSOLOGUIUM D. ANSELMI.\n\n _Quod Deus non possit cogitari non esse._\n\nQuod utique sic vere est, ut nec cogitari possit non esse. Nam potest\ncogitari esse aliquid, quod non possit cogitari non esse, quod majus\nest quam quod non esse cogitari potest. Quare si id, quo majus nequit\ncogitari, potest cogitari non esse: id ipsum, quo majus cogitari\nnequit, non est id quo majus cogitari nequit; quod convenire non\npotest. Sic ergo vere est aliquid, quo majus cogitari non potest,\nut nec cogitari possit non esse. Et hoc es tu, Domine Deus noster.\nSic ergo vere es, Domine Deus meus, ut nec cogitari possis non esse.\nEt merito. Si enim aliqua mens posset cogitare aliquid melius te,\nascenderet creatura super Creatorem; et judicaret de Creatore, quod\nvalde est absurdum. Et quidem quidquid est aliud pr\u00e6ter solum te,\npotest cogitari non esse. Solus igitur verissime omnium, et ideo maxime\nomnium habes esse, quia quidquid aliud est non sic vere est, et idcirco\nminus habet esse. Cur itaque, _dixit insipiens in corde suo non est\nDeus?_ Cum causa in promptu sit rationali menti, te maxime omnium esse?\nCur, nisi stultus et insipiens?\n\n\n _Quomodo insipiens dixit in corde suo quod cogitari non potest._ (Cap.\n iv.)\n\nVerum quomodo dixit insipiens in corde suo quod cogitare non potuit,\naut quomodo cogitare non potuit quod dixit in corde, cum idem sit\ndicere in corde, et cogitare. Quod si vere, imo quia vere, et\ncogitavit: quia dixit in corde et non dixit in corde, quia cogitare non\npotuit; non uno tantum modo dicitur aliquid in corde vel cogitatur.\nAliter enim cogitatur res, cum vox eam significans cogitatur: aliter\ncum idipsum, quod res est, intelligitur. Illo itaque modo, potest\ncogitari Deus non esse: isto vero, minime. Nullus quippe intelligens id\nquod Deus est, potest cogitare quia Deus non est; licet h\u00e6c verba dicat\nin corde, aut sine ulla, aut cum aliqua extranea significatione. Deus\nenim, est id quo majus cogitari non potest. Quod qui bene intelligit,\nutique intelligit id ipsum sic esse, ut nec cogitatione queat non\nesse. Qui ergo intelligit sic esse Deum, nequit eum non esse cogitare.\nGratias tibi, bone Domine, gratias tibi, quia quod prius credidi te\ndonante, jam sic intelligo te illuminante; ut si te esse nolim credere,\nnon possim non intelligere.\n\n\n _Ejusdem beati Anselmi liber pro insipiente incipit._\n\nDubitanti, utrum sit; vel neganti quod sit aliqua talis natura, qua\nnihil majus cogitari possit; tamen esse illam, huic dicitur primo\nprobari; quod ipse negans vel ambigens de illa, jam habeat eam in\nintellectu, cum audiens illam dici, id quod dicitur intelligit: deinde,\nquia quod intelligit necesse est, ut non in solo intellectu, sed etiam\nin re sit. Et hoc ita probatur; quia majus est esse in intellectu et in\nre, quam in solo intellectu. Et si illud in solo est intellectu, majus\nillo erit quidquid etiam fuerit in re, at si majus omnibus, minus erit\naliquo, et non erit majus omnibus quod utique repugnat. Et ideo necesse\nest ut, majus omnibus, quod est jam probatum esse in intellectu, et\nin re sit; quoniam aliter majus omnibus esse non poterit. Responderi\npotest, quod hoc jam esse dicitur in intellectu meo, non ob aliud, nisi\nquia id quod dicitur intelligo.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe passages I have just quoted will have shewn to my readers that\nthought was not oppressed in the Catholic Church. The most eminent\ndoctors were accustomed to reason on the most important subjects\nwith a just and reasonable independence; and although with profound\nrespect for the teaching of the Catholic Church, they nevertheless\nsurveyed, as well as Abelard and better, the field of true philosophy.\nWe cannot expect from human intelligence at this epoch more than is\nto be found in St. Anselm. How is it, therefore, that such eulogiums\nhave been passed upon Roscelin and Abelard, without ever mentioning\nthis holy doctor? Why present a picture of the intellectual movement so\nincomplete, and not insert in it so noble and beautiful a figure?\n\nIf you would know how incorrect it is that Abelard, as M. Guizot\naffirms, abstained from attacking the doctrines of the Church--how\nincorrect M. Guizot is in his statement of the causes which excited the\nzeal of the pastors of the Church against Abelard, read the letter of\nthe Bishops of Gaul to Pope Innocent, in which you will find a complete\nrecital of the origin and cause of this important affair. Here is the\nletter:\n\n\nEPISTOLA CCCLXX.\n\n _Reverendissimo Patri et Domino, INNOCENTIO, Dei gratia summo\n Pontifici, Henricus Senonensium Archiepiscopus, Carnotensis Episcopus,\n Sanct\u00e6 Sedis Apostolic\u00e6 famulus, Aurelianensis, Antissiodorensis,\n Trecensis, Meldensis Episcopi, devotas orationes et debitam\n obedientiam._\n\nNulli dubium est quod ea qu\u00e6 Apostolica firmantur auctoritate, rata\nsemper existunt; nec alicujus possunt deinceps mutilari cavillatione,\nvel invidia depravari. Ea propter ad vestram Apostolicam Sedem,\nBeatissime Pater, referre dignum censuimus qu\u00e6dam qu\u00e6 nuper in\nnostra contigit tractari pr\u00e6sentia. Qu\u00e6 quoniam et nobis, et multis\nreligiosis ac sapientibus viris rationabiliter acta visa sunt, vestr\u00e6\nserenitatis expectant comprobari judicio, simul et auctoritate perpetuo\nroborari. Itaque cum per totam fere Galliam in civitatibus, vicis, et\ncastellis, a Scholaribus non solum intra Scholas, sed etiam triviatim:\nnec a litteratis, aut provectis tantum, sed a pueris et simplicibus,\naut certe stultis, de Sancta Trinitate, qu\u00e6 Deus est, disputaretur:\ninsuper alia multa ab eisdem, absona prorsus et absurda, et plane fidei\ncatholic\u00e6, sanctorumque Patrum auctoritatibus obviantia proferrentur;\ncumque ab his qui sane sentiebant, et eas ineptias rejiciendas esse\ncensebant, s\u00e6pius admoniti corriperentur, vehementius convalescebant,\net auctoritate magistri sui Petri Abailardi, et cujusdam ipsius libri,\ncui _Theologi\u00e6_ indiderat nomen; nec non et aliorum ejusdem opusculorum\nfreti ad astruendas profanas adinventiones illas, non sine multarum\nanimarum dispendio, sese magis ac magis armabant. Qu\u00e6 enim et nos, et\nalios plures non parum moverant ac l\u00e6serant; inde tamen qu\u00e6stionem\nfacere verebantur.\n\nVerum Dominus Abbas Clar\u00e6-vallis, his a diversis et s\u00e6pius auditis,\nimmo certe in pr\u00e6taxato magistri Petri _Theologi\u00e6_ libro, nec non et\naliis ejusdem libris, in quorum forte lectionem inciderat, diligenter\ninspectis; secreto prius; ac deinde secum duobus aut tribus adhibitis\ntestibus, juxta Evangelicum pr\u00e6ceptum, hominem convenit: Et ut\nauditores suos a talibus compesceret, librosque suos corrigeret,\namicabiliter satis ac familiariter illum admonuit. Plures etiam\nScholarium adhortatus est, ut et libros venenis plenos repudiarent\net rejicerent: et a doctrina, qu\u00e6 fidem l\u00e6debat Catholicam, caverent\net abstinerent. Quod magister Petrus minus patienter et nimium \u00e6gre\nferens, crebro nos pulsare c\u0153pit, nec ante voluit desistere, quoad\nDominum Clara-vellensem Abbatem super hoc scribentes, assignato die,\nscilicet octavo Pentecostes, Senonis ante nostram submonuimus venire\npr\u00e6sentiam: quo se vocabat et offerebat paratum magister Petrus ad\nprobandas et defendendas de quibus illum Dominus Abbas Clara-vallensis,\nquomodo pr\u00e6taxatum est, reprehenderat sententias. C\u00e6terum Dominus\nAbbas, nec ad assignatum diem se venturum, nec contra Petrum sese\ndisceptaturum nobis remandavit. Sed quia magister Petrus interim suos\nnihilominus c\u0153pit undequaque convocare discipulos; et obsecrare, ut ad\nfuturam inter se, Dominumque Abbatem Clara-vallensem disputationem,\nuna cum illo suam sententiam simul et scientiam defensuri venirent; Et\nhoc Dominum Clara-vallensem minime lateret; veritus ipse, ne propter\noccasionem absenti\u00e6 su\u00e6 tot profan\u00e6, non sententi\u00e6 sed insani\u00e6, tam\napud minus intelligentes, quam earumdem defensores majore dign\u00e6\nviderentur auctoritate, pr\u00e6dicto quem sibi designaveramus die, licet\neum minime suscepisset, tactus zelo pii fervoris, imo certe Sancti\nSpiritus igne succensus, sese nobis ultro Senonis pr\u00e6sentavit. Illa\nvero die, scilicet octava Pentecostes, convenerant ad nos Senonis\nFratres et Suffraganei nostri Episcopi, ob honorem et reverentiam\nsanctarum, quas in Ecclesia nostra populo revelaturos nos indixeramus,\nReliquiarum.\n\nItaque pr\u00e6sente glorioso Rege Francorum Ludovico cum Wilhelmo religioso\nNivernis Comite, Domino quoque Rhemensi Archiepiscopo, cum quibusdam\nsuis suffraganeis Episcopis nobis etiam, et suffraganeis nostris,\nexceptis Parisiis et Nivernis, Episcopis pr\u00e6sentibus, cum multis\nreligiosis Abbatibus et sapientibus, valdeque litteratis clericis\nadfuit Dominus Abbas Clara-vallensis; adfuit magister Petrus cum\nfautoribus suis. Quid multa? Dominus Abbas cum librum Theologi\u00e6\nmagistri Petri proferret in medium, et qu\u00e6 annotaverat absurda, imo\nh\u00e6retica plane capitula de libro eodem proponeret, ut ea magister\nPetrus vel a se scripta negaret, vel si sua fateretur, aut probaret,\naut corrigeret: visus est diffidere magister Petrus Abailardus, et\nsubterfugere, respondere noluit, sed quamvis libera sibi daretur\naudientia, tutumque locum, et \u00e6quos haberet judices, ad vestram tamen,\nsanctissime Pater, appellans pr\u00e6sentiam, cum suis a conventu discessit.\n\nNos autem licet appellatio ista, minus Canonica videretur, Sedi tamen\nApostolic\u00e6 deferentes, in personam hominis nullam voluimus proferre\nsententiam: C\u00e6terum sententias pravi dogmatis ipsius, quia multo\ninfecerant, et sui contagione adusque cordium intima penetraverant,\ns\u00e6pe in audientia publica lectas et relectas, et tam verissimis\nrationibus, quam Beati Augustini, aliorumque Sanctorum Patrum inductis\na Domino Clara-vallensi auctoritatibus, non solum falsas, sed et\nh\u00e6reticas esse evidentissime comprobatas, pridie ante factam ad vos\nappellationem damnavimus. Et quia multos in errorem perniciosissimum\net plane damnabilem pertrahunt, eas auctoritate vestra, dilectissime\nDomine, perpetua damnatione notari; et omnes qui pervicaciter et\ncontentiose illas defenderint, a vobis, \u00e6quissime Pater, juxta p\u0153na\nmulctari unanimiter et multa precum instantia postulamus.\n\nS\u00e6pe dicto vero Petro, si Reverentia vestra silentium imponeret, et tam\nlegendi, quam scribendi prorsus interrumperet facultatem, et libros\nejus perverso sine dubio dogmate respersos condemnaret, avulsis spinis\net tribulis ab Ecclesia Dei, prevaleret adhuc l\u00e6ta Christi seges\nsuccrescere, florere, fructificare. Qu\u00e6dam autem de condemnatis a nobis\ncapitulis vobis, Reverende Pater, conscripta transmisimus, ut per h\u00e6c\naudita reliqui corpus operis facilius \u00e6stimetis.