summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/50436-h/50436-h.htm
blob: 53d20ff8d61a50bcfb0a6d8a1ff2e3f4fe087574 (plain) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
4938
4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
5024
5025
5026
5027
5028
5029
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091
5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
5122
5123
5124
5125
5126
5127
5128
5129
5130
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
5143
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156
5157
5158
5159
5160
5161
5162
5163
5164
5165
5166
5167
5168
5169
5170
5171
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5180
5181
5182
5183
5184
5185
5186
5187
5188
5189
5190
5191
5192
5193
5194
5195
5196
5197
5198
5199
5200
5201
5202
5203
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279
5280
5281
5282
5283
5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5290
5291
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305
5306
5307
5308
5309
5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
5327
5328
5329
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347
5348
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5354
5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5361
5362
5363
5364
5365
5366
5367
5368
5369
5370
5371
5372
5373
5374
5375
5376
5377
5378
5379
5380
5381
5382
5383
5384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394
5395
5396
5397
5398
5399
5400
5401
5402
5403
5404
5405
5406
5407
5408
5409
5410
5411
5412
5413
5414
5415
5416
5417
5418
5419
5420
5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429
5430
5431
5432
5433
5434
5435
5436
5437
5438
5439
5440
5441
5442
5443
5444
5445
5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451
5452
5453
5454
5455
5456
5457
5458
5459
5460
5461
5462
5463
5464
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469
5470
5471
5472
5473
5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480
5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487
5488
5489
5490
5491
5492
5493
5494
5495
5496
5497
5498
5499
5500
5501
5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515
5516
5517
5518
5519
5520
5521
5522
5523
5524
5525
5526
5527
5528
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533
5534
5535
5536
5537
5538
5539
5540
5541
5542
5543
5544
5545
5546
5547
5548
5549
5550
5551
5552
5553
5554
5555
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560
5561
5562
5563
5564
5565
5566
5567
5568
5569
5570
5571
5572
5573
5574
5575
5576
5577
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5583
5584
5585
5586
5587
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
5602
5603
5604
5605
5606
5607
5608
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625
5626
5627
5628
5629
5630
5631
5632
5633
5634
5635
5636
5637
5638
5639
5640
5641
5642
5643
5644
5645
5646
5647
5648
5649
5650
5651
5652
5653
5654
5655
5656
5657
5658
5659
5660
5661
5662
5663
5664
5665
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5671
5672
5673
5674
5675
5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681
5682
5683
5684
5685
5686
5687
5688
5689
5690
5691
5692
5693
5694
5695
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708
5709
5710
5711
5712
5713
5714
5715
5716
5717
5718
5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727
5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735
5736
5737
5738
5739
5740
5741
5742
5743
5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749
5750
5751
5752
5753
5754
5755
5756
5757
5758
5759
5760
5761
5762
5763
5764
5765
5766
5767
5768
5769
5770
5771
5772
5773
5774
5775
5776
5777
5778
5779
5780
5781
5782
5783
5784
5785
5786
5787
5788
5789
5790
5791
5792
5793
5794
5795
5796
5797
5798
5799
5800
5801
5802
5803
5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810
5811
5812
5813
5814
5815
5816
5817
5818
5819
5820
5821
5822
5823
5824
5825
5826
5827
5828
5829
5830
5831
5832
5833
5834
5835
5836
5837
5838
5839
5840
5841
5842
5843
5844
5845
5846
5847
5848
5849
5850
5851
5852
5853
5854
5855
5856
5857
5858
5859
5860
5861
5862
5863
5864
5865
5866
5867
5868
5869
5870
5871
5872
5873
5874
5875
5876
5877
5878
5879
5880
5881
5882
5883
5884
5885
5886
5887
5888
5889
5890
5891
5892
5893
5894
5895
5896
5897
5898
5899
5900
5901
5902
5903
5904
5905
5906
5907
5908
5909
5910
5911
5912
5913
5914
5915
5916
5917
5918
5919
5920
5921
5922
5923
5924
5925
5926
5927
5928
5929
5930
5931
5932
5933
5934
5935
5936
5937
5938
5939
5940
5941
5942
5943
5944
5945
5946
5947
5948
5949
5950
5951
5952
5953
5954
5955
5956
5957
5958
5959
5960
5961
5962
5963
5964
5965
5966
5967
5968