\n\nObserve how St Bernard explains the system and errors of the celebrated\nAbelard. In chapter 1 of the treatise which he wrote, _De erroribus\nPetri Abailardi_, he says:\n\n\"Habemus in Francia novum de veteri magistro Theologum, qui ab ineunte\n\u00e6tate sua in arte dialectica lusit; et nunc in scripturis sanctis\ninsanit. Olim damnata et sopita dogmata, tam sua videlicet quam aliena\nsuscitare conatur, insuper et nova addit. Qui dum omnium qu\u00e6 sunt c\u0153lo\nsursum, et qu\u00e6 in terra deorsum, nihil pr\u00e6ter solum Nescio nescire\ndignatur; ponit in c\u0153lum os suum, et scrutatur alta Dei, rediensque\nad nos refert verba ineffabilia, qu\u00e6 non licet homini loqui. Et\ndum paratus est de omnibus reddere rationem, etiam qu\u00e6 sunt supra\nrationem, et contra rationem pr\u00e6sumit, et contra fidem. Quid enim magis\ncontra rationem, quam ratione rationem conari transcendere? Et quid\nmagis contra fidem; quam credere nolle, quidquid non possit ratione\nattingere?\"\n\nIn chapter 4, he sums up, in a few words, the aberrations of the\ndialectician:\n\n\"Sed advertite c\u00e6tera. Omitto quod dicit spiritum timoris Domini\nnon fuisse in Domino: timorem Domini castum in future seculo non\nfuturum: post consecrationem panis et calicis priora accidentia qu\u00e6\nremanent pendere in aere: d\u00e6monum in nobis suggestiones contactu\nfieri lapidum et herbarum, prout illorum sagax malitia novit; harum\nrerum vires diversas, diversis incitandis et incendendis vitiis,\nconvenire: Spiritum Sanctum esse animam mundi: mundum juxta Platonem\ntanto excellentius animal esse, quanto meliorem animam habet Spiritum\nSanctum. Ubi dum multum sudat quomodo Platonem faciat Christianum, se\nprobat ethnicum. H\u00e6c inquam omnia, aliasque istiusmodi n\u00e6nias ejus\nnon paucas pr\u00e6tereo, venio ad graviora. Non quod vel ad ipsa cuncta\nrespondeam, magnis enim opus voluminibus esset. Illa loquor qu\u00e6 tacere\nnon possum.\n\n\"Cum de Trinitate loquitur,\" says he in his letter 192, \"sapit Arium,\ncum de Gratia sapit Pelagium, cum de persona Christi sapit Nestorium.\"\n\nPope Innocent, condemning the doctrines of Abelard, says: \"In Petri\nAbailardi perniciosa doctrina, et pr\u00e6dictorum h\u00e6reses, et alia perversa\ndogmata catholic\u00e6 fidei obviantia pullulare c\u0153perunt.\"\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\nNOTE (a), p. 289.\n\nQuod necesse est homines simul viventes ab aliquo diligenter regi.\n\nEt siquidem homini conveniret singulariter vivere, sicut multis\nanimalium, nullo alio dirigente indigeret ad finem, sed ipse sibi\nunusquisque esset rex sub Deo summo rege, in quantum per lumen rationis\ndivinitus datum sibi, in suis actibus seipsum dirigeret. Naturale\nautem est homini ut sit animal sociale, et politicum, in multitudine\nvivens, magis etiam quam omnia alia animalia; quod quidem naturalis\nnecessitas declarat. Aliis enim animalibus natura pr\u00e6paravit cibum,\ntegumenta pilorum, defensionem, ut dentes, cornua, ungues, vel saltem\nvelocitatem ad fugam. Homo autem institutus est nullo horum sibi a\nnatura pr\u00e6parato, sed loco omnium data est ei ratio, per quam sibi h\u00e6c\nomnia officio manuum posset pr\u00e6parare, ad qu\u00e6 omnia pr\u00e6paranda unus\nhomo non sufficit. Nam unus homo per se sufficienter vitam transigere\nnon posset. Est igitur homini naturale, quod in societate multorum\nvivat. Amplius, aliis animalibus insita est naturalis industria ad\nomnia ea qu\u00e6 sunt eis utilia vel nociva, sicut ovis naturaliter extimet\nlupum inimicum. Qu\u00e6dam etiam animalia ex naturali industria cognoscunt\naliquas herbas medicinales, et alia eorum vit\u00e6 necessaria. Homo autem\nhorum, qu\u00e6 sunt su\u00e6 vit\u00e6 necessaria, naturalem cognitionem habet solum\nin communi, quasi eo per rationem valente ex universalibus principiis\nad cognitionem singulorum, qu\u00e6 necessaria sunt human\u00e6 vit\u00e6, pervenire.\nNon est autem possibile, quod unus homo ad omnia hujusmodi per suam\nrationem pertingat. Est igitur necessarium homini, quod in multitudine\nvivat, et unus ab alio adjuvetur, et diversi diversis inveniendis\nper rationem occuparentur, puta, unus in medicina, alius in hoc,\nalius in alio. Hoc etiam evidentissime declaratur per hoc, quod est\nproprium hominis locutione uti, per quam unus homo aliis suum conceptum\ntotaliter potest exprimere. Alia quidem animalia exprimunt mutuo\npassiones suas, in communi, ut canis in latratu iram, et alia animalia\npassiones suas diversis modis. Magis igitur homo est communicativus\nalteri, quam quodcumque aliud animal, quod gregale videtur, ut grus,\nformica, et apis. Hoc ergo considerans Salomon in Ecclesiaste ait:\n\"Melius est esse duos, quam unum. Habent enim emolumentum mutu\u00e6\nsocietatis.\" Si ergo naturale est homini quod in societate multorum\nvivat, necesse est in hominibus esse, per quod multitudo regatur.\nMultis enim existentibus hominibus et uno quoque id quod est sibi\ncongruum providente, multitudo in diversa dispergeretur, nisi etiam\nesset aliquis de eo quod ad bonum multitudinis pertinet, curam habens,\nsicut et corpus hominis, et cujuslibet animalis deflueret, nisi esset\naliqua vis regitiva communis in corpore, qu\u00e6 ad bonum commune omnium\nmembrorum intenderet. Quod considerans Salomon dicit: \"Ubi non est\ngubernator, dissipabitur populus.\" Hoc autem rationabiliter accidit:\nnon enim idem est quod proprium, et quod commune. Secundum propria\nquidem differunt, secundum autem commune uniuntur: diversorum autem\ndivers\u00e6 sunt caus\u00e6. Oportet igitur pr\u00e6ter id quod movet ad proprium\nbonum uniuscujusque, esse aliquid, quod movet ad bonum commune\nmultorum. Propter quod et in omnibus qu\u00e6 in unum ordinantur, aliquid\ninvenitur alterius regitivum. In universitate enim corporum, per primum\ncorpus, scilicet celeste, alia corpora ordine quodam divin\u00e6 providenti\u00e6\nreguntur, omniaque corpora, per creaturam rationalem. In uno etiam\nhomine anima regit corpus, atque inter anim\u00e6 partes irascibilis et\nconcupiscibilis ratione reguntur. Itemque inter membra corporis unum\nest principale, quod omnia movet, ut cor, aut caput. Oportet igitur\nesse in omni multitudine aliquod regitivum. (D. Th., Opusc. de Regimine\nPrincipum, l. i. cap. 1.)\n\n\nNOTE (b), p. 290.\n\nUbi considerandum est, quod dominium, vel pr\u00e6latio introducta sunt\nex jure humano: distinctio autem fidelium et infidelium est ex jure\ndivino. Jus autem divinum quod est ex gratia, non tollit jus humanum\nquod est ex naturali ratione; ideo distinctio fidelium et infidelium\nsecundum se considerata, non tollit dominium, et pr\u00e6lationem infidelium\nsupra fideles. (2. 2. quest. 10, art. 10.)\n\n\nNOTE (c), p. 290.\n\nRespondeo dicendum quod sicut supra dictum est (quest. 10, art. 10),\ninfidelitas secundum se ipsam non repugnat dominio, eo quod dominium\nintroductum est de jure gentium, quod est jus humanum. Distinctio autem\nfidelium et infidelium est secundum jus divinum, per quod non tollitur\njus humanum. (2. 2. quest. 12, art. 2.)\n\n\nNOTE (d), p. 290.\n\nRespondeo dicendum quod sicut actiones rerum naturalium procedunt ex\npotentiis naturalibus: ita etiam operationes human\u00e6 procedunt ex humana\nvoluntate. Oportuit autem in rebus naturalibus, ut superiora moverent\ninferiora ad suas actiones per excellentiam naturalis virtutis collat\u00e6\ndivinitus. Unde et oportet in rebus humanis, quod superiores moveant\ninferiores per suam voluntatem ex vi auctoritatis divinitus ordinat\u00e6.\nMovere autem per rationem et voluntatem est pr\u00e6cipere; et ideo sicut ex\nipso ordine naturali divinitus instituto inferiora in rebus naturalibus\nnecesse habent subjici motioni superiorum, ita etiam in rebus humanis\nex ordine juris naturalis et divini, tenentur inferiores suis\nsuperioribus obedire. (2. 2. quest. 105, art. 1.)\n\n\nNOTE (e), p. 291.\n\nObedire autem superiori debitum est secundum divinum ordinem rebus\ninditum ut ostensum est. (2. 2. quest. 104, art. 2.)\n\n\nNOTE (f), p. 291.\n\nRespondeo dicendum quod fides Christi est justiti\u00e6 principium, et\ncausa, secundum illud Rom. iii. \"Justitia Dei per fidem Jesu Christi;\"\net ideo per fidem Christi non tollitur ordo justiti\u00e6 sed magis\nfirmatur. Ordo autem justiti\u00e6 requirit, ut inferiores suis superioribus\nobediant: aliter enim non posset humanarum rerum status conservari.\nEt ideo per fidem Christi non excusantur fideles, quin principibus\nsecularibus obedire teneantur. (2. 2. quest. 105, art. 6.)\n\n\nNOTE (g), p. 291.\n\nCertum est politicam potestatem a Deo esse a quo non nisi res bon\u00e6 et\nlicit\u00e6 procedunt, et quod probat Aug. in toto fere 4 et 5 libr. de\nCivit. Dei. Nam sapientia Dei clamat, Proverb. viii.: Per me reges\nregnant; et infra: Per me principes imperant. Et Daniel ii.: Deus c\u0153li\nregnum et imperium dedit tibi, &c.; et Daniel iv.: Cum bestiis ferisque\nerit habitatio tua, et fenum, ut bos comedes, et rore c\u0153li infunderis:\nseptem quoque tempora mutabuntur super te, donec scias quod dominetur\nExcelsus super regnum hominum, et cuicumque voluerit, det illud. (Bell.\nde Laicis, l. iii. c. 6.)\n\n\nNOTE (h), p. 291.\n\nSed hic observanda sunt aliqua. Primo politicam potestatem in\nuniversum consideratam, non descendendo in particulari ad monarchiam,\naristocratiam, vel democratiam immediate esse a solo Deo; nam\nconsequitur necessario naturam hominis, proinde esse ab illo, qui fecit\nnaturam hominis; pr\u00e6terea h\u00e6c potestas est de jure natur\u00e6, non enim\npendet ex consensu hominum, nam velint, nolint, debent regi ab aliquo,\nnisi velint perire humanum genus, quod est contra natur\u00e6 inclinationem.\nAt jus natur\u00e6 est jus divinum, jure igitur divino introducta est\ngubernatio, et hoc videtur proprie velle Apostolus, cum dicit Rom.\nxiii: Qui potestati resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit. (Ib.)\n\n\nNOTE (i), p. 292.\n\nSecundo nota, hanc potestatem immediate esse tanquam in subjecto, in\ntota multitudine, nam h\u00e6c potestas est de jure divino. At jus divinum\nnulli homini particulari dedit hanc potestatem, ergo dedit multitudini;\npr\u00e6terea sublato jure positivo, non est major ratio cur ex multis\n\u00e6qualibus unus potius, quam alius dominetur: igitur potestas totius est\nmultitudinis. Denique humana societas debet esse perfecta respublica,\nergo debet habere potestatem se ipsam conservandi, et proinde puniendi\nperturbatores pacis, &c. (Ib.)\n\nNOTE (k), p. 293.\n\nTertio nota, hanc potestatem transferri a multitudine in unum vel\nplures eodem jure natur\u00e6: nam Respub. non potest per seipsam exercere\nhanc potestatem, ergo tenetur eam transferre in aliquem unum vel\naliquos paucos; et hoc modo potestas principum in genere considerata,\nest etiam de jure natur\u00e6, et divino; nec posset genus humanum, etiamsi\ntotum simul conveniret, contrarium statuere, nimirum, ut nulli essent\nprincipes vel rectores. (Ib.)\n\n\nNOTE (l), p. 293.\n\nQuarto nota, in particulari singulas species regiminis esse de jure\ngentium, non de jure natur\u00e6; nam pendet a consensu multitudinis,\nconstituere super se regem vel consules, vel alios magistratus, ut\npatet: et si causa legitima adsit, potest multitudo mutare regnum in\naristocratiam, aut democratiam, et e contrario ut Rom\u00e6 factum legimus.\n\nQuinto nota, ex dictis sequi, hanc potestatem in particulari esse\nquidem a Deo, sed mediante consilio, et electione humana, ut\nalia omnia, qu\u00e6 ad jus gentium pertinent, jus enim gentium est\nquasi conclusio deducta ex jure natur\u00e6 per humanum discursum. Ex\nquo colliguntur du\u00e6 differenti\u00e6 inter potestatem politicam, et\necclesiasticam: una ex parte subjecti, nam politica est in multitudine,\necclesiastica in uno homine tanquam in subjecto immediate; altera ex\nparte efficientis, quod politica universe considerata est de jure\ndivino, in particulari considerata est de jure gentium; ecclesiastica\nomnibus modis est de jure divino, et immediate a Deo. (Ib.)\n\n\nNOTE (m), p. 294.\n\nIn hac re communis sententia videtur esse, hanc potestatem dari\nimmediate a Deo ut auctore natur\u00e6, ita ut homines quasi disponant\nmateriam et efficiant subjectum capax hujus potestatis; Deus autem\nquasi tribuat formam dando hanc potestatem. Cita a Cajet. Covar.\nVictor. y Soto. (De Leg. l. iii. c. 3.)\n\n\nNOTE (n), p. 294.\n\nSecundo sequitur ex edictis, potestatem civilem, quoties in uno homine,\nvel principe reperitur, legitimo, ac ordinario jure, a populo, et\ncommunitate manasse, vel proxime vel remote, nec posse aliter haberi,\nut justa sit. (Ibid. cap. 4.)\n\n\nNOTE (o), p. 294.\n\nDefensio Fidei Catholic\u00e6 et Apostolic\u00e6 adversus Anglican\u00e6 sect\u00e6\nerrores, cum responsione ad apologiam pro juramento fidelitatis et\npr\u00e6fationem monitoriam serenissimi Jacobi Angli\u00e6 Regis, Authore P.\nD. Francisco Suario Gratanensi, e Societate Jesu, Sacr\u00e6 Theologi\u00e6 in\ncelebri Conimbricensi Academia Primario Professore, ad serenissimos\ntotius Christiani orbis Catholicos Reges ac Principes.\n\nLib. 3. De Primatu Summi Pontificis, cap. 2. Utrum Principatus\npoliticus sit immediate a Deo, seu ex divina institutione.\n\n..... In qua rex serenissimus non solum novo, et singulari modo opinatur,\nsed etiam acriter invehitur in Cardinalem Bellarminum, eo quod\nasseruerit, non regibus authoritatem a Deo _immediate_, perinde ac\npontificibus esse concessam. Asserit ergo ipse, regem non a populo,\nsed _immediate_ a Deo suam potestatem habere; suam vero sententiam\nquibusdam argumentis, et exemplis suadere conatur, quorum efficaciam in\nsequenti capite expendemus.\n\n_Sed quamquam controversia h\u00e6c ad fidei dogmata directe non pertineat_\n(_nihil enim ex divina Scriptura, aut Patrum traditione in illa\ndefinitum ostendi potest_), nihilominus diligenter tractanda, et\nexplicanda est. Tum quia potest esse occasio errandi in aliis\ndogmatibus; tum etiam quia pr\u00e6dicta regis sententia, prout ab ipso\nasseritur et intenditur, nova et singularis est, et ad exaggerandam\ntemporalem potestatem, et spiritualem extenuandam videtur inventa. Tum\ndenique quia sententiam illustrissimi Bellarmini _antiquam, receptam,\nveram, ac necessariam esse censemus_.\n\n\nNOTE (p), p. 295.\n\nR. P. Hermanni Busembaum Societatis Jesu Theologia Moralis, nunc\npluribus partibus aucta a R. P. D. Alphonso de Ligorio Rectore majore\ncongregationis SS. Redemptoris; adjuncta in calce operis, pr\u00e6ter\nindicem rerum, et verborum locupletissimum, perutili instructione ad\npraxim confessariorium Latine reddita.\n\nLib. 1, Tract. 2. De legibus, cap. 1. De natura, et obligatione legis.\nDub. 2.\n\n104. Certum est dari in hominibus potestatem ferendi leges; sed\npotestas h\u00e6c quoad leges civiles a natura nemini competit, nisi\ncommunitati hominum, et ab hac transfertur in unum, vel in plures, a\nquibus communitas regatur.\n\n\nNOTE (q), p. 295.\n\nTheologia Christiana Dogmatico-Moralis Auctore P. F. Daniele Concina\nordinis Pr\u00e6dicatorum. Editio novissima, tomus sextus, de Jure nat. et\ngent., &c. Rom\u00e6, 1768.\n\nLib. 1. De Jure natur. et gent., &c. Dissertatio 4, De leg. hum. C. 2.\n\nSumm\u00e6 potestatis originem a Deo communiter arcessunt scriptores omnes.\nIdque declaravit Salomon, Prov. viii. \"Per me reges regnant, et legum\nconditores justa decernunt.\" Et profecto quemadmodum inferiores\nprincipes a summa majestate, ita summa majestas terrena a supremo Rege,\nDominoque dominantium pendeat necesse est. Illud in disputationem\nvocant tum theologi, tum jurisconsulti, sit ne a Deo proxime, an tantum\nremote h\u00e6c potestas summa? Immediate a Deo haberi contendunt plures,\nquod ab hominibus neque conjunctim, neque sigillatim acceptis haberi\npossit. Omnes enim patres familias \u00e6quales sunt, solaque \u0153conomica\nin propias familias potestate fruuntur. Ergo civilem politicamque\npotestatem, qua ipsi carent, conferre aliis nequeunt. Tum si potestas\nsumma a communitate, tanquam a superiore, uni, aut pluribus collata\nesset, revocari ad nutum ejusdem communitatis posset; cum superior pro\narbitrio retractare communicatam potestatem valeat; quod in magnum\nsocietatis detrimentum recideret.\n\nContra disputant alii, et _quidem probabilius ac verius_, advertentes\nomnem quidem potestatem a Deo esse; sed addunt, non transferri in\nparticulares homines immediate, sed mediante societatis civilis\nconsensu. Quod h\u00e6c potestas sit immediate, non in aliquo singulari,\nsed in tota hominum collectione, docet conceptis verbis S. Thomas\n1. 2. qu. 90. art. 3 ad 2. et qu. 97. art. 3 ad 3 quem sequuntur\nDominicus Soto, lib. 1. qu. 1. art. 3. Ledesma 2. Part. qu. 18. art.\n3. Covarruvias in pract. cap. 1. Ratio evidens est: quia omnes homines\nnascuntur liberi, respectu civilis imperii; ergo nemo in alterum civili\npotestate potitur. Neque ergo in singulis, neque in aliquo determinato\npotestas h\u00e6c reperitur. Consequitur ergo in tota hominum collectione\neamdem extare. Qu\u00e6 potestas non confertur a Deo per aliquam actionem\npeculiarem a creatione distinctam; sed est veluti proprietas ipsam\nrectam rationem consequens, quatenus recta ratio pr\u00e6scribit ut homines\nin unum moraliter congregati, expresso aut tacito concensu modum\ndirigend\u00e6, conservand\u00e6, propugnand\u00e6que societatis pr\u00e6scribant.\n\n\nNOTE (r), p. 296.\n\nHinc infertur, potestatem residentem in principe, rege, vel in\npluribus, aut optimatibus, aut plebeiis, ab ipsa communitate aut\nproxime, aut remote proficisci. Nam potestas h\u00e6c a Deo immediate non\nest. Id enim nobis constare peculiari revelatione deberet; quemadmodum\nscimus, Saulem et Davidem electos a Deo fuisse. Ab ipsa ergo\ncommunitate dimanet oportet.\n\nFalsam itaque reputamus opinionem illam qu\u00e6 asserit, potestatem hanc\nimmediate et proxime a Deo conferri regi, principi, et cuique suprem\u00e6\npotestati, excluso Reipublic\u00e6 tacito, aut expresso consensu. Quamquam\nlis h\u00e6c verborum potius quam rei est. Nam potestas h\u00e6c a Deo auctore\nnatur\u00e6 est, quatenus disposuit, et ordinavit ut ipsa Respublica pro\nsocietatis conservatione, et defensione, uni, aut pluribus supremam\nregiminis potestatem conferret. Immo facta designatione imperantis, aut\nimperantium, potestas h\u00e6c a Deo manare dicitur, quatenus jure naturali,\net divino tenetur, societas ipsa parere imperanti. Quoniam reipsa Deus\nordinavit ut per unum, aut per plures hominum societas regatur. Et\nhac via omnia conciliantur placita: et oracula Scripturarum vero in\nsensu exponuntur. Qui resistit potestati, Dei ordinationi resistit. Et\niterum: Non est potestas nisi a Deo: ad Rom. viii. Et Petrus Epist. 1,\ncap. ii. Subjecti igitur estote omni human\u00e6 creatur\u00e6 propter Deum: sive\nRegi, &c. Item Joan. xix. Non haberes potestatem adversum me ullam,\nnisi tibi datum esset desuper. Qu\u00e6, alia testimonia evincunt, omnia\na Deo, supremo rerum omnium moderatore, disponi, et ordinari. At non\npropterea humana consilia, et operationes excluduntur; ut sapienter\ninterpretantur S. Augustinus tract. 6, in Joan. et lib. 22. cont.\nFaustum, cap. 47, et S. Joannes Chrysostomus Hom. 23, in Epist. ad Rom.\n\n\nNOTE (s), p. 296.\n\nQuinam possint ferre leges? Dico 1. Potestas legislativa competit\ncommunitati vel illi, qui curam communitatis gerit. (Ibid. art. 3. 0.)\n\nProb. 1. Ex Isidoro L. 5. Etymol. C. 10 et refertur C. Lex, Dist. 4.\nubi dicit: Lex est constitutio populi, secundum quam majores natu simul\ncum plebibus aliquid sanxerunt. (Ibid. in art. 1. 0.)\n\nProb. 1. Ratione. (Ibid. 0.) Illius est condere legem, cujus est\nprospicere bono communi; quia, ut dictum est, leges feruntur propter\nbonum commune: atqui est communis, vel illius, cui curam communitatis\nhabet, prospicere bono communi: sicut enim bonum particulare est\nfinis proportionatus agenti particulari, ita bonum commune est finis\nproportionatus communitati, vel ejus vices gerenti; ergo. Confirmatur:\n(Ibid. ad 2.) lex habet vim imperandi et coercendi; atqui nemo privatus\nhabet vim imperandi multitudini et eam coercendi, sed sola ipsa\nmultitudo, vel ejus Rector: Ergo. (Tract. de Legi. Art. 4.)\n\n\nNOTE (t), p. 296.\n\nDices: Superioris est imperare et coercere; atqui communitas non\nest sibi superior: Ergo R. D. Min. Communitas, sub eodem respectu\nconsiderata, non est sibi superior, C. Sub diverso respectu, N. Potest\nitaque communitas considerari collective, per modum unius corporis\nmoralis, et sic considerata est superior sibi considerat\u00e6 distributive\nin singulis membris. Item potest considerari vel ut gerit vices Dei,\na quo omnis potestas legislativa descendit, juxta illud Proverb. Per\nme reges regnant, et legum conditores justa decernunt; vel ut est\ngubernabilis in ordine ad bonum commune: primo modo considerata est\nsuperior et legislativa; secundo modo considerata est inferior et legis\nsusceptiva.\n\n\nNOTE (u), p. 297.\n\nQuod ut clarius percipiatur, observandum est hominem inter animalia\nnasci maxime destitutum pluribus tum corporis cum anim\u00e6 necessariis,\npro quibus indiget aliorum consortio et adjutorio, consequenter eum\nipsapte natura nasci animal sociale: societas autem quam natura,\nnaturalisve ratio dictat ipsi necessariam, diu subsistere non potest,\nnisi aliqua publica potestate gubernetur; juxta illud Proverb. Ubi\nnon est gubernator, populus corruet. Ex quo sequitur, quod Deus,\nqui dedit talem naturam, simul ei dederit potestatem gubernativam\net legislativam, qui enim dat formam, dat etiam ea, qu\u00e6 h\u00e6c forma\nnecessario exigit. Verum, quia h\u00e6c potestas gubernativa et legislativa\nnon potest exerceri a tota multitudine; difficile namque foret,\nomnes et singulos simul convenire toties quoties providendum est de\nnecessariis bono communi, et de legibus ferendis; ideo solet multitudo\ntransferre suum jus seu potestatem gubernativam, vel in aliquos de\npopulo ex omni conditione, et dicitur Democratia; vel in paucos\noptimates, et dicitur Aristocratia; vel in unum tantum, sive pro se\nsolo, sive pro successoribus jure h\u00e6reditario, et dicitur Monarchia. Ex\nquo sequitur, omnem potestatem esse a Deo, ut dicit Apost. Rom. xiii.\nimmediate quidem et jure natur\u00e6 in communitate, mediate autem tantum et\njure humano in Regibus et aliis Rectoribus: nisi Deus ipse immediate\naliquibus hanc potestatem conferat, ut contulit Moysi in populum\nIsrael, et Christus SS. Pontifici in totam Ecclesiam.\n\n_Hanc potestatem legislativam_ in Christianos, _maxime justos, non\nagnoscunt, Lutherani et Calvinist\u00e6, secuti in hoc Valdenses, Wicleffum,\net Joan. Hus damnatos in Conc. Constant. sess. 6. can. 15. Et quamvis\nJoannes Hus eam agnosceret in principibus bonis, eam tamen denegabat\nmalis, pariter ideo damnatus in eodem Concil. sess. 8._\n\n\nNOTE (x), p. 297.\n\nCompendium Salmatic. authore R. P. F. R. Antonio a S. Joseph olim\nLectore, priore ac examinatore Synodali in suo collegio Burgensi, nunc\nprocuratore generali in Romana Curia pro Carmelitarum Discalceatorum\nHispanica Congregatione. Rom\u00e6, 1779. Superiorum permissu. Tractatus 3,\nDe Legibus, cap. 2. De potestate ferendi leges.\n\nPunctum 1. De potestate legislativa civili.\n\nInq. 1. An detur in hominibus potestas condendi leges civiles? R.\nAffirm. constat ex illo Prov. viii. Per me reges regnant, et legum\nconditores justa decernunt. Idem patet ex Apost. ad Rom. xiii. et\ntanquam de fide est definitum in Conc. Const. sess. 8, et ultima.\nProb. ration. quia ad conservationem boni communis requiritur publica\npotestas, qua communitas gubernetur: nam ubi non est gubernator,\ncorruet populus, sed nequid gubernator communitatem nisi mediis legibus\ngubernare: ergo certum est dari in hominibus potestatem condendi leges,\nquibus populus possit gubernari. Ita D. Th. lib. i. de regim. princip.\nc. 1 et 2.\n\nInq. 2. An potestas legislativa civilis conveniat principi immediate a\nDeo? R. omnes asserunt dictam potestatem habere principes a Deo. Verius\ntamen dicitur, non _immediate_ sed _mediante_ populi consensu illam\neos a Deo recipere. Nam omnes homines sunt in natura \u00e6quales, nec unus\nest superior, nec alius inferior ex natura, nulli enim dedit natura\nsupra alterum potestatem, sed h\u00e6c a Deo data est hominum communitati,\nqu\u00e6 judicans rectius fore gubernandum per unam vel per plures personas\ndeterminatas, suam transtulit potestatem in unam, vel plures, a quibus\nregeretur, ut ait D. Th. 1. 2. q. 90. a. 3. ad. 2.\n\nEx hoc naturali principio oritur discrimen regiminis civilis. Nam si\nRespublica transtulit omnem suam potestatem in unum solum, appellatur\nRegimen Monarchicum; si illam contulit Optimatibus populi, nuncupatur\nRegimen Aristocraticum; si vero populus, aut Respublica sibi retineat\ntalem potestatem, dicitur Regimen Democraticum. Habent igitur Principes\nregendi potestatem a Deo, quia supposita electione a Republica facta,\nDeus illam potestatem, qu\u00e6 in communitate erat, Principi confert.\nUnde ipse nomine Dei regit, et gubernat, et qui illi resistit, Dei\nordinationi resistit, ut dicit Apost. loco supra laudato.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n Abbon, a monk--his poem on the siege of Paris, 241.\n\n Abelard, account of, 401;\n error of M. Guizot with regard to him, 402;\n document proving this, 486.\n\n Abuses, checked by the Church, 422.\n\n Adhemar, his chronicle, 241.\n\n Adon, Archbishop of Vienne--his work on universal history, 241.\n\n Adrian (Pope) protects the marriages of slaves, 113;\n his doctrine on the right of slaves to marry, 113.\n\n Agde, Councils of, 103;\n ibid. decree against those who refused to be reconciled, 176.\n\n Aix-la-Chapelle, Council of, enjoins bishops to found hospitals to\n contain all the poor that their revenues can support, 188.\n\n Albigenses described, 252.\n\n Alphonsus (of Ligouri), on power of making laws, 295.\n\n Amat (Don Felix), his false political theory, 333;\n ibid. on resistance to government, 471.\n\n Ambrose (St.), conduct of towards the Emperor Theodosius, 178;\n sells the sacred vessels to redeem slaves, 432.\n\n Anabaptists, excesses committed by, in Germany in the 16th century, 197.\n\n Angers, Council of, its decree against acts of violence, 176.\n\n Anselm (St.), writings of, 403;\n ibid. on St. Paul to the Romans, 459;\n extracts from, showing his way of viewing religious matters, 485;\n intellectual movement in the Church within the limits of faith, 486;\n he anticipates Descartes' demonstration of the existence of a God, 485.\n\n Arabians, their civilization described, 237;\n probability that they were indebted to the eastern monasteries for\n much of their knowledge, 237;\n the connexion between their science and that of antiquity may yet be\n found, 237.\n\n Arbogen, Council of, forbids church burial to be given to pirates,\n ravishers, &c., 182.\n\n Aristocracy in the 16th century, consisted of the nobles and clergy, 348;\n differences between them, 349;\n intermediate class between the throne and the people, 349.\n\n Aristotle, immoral doctrine of, 443;\n his views on public education, 443;\n his absurd interference of the State in domestic matters, 443;\n his doctrines reformed by Christianity, 351.\n\n Arles, Council of, its decree against feuds, 177.\n\n Armagh, Council of, 109;\n ibid. frees all the English slaves, 437.\n\n Association, a favorite principle of Catholicity, 189.\n\n Atheism, tendency towards, in the 17th century, 61.\n\n Augustin (St.), his description of paganism, 89;\n his noble sentiments on slavery, 111;\n remarkable passages from, on political forms, 390;\n on the name Catholic being given to the true Church only, 422.\n\n Author, declaration of, 419.\n\n Authority in religion, tendency towards, in the 17th century, 61.\n\n Avignon, Council of, its decree in favor of the truce of God, 181.\n\n Aymon (of Aquitaine), writes the history of the French, 241.\n\n\n Barbarians, those who invaded the Roman Empire described, 122;\n their real condition, 444;\n their laws and manners, 447.\n\n Barcelona, councillors of, their bold language to the king of Spain, 340;\n its trades-associations described by Capmany, 477.\n\n Bayle, dictionary of, described, 63; its effects, 63.\n\n Bellarmine, doctrine of, on the divine law, 291;\n on the civil power, 292;\n on the distinction between political and ecclesiastical power, 293;\n vindication of, 294.\n\n Benedict (St.), described, 238;\n his monastic institute, 238.\n\n Beneficence, public, unknown to the ancients, 184;\n was the work of Christianity, 184;\n it required permanent institutions, 184;\n they were conceived and founded by the Church, 185;\n institutions of, founded by Catholicity, 185;\n they require the support of Christian charity, 189.\n\n Bernard (St.), observations on, 409.\n\n Beza, evidence of, against Protestantism, 423.\n\n Bible, why forbidden in the vulgar tongue in Spain, 215.\n\n Bible Societies, effects of, 64.\n\n Billuart, F., on the right of making laws, 296;\n on the origin of society and the civil power, 296.\n\n Bishops, slaves of, set free at their death by decree of Council, 108.\n\n Bonald, on the Esprit des Lois, 186;\n his doctrines, 283.\n\n Boneuil, Council of, described, 106.\n\n Bossuet, his negotiations with Leibnitz to re-unite the Churches, 61;\n school of, 283;\n his Universal History the first great work on the philosophy of\n history, 418.\n\n Brentzen, testimony of, to the incredulity prevailing among the early\n reformers, 429.\n\n Brescia, Arnauld of, troubles excited by, 251.\n\n Bruis (Pierre de), his iconoclastic fanaticism, 251.\n\n Buchanan, his remark on the degradation of women wherever Christianity\n does not prevail, 136.\n\n Bull-fights, those of Spain discussed, 174.\n\n Busenbaum, on the power of making laws, 295.\n\n Bull (C\u0153na Domini) containing an excommunication against those who\n levy excessive taxes, 360.\n\n\n C\u00e6sar (J.), on the manners of the Germans and Britons, 153.\n\n Calmet, on St. Paul to the Romans, 461.\n\n Calvin, intolerance of, 421;\n his vulgar abuse, 421;\n evidence of, in favor of the Pope, 423.\n\n Calvinism, as connected with democracy, 355.\n\n Capmany on the trades-corporations of Barcelona, 477.\n\n Carranza, trial of, 212;\n its duration, 212;\n carried to Rome, 212;\n his dying declaration, 212;\n conduct of Philip II. towards him, 213;\n causes of his trial, 213;\n nature of his writings, 214;\n his reason why the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue were forbidden in\n Spain, 215.\n\n Cassian, his account of the origin of religious institutions, 223.\n\n Cathari, the, described, 251.\n\n Catholicity, its doctrines always the same, 65;\n its past services to society, and what may be expected from it for\n the future, 73;\n its progress in several countries of Europe, 74;\n not opposed to the true spirit of liberty, 80;\n its effects on European civilization, 80;\n was strong in the west and weak in the east, 81;\n importance of the unity produced by it for the safety of Europe amid\n perils, 81;\n degraded condition of society when it appeared, 90;\n not opposed to the feeling of individuality, but promotes it, 131;\n the elevation of woman due to it alo ne, 135, 155;\n places women on an equality with men, 135;\n mistake of its opponents, 149;\n its institutions falsely assailed by Protestants and philosophers, 147;\n its exertion in favor of beneficence impeded by Protestantism, which\n compelled it to stand on its defence, 188;\n unfairly treated with regard to tolerance, 190;\n its doctrine with respect to errors of the mind, 200;\n was the work of God, 256;\n its fertility in resources, 257;\n its charity, 257;\n its true doctrines with regard to the civil power, 323;\n its relations with the people, 353;\n its relations with liberty, 357;\n its effects on the development of the intellect, 392;\n effects of its principle of submission to authority, 393;\n effects of the same on the sciences, 393;\n ancient and modern philosophy compared with it, 395;\n its morality, 397;\n its revealed dogmas, 397;\n is not opposed to true philosophy, 397;\n compared with Protestantism with respect to learning, universities,\n &c., 412;\n its unity and concert, 423;\n its services against slavery.--(See _Slavery_.)\n\n Celchite, Council of, 109.\n\n Celibacy, influence of that of the clergy in preventing an hereditary\n succession, according to Guizot, 351;\n what would have happened without it, 352.\n\n Censors, among the ancients, they took the place of religious\n authority, 161.\n\n Chalons, Council of, 108.\n\n Chalons-sur-Saone, Council of, excommunicates those who fight within\n the precincts of churches, 176.\n\n Chanoinesses, enjoined by the Council of Aix to keep an hospital for\n poor women, 188.\n\n Charity, its effects on toleration, 192.\n\n Charles V., why released from his oath by the Pope, 210.\n\n Chateaubriand, writings of, described, 71;\n describes Zachary as selling himself as a slave to buy the liberty\n of a husband for his wife and children, 104;\n extract from, on the effects of Catholicity and Protestantism, 415.\n\n Chivalry, its relations with women, 150;\n did not elevate them, but found them elevated by Christianity, 151.\n\n Christ, all his miracles beneficent, 184;\n his whole life spent in doing good, 184.\n\n Christians, the early, their constancy in martyrdom, 224;\n they seek asylums for retirement and prayer in the deserts, 224.\n\n Christianity, effects of, on society, 67;\n effects produced by its appearance, 88;\n opposes slavery, 102;\n could not endure the savage heroism of the Romans, 104;\n development of the moral life by means of, 134;\n was unknown to the ancients, 134;\n the effects which would have followed from the loss of its influence\n on Europe, 134;\n ideas of some modern philosophers with regard to it, 156;\n how it is embodied in Catholicity, 156;\n its progress in the early ages described, 230;\n its effects on the invading barbarians, 235.\n\n Church, the Catholic, services of, to society, in combating the\n fatalist doctrines of the Reformation, 68;\n her opposition to slavery, 102;\n she protects the freedom of newly emancipated slaves, 103;\n consecrates manumission by having it performed in the churches, 103;\n protects slaves recommended to her by will, 103;\n allows her sacred vessels to be sold to redeem slaves, 104;\n gives letters of recommendation to emancipated slaves, 105;\n causes tending to promote slavery with which she had to contend, 105;\n she makes a law enabling those who had been compelled to sell\n themselves as slaves to recover their liberty by paying back the\n price, 106;\n she allows her ministers to give their liberty to slaves belonging\n to her, while she forbids other property to be alienated, 108;\n summary of her measures for the abolition of slavery,\n 114--(see _Councils_);\n its abolition due to her alone, 114;\n reforms marriage, 136;\n preserves its sanctity, 137;\n great evils thereby prevented, 137;\n her unity in doctrines and fixity in conduct not inconsistent with\n progress, 145;\n her struggles with the corrupted Romans and savage barbarians, 176;\n decrees of her Councils against animosities, 176;\n her persevering efforts, 177;\n treats kings and great men as severely as the lowly, 177;\n her boldness in checking the crimes of kings, 178;\n her interference in civil affairs of old justified by the\n circumstances of the times, 182;\n her Councils protect the weak--viz. clergy, monks, women, merchants\n and pilgrims--against the strong, 182;\n her exertions in favor of the vanquished in war, 183;\n she preserves unity of faith, and founds institutions for doing\n good, 185;\n what she would have done for the cure of pauperism if the\n Reformation had not plunged Europe into revolutions and\n reactions, 188;\n encourages the aristocracy of talent, 361;\n service which she did to the human mind by opposing the spirit of\n subtlety of the innovators, 407;\n her interference in the management of hospitals, 449.\n\n Churches, the Protestant, only the instruments of the civil power, 186.\n\n Cicero, on the necessity of religion to the State, 316.\n\n Civilization, that of Europe during the 16th century not owing to\n Protestantism, 82;\n characteristics of that of modern Europe described, 115;\n compared with ancient and modern non-Christian civilization, 116;\n its superiority owing to Catholicity, 117;\n may be reduced to three elements--the individual, the family, and\n society, 117;\n its universal progress impeded, and unity broken, by\n Protestantism, 260.\n\n Clement, St. (Pope), passage from, on Christians selling themselves as\n slaves to redeem their brethren, 104.\n\n Clergy, the effects on society of their power and influence, 175;\n fatal effects of the diminution of their political influence in the\n 16th century, 370;\n advantages which might have resulted from it to popular\n institutions, 373;\n their relations with all the powers and classes of society, 373.\n\n Clermont, Council of, its decree in favor of the truce of God, 181.\n\n Coblentz, Council of, 106.\n\n Concina (P.), on the origin of power, 295;\n how it exists in governments, 296.\n\n Conduct, firmness of, its powerful effects in the world, 145.\n\n Conscience, the public, described, 157;\n that of Europe contrasted with that of ancient times, 159;\n how influenced by the Church, 160;\n both illustrated by the story of Scipio, 165;\n the former was formed by Catholicity alone, 166.\n\n Conscience, the individual, described, 158.\n\n Constance, Council of, its doctrine on the murder of kings, 336.\n\n Cornelius a Lapide, on St. Paul to the Romans, 460.\n\n Cortes, severe measures of that of Toledo against the Jews, 205;\n decline of, in Spain, 331.\n\n Cottereaux, excesses of, 252.\n\n Councils of the Church, their influence on political laws and\n customs, 360;\n canons of, which improve the condition of slaves, 430;\n check all attempts against the liberty of the enfranchised slaves\n of the Church, or who had been recommended to her by will, 431;\n undertake that the Church will defend the liberty and property of\n the freed who have been recommended to her, 431;\n make the redemption of captives the first care of the Church, and\n give their interests precedence over her own, 432;\n excommunicate those who attempt to reduce men into slavery, 433;\n declare those who make Christians slaves to be guilty of homicide, 434;\n ordain that those who have sold themselves as slaves shall recover\n their liberty by repaying the price, 434;\n protect the slaves belonging to Jews, 434;\n provide means for their becoming free, 434;\n forbid Jews to acquire new Christian slaves, 435;\n ordain that if a master gives meat to a slave on a fasting day, the\n latter becomes free, 435;\n forbid Jews to hold Christian slaves at all, 435;\n forbid Christian slaves to be sold to Jews or pagans, 435;\n or to be sold out of the kingdom of Clovis, 436;\n severely condemn clerics who sell their slaves to Jews, 436;\n command bishops to respect the liberty of those freed by their\n predecessors, 436;\n they mention the power given to bishops to free deserving slaves,\n and fix the sum which they may give them to live on, 436;\n exempt them from the general\n rule, that alienations made by bishops who leave nothing of their\n own must be restored, 436;\n ordain that when a bishop dies, all his slaves shall be set at\n liberty, and that at the funeral each bishop or abbot may set three\n slaves free, giving them three solidi each, 436;\n free all the English slaves in Ireland, 437;\n forbid slaves of the Church to be exchanged for others, 437;\n grant liberty to slaves who wish to embrace the monastic life, with\n proper precautions to prevent abuses, 437;\n check the abuse of ordaining slaves without the consent of their\n masters, 437;\n allow parish priests to select some clerics from the slaves of the\n Church, 438;\n allow slaves to be ordained, having been first freed, 438.\n\n Crusades vindicated, 242.\n\n Cyprian (St.), on the redemption of captives, 432.\n\n\n De Maistre on the word \"catholic,\" 422;\n on general Councils, 480;\n compares the conduct of the Popes with that of other rulers, 484.\n\n Democrats, difference between ancient and modern, 130.\n\n Democracy, its alliance with kings against the aristocracy, 303;\n notion formed of, in the 16th century, 350;\n two kinds of, 364;\n their progress in the history of Europe, 365;\n their characters, 366;\n their causes and effects, 366;\n historical facts with regard to, in France, England, Sweden,\n Denmark, and Germany, 367.\n\n Descartes, his demonstration of the existence of God anticipated by\n St. Anselm, 486.\n\n Divorce, consequences of the facility of, in Germany, according to\n M. de Sta\u00ebl, 139.\n\n Divines, spirit of the writings of the old Catholic, compared with\n that of modern writers, 288.\n\n Doctrines, their effects on society, 311;\n those prevalent in the 16th century with regard to democracy, 350;\n those prevalent in political matters in Europe before the appearance\n of Protestantism compared with those of the school of the 18th\n century and those of modern publicists, 374.\n\n Dominicans, their exertions in favor of the native Americans, as\n stated by Robertson, 441.\n\n\n East, the, injury caused there by breaking unity in religion, 235.\n\n Elvira, Council of, its decree in favor of slaves, 100.\n\n England, policy of, towards Spain, 76.\n\n Eon, his fanatical delusion, 251.\n\n Epaone, Council of, 100.\n\n Erigena, account of, 400.\n\n Errors, those of the mind not always innocent, 200.\n\n Error described, 70.\n\n Europe, characteristics of her civilization, 116;\n condition of, in the 13th century, 245 et seq.;\n singular contrasts therein, 246;\n struggle between barbarism and Christianity there, 247;\n instances of great and good principles sometimes abused in\n practice, 247;\n barbarism therein improved by religion, and religion disfigured by\n barbarism, 248;\n effects of the crusades, 249;\n increasing power of the commonalty, 249;\n decline of the feudal system, 249;\n power of great ideas, 250;\n critical epochs, 250;\n great agitation prevailing, and horrible doctrines spread, among the\n people at that time, 250--(see _Tanch\u00e8me_, _Eon_, _Cathari_,\n _Vaudois_, _Albigenses_);\n what she would have done for civilization if she had not been\n impeded by Protestantism, 261;\n her condition when it appeared, 261;\n great increase of power and development of mind, 262;\n divisions occasioned by it, 262;\n the nations thereof require religious institutions for organizing\n beneficence and education on a large scale, 277;\n state of, at the end of the 15th century, 344;\n social movement at that time, 344;\n its causes, 344;\n its effects and object, 345;\n development of the industrial classes there, 354;\n this took place under the influence of Catholicity alone, 385;\n picture of, from the 11th century to the 14th, 382;\n religion and the human mind there, 404;\n intellectual condition of the nations of modern, distinguished from\n that of those of antiquity, 405;\n causes which have accelerated it among the former, 406.\n\n Eximeno, letter of, on the sciences, 425.\n\n\n Facts, consummated, how they are to be treated, 333.\n\n Faith, unity of, not adverse to political liberty, 388.\n\n Forms, political, their value, 357.\n\n Francis I. (of France), his opinion on the necessity of expelling the\n Moors from Spain, 210.\n\n Francis, St. (de Sales), his list of titles given to the Popes, 423.\n\n Franks, their custom of going armed to church forbidden by Councils, 176.\n\n Free-will, its denial discarded by Protestants themselves, 68;\n its effects, 68;\n its noble results, 134;\n supported by Catholicity against the Reformation, 135.\n\n\n Gambling, passion of, described, 142.\n\n Games, public, those of the Romans prohibited by the Christian\n Church, 175.\n\n Gerbet (l'Abb\u00e9), his excellent refutation of Lammenais' doctrines, 338.\n\n Germans, manners of the ancient, described by Tacitus, 152; why\n embellished by him, 153;\n are but little known to us, 154;\n their struggles with the Romans, 154.\n\n Gibbon, testimony of, to the merits of Bossuet's History of the\n Variations, 421.\n\n Gilles (St.), Council of, its decree in favor of the truce of God, 179.\n\n Gironne, Council of, in favor of the truce of God, 180.\n\n Glaber (Monk), of Cluny, his history of France, 241.\n\n Gotti (Cardinal), doctrines of, on the origin of power, 295.\n\n Gouget (l'Abb\u00e9), on Catholic Hebrew studies, 413.\n\n Government, three principles of--monarchy, aristocracy, and\n democracy, 344.\n\n Governments, revolutionary ones are cruel in self-defence, not being\n based on right, 128;\n right of resistance to _de facto_ ones, 330;\n falsehood of the theory which imposes the obligation of obeying them\n merely as such 331;\n difficulties on this point explained, 332.\n\n Grace, effects of the Catholic doctrine of, 234.\n\n Gratian, merit of his literary labors, 241.\n\n Gregory (Pope), passage from, 108;\n frees two slaves of the Roman Church, 436;\n his reason why Christians liberated their slaves, 436.\n\n Gregory III. (Pope), on selling slaves to the pagans for sacrifice, 435.\n\n Gregory IX. (Pope), his decretals on slavery, 109;\n against the hereditary succession of the clergy, 352.\n\n Gregory XVI. (Pope), his apostolic letters against the slave trade, 438.\n\n Grotius, his servile doctrine on the civil power, 323;\n his evidence in favor of Catholicity, 424.\n\n Gruet, his incredulity and execution, 429.\n\n Guibert, historical labors of, 241.\n\n Guizot, on the effects of the Church upon slavery, 113;\n his doctrine of the personal independence of individuals among the\n barbarians stated and discussed, 119;\n true theory thereon, 121;\n incoherence of his own doctrines, 124;\n cause of his error, 125;\n his acknowledgment with regard to the reformation and liberty, 343;\n extract from, shewing that the clergy were not a caste, 351;\n an opinion of, refuted, 399;\n extract from, shewing the immense superiority of the Church to the\n barbarians in legislation, 447;\n documents shewing his error with respect to Abelard, 486.\n\n\n Hacket, fanaticism of, 427.\n\n Harlem, Mathias, mad fanaticism of, 426.\n\n Heresy, held a sin by the Catholic Church, 200.\n\n Heretics, characteristics of those of the early ages, 425.\n\n Herman, preaches the murder of all priests and magistrates, 426.\n\n Hermandad, charter of, between the kingdoms of Leon and Castile, for\n the preservation of their liberties, 475.\n\n History, difficulties in its study, 248;\n necessity of taking into account times and circumstances of events\n therein, 248.\n\n Hobbes, his false theory of society, 304;\n his servile doctrine, 323.\n\n Honor, principle of, in monarchies, according to Montesquieu, 161.\n\n Horace, on the origin of society, 462.\n\n Hospitals, destroyed by Henry VIII. in England, 185;\n Catholic bishops the protectors and inspectors of, 187;\n laws made respecting them by the Church, 187;\n attached to monasteries and colleges in the middle ages, 449;\n superintended by the bishops, 449;\n their property protected by being considered as belonging to the\n Church, 449.\n\n Hugh of St. Victor, historical labors of, 241.\n\n Humility, its effects with regard to toleration, 193.\n\n\n Ideas, irreligious ones cannot be confined to theory, but enter on the\n field of practice, 70;\n destroy themselves, 71;\n power of, 169;\n they are divided into those that flatter the passions, and those\n that check them, 170;\n they require an institution to preserve and enforce them, 170;\n how they became corrupted among mankind before Christianity, 170;\n how effected by the press, 171;\n their natural progress, 171;\n their rapid succession in modern times, 171.\n\n Impiety allies itself with liberty or despotism to suit its\n purpose, 388.\n\n Incredulity in Europe the fruit of Protestantism, 60;\n spirit of, has lost much of its strength, 70.\n\n Independence, personal, feeling of, existed among the Greeks and\n Romans, 124.\n\n Indifference, religious, in Europe, the fruit of Protestantism, 60.\n\n Individual, the, how absorbed by the state among the ancients, 127;\n fatal effects of the complete annihilation of the feelings of\n respect for, in society, 129;\n witnessed among nations not Christians, 129.\n\n Individuals, how the freedom of, was fettered among the ancient\n republics, 130;\n every thing ruled by the state, 130.\n\n Inquisition, the, misrepresentations with regard to that of Spain, 203;\n its duration may be divided into three periods, 205;\n appeals from it to Rome, 207;\n indulgence of the latter, 203;\n interference of the Popes to soften the rigours of, 203;\n mildness of that of Rome, 203;\n no case of capital sentence pronounced by it, 203;\n rigours of that of Spain in the time of Philip II. caused by the\n Protestants themselves, 214;\n compels a preacher to retract who, in the presence of Philip II.,\n had maintained that kings have absolute power over their\n subjects, 218;\n became milder with the spirit of the age, 218;\n remarks thereon, 452;\n appellants to Rome from, forbidden to return to Spain under pain of\n death by pragmatic sanction of Ferdinand and Isabella, 454;\n how affected by the policy of the Spanish kings, 455;\n the latter earnestly endeavoured to have the judgment in Spain made\n final, without appeal, which the Popes refused, 455;\n affected impartiality of writers with regard to it, 455.\n See _Perez_, _Puigblanch_, _Villanueva_, _Llorente_, and _Jomtob_.\n\n Institutions, religious, opposed by Protestantism and philosophers, 219;\n their importance and connexion with religion herself, 221;\n have survived the attempts made to destroy them, 221;\n their nature described, 222;\n their object, 222;\n are perfectly conformable to the spirit of the Christian religion, 223;\n their commencement, according to Cassian, 223;\n have always existed in the Church from the time of Constantine, 223;\n conduct of the Popes towards them, 224;\n their accordance with the Gospel precepts, 225;\n their effects on the human mind, 226;\n their services and necessity, 227;\n their necessity for the salvation of society, 275;\n not inconsistent with the improvements of modern times, 280;\n historical view of them, 458;\n _coup d'\u0153il_ at their origin and development, 458-9.\n\n Institutions, free, injured by Protestantism, 363.\n\n Institutions, their study, 248;\n necessity of understanding the times when they existed, 248.\n\n Intellect, the, its development, how affected by Catholicity, 392;\n influence thereof upon, historically examined, 393;\n its relations with religion, 404;\n its development among the nations of Europe different from that of\n those of antiquity, 405;\n causes that have hastened its development in Europe, 405;\n origin of the spirit of subtlety, 406;\n service rendered to it by the Church in opposing the subtleties of\n the innovators, 403;\n its progress from the eleventh century to our times, 412;\n different phases, 412.\n\n Intolerance, that of some irreligious men, 194;\n of the Romans, 196;\n of the pagan emperors, 196;\n has continued from the establishment of Christianity by the state,\n in various forms, down to the present time, 196;\n recent instances of it, 196;\n case of France examined, 197;\n doctrine which condemns all intolerance with regard to doctrines\n and actions discussed and refuted, 198;\n consequences which would flow from it, 198;\n would produce impunity for crimes, 198;\n civil and religious, distinguished, 450;\n mistaken by Rousseau, 450;\n its existence in ancient and modern times held by some\n Protestants, 451.\n\n Irreligion, spirit of, has lost much of its strength, 70.\n\n Isabella, part taken by, in the establishment of the Inquisition in\n Spain, 205.\n\n\n Jansenists, the, described, 62.\n\n Jerome, (St.), on the name Catholic not being given to heretics, 422.\n\n Jesuits, importance of, in the history of civilization, 268;\n their eminent services, 269;\n error and contradiction of M. Guizot in their regard, 270;\n false charges against, 271.\n\n Jews, the slaves of, protected by decrees of Councils, 107;\n struggle between truth and error among, 170;\n how the truth was preserved, 170;\n their avarice, 206;\n popular hatred against, 206;\n atrocities charged against them by the people, 207;\n pragmatic sanction of Ferdinand and Isabella with regard to, 454;\n law of Philip II. against, 455.\n\n John de Ste. Marie, extracts from, on Christian politics, 463.\n\n Jomtob, Nathaniel, his work called _The Inquisition Unveiled_, 456;\n his prejudice and vulgar abuse, 456.\n\n Judaizers pursued by the Inquisition, 209.\n\n Justin, on martyrdom, 132;\n his _Apology_, 286.\n\n Justinian gives bishops the control of hospitals, 450.\n\n\n Kings, inviolability of, 337;\n greatest increase of the power of, in Europe, dates from the\n appearance of Protestantism, 363.\n\n Knowledge, state of, when Christianity appeared, 85;\n sterility of, in creating social institutions, 85.\n\n\n Laborers, protected by the Council of Rheims, 182.\n\n Lacordaire (l'Abb\u00e9) on the Spanish Inquisition, 210.\n\n Lamennais (l'Abb\u00e9), his attempt to ally Catholicity with extreme\n democracy, 131;\n his doctrines on government compared with those of St. Thomas, 338.\n\n Las Casas, exertions of, in favor of the native Americans related by\n Robertson, 442.\n\n Lateran, general Council of, confirms the truce of God, 181;\n eleventh general Council of, forbids the maltreatment of monks,\n clergy, pilgrims, merchants, peasants, and the shipwrecked, 182.\n\n Law, the divine, false interpretation of, 284;\n St. John Chrysostom on, 285;\n according to Bellarmine, 291.--See _St. Thomas_, _Suarez_, _Gotti_,\n _Busenbaum_, _Liguori_, _Billuart_, _and the Compendium\n Salmaticense_.\n\n Law.--See _St. Thomas_.\n\n League, the Hanseatic, described, 354.\n\n Legislation, that of Rome described, 86;\n was probably influenced by Christianity, 86.\n\n Leibnitz, his negotiations with Bossuet to re-unite the Churches, 61;\n his theological system contains the chief dogmas of Catholicity, 424.\n\n Lepers, ordered to be maintained at the expense of the Church, 187.\n\n Lerida, Council of, excludes those at variance from the body and blood\n of Christ, 176;\n decrees seven years' penance against infanticide, 184.\n\n Leyden, John of, his excesses at Munster, 426.\n\n Liberty, a word ill understood, 79;\n examples of, 79;\n how limited, 79;\n Catholicity favorable to its true spirit, 80;\n true nature of, 228;\n according to Catholic doctors, 311;\n political freedom owes nothing to Protestantism, 352;\n Catholicity favorable to it, 352;\n why it has fallen into bad repute with some, 362;\n considered in relation to religious intolerance, 382;\n cannot subsist without morality, 389;\n remarkable passage from Augustin on the subject, 390.\n\n Lillebonne, Council of, enforces the truce of God, 180.\n\n Llandaff, Council of, 177.\n\n Llorente, his History of the Inquisition, 457;\n his attempt to introduce schism and heresy into Spain, 457;\n his misrepresentation, 457;\n burns a portion of the documents belonging to the Inquisition of\n Madrid, 457.\n\n London, Council of, 106.\n\n Louis of Bavaria, the doctrine that the imperial power comes\n immediately from God maintained by the princes of the empire in his\n time, 462.\n\n Love, passion of, its effects, 143;\n how treated by Catholicity and Protestantism, 144;\n advantages of the course pursued by the former, 145.\n\n Luther, his opinion on polygamy, 138;\n effects which his doctrines would have had, had they been proclaimed\n sooner, 138;\n his intolerance towards the Jews, 209;\n specimens of his violence, grossness, and intolerance, 421;\n his evidence against Catholicity, 423;\n his interview with the Devil, 425;\n infidel passages from his writings, 428.\n\n Lyons, Council of, 105;\n Council of, see _Lepers_;\n poor men of, described, 251.\n\n\n M\u00e2con, Councils of, 104.\n\n Manichees, unusual severities exercised towards, 204;\n description of, 252.\n\n Manners, gentleness of, one of the characteristics of European\n civilization, 172;\n wherein it consists, 172;\n exists in advanced societies, 172;\n not found in young nations, 172;\n did not exist among the Greeks and Romans, 173;\n causes of this, 173;\n their excessive corruption among the ancients, 445.\n\n Mariana, his popular doctrines, 312;\n on the liberties of Spain, 481.\n\n Marquez, P., on the disputes between rulers and their subjects, 482;\n on the levying of taxes, and the right of rulers over the property\n of their subjects, 483.\n\n Marriage, doctrines of Catholicity and Protestantism with regard to,\n compared, 136;\n importance of guarding the sanctity of, 139;\n not admitted as a sacrament by Protestantism, 139;\n different conduct of Catholicity and Protestantism with regard to, 140.\n\n Martyrs, heroism of the Christian, 132.\n\n Matha, John of, one of the founders of the Order of the most holy\n Trinity for the Redemption of Captives, 259.\n\n Mathematics, obscurity of their first principles, 425.\n\n Melancthon, his complaints against the other Reformers, 421;\n superstitions of, 426.\n\n Merchants protected by Councils, 182.\n\n Merida, Council of, 100.\n\n Missions, their unity broken by Protestantism, 260;\n injury thereby done to them, 263;\n what they might have effected had it not appeared, 263;\n what united efforts effected in earlier times, 264;\n need of, on a large scale, for the conversion of the heathen, 265;\n zeal displayed by the Church in the promotion of, in latter times, 266;\n powerful means for promoting at the command of Rome before unity was\n broken, 266.\n\n Monarchy, why hereditary is preferable, 143;\n idea formed of, in the sixteenth century, 346;\n application thereof, 347;\n in what it differed from despotism, 347;\n what it was in the sixteenth century, 347;\n its relations with the Church, 348;\n when necessary in Europe, 356;\n different character of, in Europe and Asia, 357;\n passage from De Maistre on, 358;\n institutions for limiting it, 358;\n it acquired strength in the sixteenth century, 361;\n prevailed over free institutions, 362;\n causes of this, 370.\n\n Monasteries, those in the east established in imitation of the\n solitaries, 235;\n causes of their decline, 235;\n services they might have rendered to literature, 236;\n what they did for knowledge, 236;\n those of the west established, 238;\n their effects, 238;\n property rendered sacred, 239;\n their property, 239;\n their claims thereto, 239;\n their improvements, 240;\n encouragement given to the country life, 240;\n their services to Germany, France, Spain, and England, 240;\n great men they produced, 240;\n their services to science and letters, 240;\n their civilizing effects, 242;\n new forms assumed by them in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, 242;\n their objects, 243;\n benefits they conferred on mankind, 243.\n\n Monks, protected by Councils, 180.\n\n Monogamy not owing to climate, 138.\n\n Montaigne on the Reformation, 61;\n his infidel sentiments changed at his death, 429.\n\n Montanus, Arias, employed by Philip II. to collect books and MSS., 218.\n\n Montesquieu on the principle of honor in monarchies, 162;\n that of virtue in republics, 161;\n he is bound by his theory, 165;\n on the destruction of monasteries and hospitals in England by\n Henry VIII., 185;\n his doctrine with regard to the latter, 186.\n\n Montpellier, Council of, its decrees to secure peace, 181.\n\n Moors, the, dread of their power in Spain, 205;\n papal bull in favor of, 209;\n law of Philip III., expelling them, 454.\n\n\n Napoleon and the Spanish nation, 331.\n\n Narbonne, Council of, its decree in favor of\n the truce of God, 179.\n\n Nationality, importance of, 76.\n\n Nicholas, a fanatic who taught that it was good to continue in sin\n that grace might the more abound, 427.\n\n Nuns, protected by the Council of Rouen, 181.\n\n\n Obedience, motives of, founded on the will of God, 97.\n\n Olive trees, why protected by the Council of Narbonne, 180.\n\n Opinions, the rapid succession of, in modern times, 171.\n\n Opinion, public, influence of, on morals, 163.\n\n Orange, Council of, its decree in favor of slaves, 103.\n\n Orders, the religious-military described, 242;\n the mendicant ditto, 252;\n the necessity for the latter, 253;\n their popular nature, 254;\n their influence, 254;\n were the work of God, 254;\n their relations with the Pontiffs, 256;\n those for the redemption of captives, 257;\n visions inspiring them, 259;\n their founders, 259.\n\n Orleans, Council of, its decree in favor of slaves, 100, 103, 107;\n forbids any one to be armed at church, 176;\n protects hospitals, 187;\n the poor and prisoners, 187.\n\n Oxford, Council of, its decree against robbers, 182.\n\n\n Pacts, 298.\n\n Paganism described by St. Augustin, 89.\n\n Palafox, on the duties of kings, princes, and magistrates, 321;\n on taxes and tyranny, 483.\n\n Palentia, Council of, protects the defenceless, 182.\n\n Papin, evidence of, in favor of Catholicity, 424.\n\n Paris, trades-union of, 354.\n\n Passions, the, differently treated by Catholicity and by\n Protestantism, 140;\n why so active in times of public disturbance, 143.\n\n Patrick, (St.), Council of, 105.\n\n Paul, (St.), his Epistle to the Romans, 459.\n\n Peasants.--See _Lateran_.\n\n Penance, efficacy of the sacrament of, 167.\n\n Perez, on the condemnation of a preacher for absolutist doctrines by\n the Inquisition of Spain, 455.\n\n Peter, (St.), of Arbues, his murder by the Jews not a proof of the\n unpopularity of the Inquisition, 207;\n tumult occasioned thereby, 207.\n\n Peter, (St.), Nolasco, founds the Order of Mercy for the Redemption of\n Captives, 259.\n\n Philanthropy, inadequate for works of beneficence without Christian\n Charity, 189.\n\n Philosophers, the irreligions of the last century preferred pagan to\n Christian institutions, 161.\n\n Philosophy, schools of, can destroy but not create, 171.\n\n Philip II. of Spain did not institute the Inquisition, but continued\n it, 210;\n why so much attacked by Protestants, 210;\n probability that the attempts made to introduce Protestantism into\n Spain in his time would succeed, owing to the circumstances of the\n times, 211;\n his conduct to Carranza, 213;\n his services to Catholicity, 215;\n general feeling in his reign with regard to cruel punishments very\n different from the present, 217;\n his patronage of literature, 218;\n his letter to Arias Montanus, 456.\n --See _Inquisition_.\n\n Pilgrims protected by Councils, 181.\n\n Pitt, anecdote of, 76.\n\n Pius II. (Pope), his apostolic letters against slavery, 439.\n\n Pius VII. (Pope), interposes to abolish the slave trade, 441.\n\n Plato, immoral doctrines of, 422.\n\n Polygamy, not the effect of climate, 138.\n\n Poor, the, regulations of Councils in favor of, 187.\n\n Popes, the, services they rendered to society by preserving the\n sanctity of marriage, 137;\n support the truce of God, 181;\n their attempts to mitigate the rigour of the Spanish Inquisition, 208;\n appoint judges of appeal, 208;\n their intolerance compared with the tolerance of Protestantism, 208;\n their temporal powers, 340;\n doctrines of theologians with regard to them in case they should\n fall into heresy, 342;\n nature, origin, and effects of their temporal power, 386;\n list of titles given to, in ancient times, 423.\n\n Power, origin of, 284;\n the paternal, considered with regard to the civil, 286;\n the latter, according to Bellarmine, resides _immediately_ in the\n people, 292;\n divine origin of, 298;\n violence of, when illegitimate, 303;\n _mediate_ and _immediate_ transmission of, 305;\n this distinction important in some respects and unimportant in\n others, 306;\n why Catholic divines have so zealously supported the _mediate_, 308;\n faculties of the civil, 317;\n calumnies of the opponents of the Church on this point, 317;\n resistance to the civil, 324;\n comparison between Catholicity and Protestantism on this point, 327;\n vain timidity of some minds on this point, 324;\n obedience to the civil, taught by Catholicity when legitimate, 325;\n civil distinguished from spiritual, 326;\n conduct of Catholicity and Protestantism with respect to the\n separation of the two, 326;\n the independence of the spiritual, a guarantee for the liberty of\n the people, 326;\n doctrines of St. Thomas on obedience to the civil, 328;\n doctrines of St. Thomas, Bellarmine, Suarez, &c. on resistance to\n the civil, in extreme cases, 338.\n\n Preaching, that of Protestantism without authority, 167.\n --See _Protestantism_.\n\n Prebendaries, bound to give a tenth of their fruits to an hospital, 188.\n\n Press, the effects of, on opinions, 171.\n\n Prisoners, exertions of the Church in favor of, 187.\n\n Protestantism, present condition of, 64;\n attempts to preserve itself by violating its fundamental principle, 64;\n causes of its continuance, 64;\n has almost entirely disappeared as a fixed creed, but remains as a\n body of sects, 65;\n its positive doctrines repugnant to the instinct of civilization, 68;\n its essential principle one of destruction, 69;\n can boast only of its ruins, 69;\n was the work of human passions, and not of God, 69;\n effects which even its partial introduction into Spain would\n produce, 74, 76, 78;\n advantages of the practice of preaching preserved by, 90, 166;\n its preaching is without authority, 167;\n its doctrine with respect to errors of the mind, 199;\n effects which its introduction into Spain would have produced, 216;\n would have broken the unity of the Spanish monarchy, 216;\n is opposed to vows and celibacy, 219;\n its appearance, 262;\n its effects in breaking the unity of European civilization, 262;\n divided the missionaries among themselves, 263;\n disastrous effects of, 267;\n exalts the temporal power at the expense of the spiritual, 308;\n its relations with liberty, 343;\n real state of the case on this point, 344;\n its origin aristocratic, 355;\n not favorable to the poor, 355;\n has contributed to destroy free institutions, 363;\n fearful state of Europe after it appeared, 369;\n political doctrines prevailing in Europe before its appearance\n compared with those of modern publicists and the school of the\n eighteenth century, 374;\n has prevented the homogeneity of European civilization, 375;\n historical proofs, 376;\n compared with Catholicity with regard to learning, criticism, the\n learned languages, the foundation of universities, the progress of\n literature and the arts, mysticism, high philosophy, metaphysics,\n morals, religious philosophy, and the philosophy of history, 412;\n evidences against, from Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, Grotius,\n Papin, Puffendorf, and Leibnitz, 423;\n its superstition and fanaticism, 425;\n bad faith of its founders, 428;\n passages proving this, 428;\n progress of infidelity soon after its appearance proved from Luther,\n Brentzen, Gruet, and Montaigne, 428.\n\n Puffendorf, his false theory of society, 304;\n evidence of, against Protestantism, 423.\n\n Puigblanch.--See _Jomtob_.\n\n Punishments, right of inflicting capital, derived from God, 300;\n cannot come from pacts, 300;\n mildness of, among barbarian nations not a proof of civilization but\n of indifference to crime, 447;\n immense superiority of the legislation of the Church with respect\n to, according to M. Guizot, 447.\n\n\n Regulus, virtue bordering on ferocity, 104.\n\n Religion, always existed in some shape among the greater part of\n mankind, 66;\n power of, in Spain, 76;\n condition of, when Christianity appeared, 84;\n atrocities committed in the name of, by Catholics and Protestants, 204;\n importance of, to the civil power, 311;\n corruption of, among the ancients, 445.\n\n Revolutions, those of modern times, 389;\n difference between that of the United States of America and that of\n France, 389.\n\n Rheims, Councils of, 104;\n commands that the clergy, monks, women, travellers, laborers, and\n vine-dressers shall be respected during war, 182;\n protects the poor, 187.\n\n Robertson.--See _Dominicans_ and _Las Casas_.\n\n Romans, the, their savage heroism not tolerated by the mild spirit of\n Christianity, 104;\n futile attempts made to imitate them, 128;\n their manners effeminate without being gentle, 173.\n\n Rome, legislation of, 86;\n how affected by Christianity, 86;\n vice of her political organization, 87;\n Council of, its decrees in favor of slaves, 109;\n the court of, endeavors to mitigate the severity of the Spanish\n Inquisition, 208;\n mildness of the Inquisition at Rome compared with that in other\n places, 208;\n no instance of a capital sentence having been pronounced thereby, 208;\n the decline and fall of the empire of, 229.\n\n Roscelin described, 400;\n compared with St. Anselm, 407.\n\n Rouen, Council of, its decree in favor of the truce of God, 181.\n\n Rousseau, doctrines of, 282;\n his appeal to the passions, 288;\n his _Contrat Social_, 299;\n his misrepresentation of Catholicity, 450;\n doctrines of his _Contrat Social_, 451;\n his intolerance, 451.\n\n\n Saavedra, his popular doctrines, 313.\n\n Salamanca, Compendium of, on the transmission of power by the people's\n consent, 295.\n\n Sciences, the natural and social compared, 85.\n\n Scipio, story of, 165.\n\n Self-defence, right of, alleged as a plea for the intolerance of\n governments, 202.\n\n Seneca, on the worship of the gods, 316.\n\n Sigebert, historical labors of, 241.\n\n Slaves, their large numbers among the ancients, 91;\n their numbers at Athens, Sparta, Rome, and in the eastern\n countries, 91;\n opinions of Plato and Aristotle regarding them, 91;\n their treatment, 91;\n dangers from their numbers, 91;\n their rebellions, 92;\n their immediate emancipation impracticable, 93;\n the Church did all that could be done in their favor, 94;\n difficulties she had to contend with in their emancipation, 94;\n conduct, designs, and tendencies of the Church favorable to them, 94;\n their natural inferiority to freemen proclaimed by the heathen\n philosophers, 95;\n their natural equality with them inculcated by the Scriptures and\n the Church, 97;\n motives for their obedience, 97; their ill-treatment, 98;\n spirit of hatred and revolts thereby caused, 98;\n St. Paul's instructions to them, 98;\n power of life and death possessed over them by their masters, and\n cruelties exercised, 99;\n scene from Tacitus, 99;\n St. Paul intercedes for one of them, 100;\n ill-treatment of them forbidden by Councils of the Church, 100;\n she substitutes public trial for private vengeance in their\n regard, 101;\n the clergy forbidden to mutilate them, 101;\n she condemns to penance those who put them to death of their own\n authority, 101;\n she protects those newly emancipated, 103;\n those of the Church not allowed to be sold or exchanged, 109;\n those who embrace the monastic state are freed by decree of the\n Council of Rome, 109;\n abuse thereof, 109;\n were raised to the priesthood, but not until they had been freed, 110;\n prevalence of the abuse of ordaining slaves without the consent of\n their masters, 110;\n the Church protects their marriages, and forbids them to be\n dissolved by their masters, 113.--See _Councils_.\n\n Slavery, the offspring of sin, 112.\n\n Society, will always be either religious or superstitious, 67;\n modern, described, 72;\n its progress, 82;\n condition of, when Christianity appeared, 84;\n present state of, 274;\n administration alone not adequate to its wants 276;\n principle of charity required, 276;\n physical means of restraining the masses of, 278;\n moral means required, 280;\n origin of, according to St. Thomas, 289;\n not the work of man, 291;\n not to be saved by strict political doctrines, without religion and\n morality, 314;\n why modern conservative schools are powerless in preserving it, 315;\n struggle therein between the three elements, monarchy, aristocracy,\n and democracy, 369.\n\n Solitaries, the early, described, 231;\n numbers of, 231;\n influence of, in spiritualising ideas and improving morals, 232;\n overcome the difficulties of the luxurious and enervating climate, 234;\n great men who received their inspirations from them, 234.\n\n Spain, effects which the partial introduction of Protestantism would\n have produced there, 74, 76, 77;\n power of religious ideas there, 76;\n peculiar manner in which revolutionary ideas have come into\n operation there, 77;\n has not yet obtained the government which she requires, 78;\n effects of the loss of her national unity, 78;\n her intolerance in religious matters not so great as it has been\n represented, 218;\n bold language used there with regard to politics, 312;\n industrial progress therein, 354;\n Catholicity and politics there, 377;\n real state of the question, 377;\n causes of the ruin of her free institutions, 378;\n ancient and modern freedom, 378;\n _Communeros_ of Castile, 379;\n policy of her rulers, 380;\n Ferdinand, Ximenes, Charles V., and Philip II., 381.\n\n Stephen, (Abbot), his account of the excesses committed by the\n Manichees in France, 252.\n\n Suarez, on the origin of power, 294;\n his reply to King James I. of England, 294;\n on the disputes between subjects and their rulers, 473.\n\n Subtlety, spirit of, in the middle ages, its causes, 406.\n\n\n Tacitus, scene from, of cruelty to slaves, 99;\n on the ancient Germans with regard to women, 152;\n his description of their manners, why embellished, 152.\n\n Tact, value of, 171.\n\n Tanch\u00e8me, excesses of, 250.\n\n Telugis, Council of, ordains the truce of God, 180.\n\n Tertullian, apology of, 286.\n\n Theodosius, the emperor, excluded from the Church by St. Ambrose, for\n the slaughter at Thessalonica, 178.\n\n Theories, rapid succession of, in modern times, 171.\n\n Theresa, St., extracts from the visions of, 427.\n\n Thierry, M., his history of the Conquest of England by the Normans, 120.\n\n Thomas, St., of Aquin, extract from, on the origin of society, 289;\n on the Divine law, 290;\n his definition of law, 319;\n his doctrines with regard to laws and royal power, 319;\n on obedience to laws, 328;\n utility of his dictatorship in the schools in the middle ages to the\n human mind, 411;\n passages from, on the duties of rulers and subjects, 470;\n his doctrines on the forms of government, 480.\n\n Times, superiority of the primitive, has been exaggerated, 422.\n\n Toledo, Councils of, 103, 107, 108, 111.\n\n Toleration, how misunderstood and misrepresented, 190;\n prejudices against Catholicity with regard to, 190;\n principle of, considered, 191;\n in religious men is the produce of two principles, charity and\n humility, 191;\n illustrations, shewing how they are affected by intercourse with the\n world on this point, 192;\n that of some irreligious men, 194;\n considered in society and governments, 194;\n its existence in society not owing to the philosophers, 195;\n its causes, 195; principle of universal, discussed, 196.\n\n Tours, Council of, ordains that the poor shall be supported in their\n own town or parish, 187.\n\n Trades-corporations, origin and salutary effects of, 477.\n\n Trades-union.--See _Paris_.\n\n Trajan, the emperor, 6000 gladiators slain at his games, 174.\n\n Transubstantiation, discussion with regard to, in consequence of the\n philosophy of Descartes, 397.\n\n Trent, Council of, gives bishops the power of visiting hospitals, 449.\n\n Troja, Councils of, promote the truce of God, 180.\n\n Truce of God described, 179;\n established by Church Councils, 179;\n supported by Popes, 180.\n\n Truth, described, 69.\n\n Tubuza, Council of, establishes the truce of God, 179.\n\n\n Unbelievers, doctrines of, with regard to errors of the mind, 200.\n\n Universities, those founded by Catholicity, 414.\n\n\n Vaison, Council of, decree of, in favor of foundlings and against\n infanticide, 184.\n\n Valois, Felix of, one of the founders of the Order of the Most Holy\n Trinity for the Redemption of Captives, 259.\n\n Vaudois, described, 252.\n\n Verneul, Council of, 105.\n\n Villanueva, prejudice and egotism of, 457.\n\n Vine-dressers, protected by the Council of Rheims, 182.\n\n Virginity, respected by the ancients, &c., but not by Protestantism, 146;\n how important that it should be respected, 146;\n not injurious to the state, 147;\n its effects on the female character, 149.\n\n Visions, (see _Orders_);\n effects of, 259;\n those of Catholics, 427.\n\n Vives, Louis, on human knowledge, 424.\n\n Voltaire described, 63;\n extract from, on the importance of the morals of courts to\n society, 137.\n\n Vows, vindication of religious, 228;\n those of chastity in the early ages of the Church, 458.\n\n\n Widows, their vows of chastity in the early ages of the Church, 458.\n\n Witmar, a German monk, his chronicles much esteemed 241;\n used by Leibnitz, 241.\n\n Women, degraded condition of, among the ancients, 136, 441;\n their elevation due entirely to Catholicity, 136, 156;\n how affected by chivalry, 150;\n their elevation falsely ascribed to the ancient Germans, 151;\n protected by Councils, 182.\n\n Worms, Council of, excommunicates those who refuse to be reconciled, 177.\n\n\n Zeballos, P., on Christian politics and Naboth's vineyard, 467.\n\n Ziegler, a Lutheran, an ardent defender of the immediate communication\n of temporal power, 463.\n\n Zonarus, on charitable establishments, 187.\n\n Zuinglius, his phantom, 426.\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n * * * * *\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes\n\nObvious typographical errors have been silently corrected.\n\nHyphenation and accents have been standardised.\n\nApart from the items mentioned below all other spellings and\npunctuation are as in the original.\n\nDevelop and develope, idealog(y/ist) and ideolog(y/ist) are used\ninterchangeably in the book. They have been standardised to the\nstandard modern spelling of develop and ideology.\n\nVariations in the use/spelling of derivatives of the Latin propius\n(pages 473a, 474a and 490a), while possibly incorrect, have been left\nas published as they seem unlikely to be typographical errors.\n\nZuinglius/Zwinglius. The former spelling is used in the body of the\nbook and the latter in the notes. This has not been changed.\n\nA note on notes: upper case references [A] refer to conventional\nfootnotes, lower case references [a] refer to the endnotes in the\nappendix, numeric references [1] refer to the main endnotes.\n\nThe reference to note 1 in the original reads \"(See note at the end of\nthe vol.)\" the [1] has been added to improve clarity and uniformity.\n\nThe quotation on page 313: 'What absolute monarch in Europe would\napprove of one of his high functionaries expressing the origin of power\nafter the manner of our immortal Saavedra? \"It is from the centre\nof justice,\" says he, \"that the circumference of the crown has been\ndrawn. The latter would not be necessary, if we could dispense with the\nformer.' is missing a closing quote. as it may be absent from 'drawn.'\nor 'former.' it has not been corrected.\n\nEntries for NOTES, APPENDIX and INDEX have been added to the table of\ncontents.","title":"Protestantism and Catholicity compared in their effects on the civilization of Europe","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":364930}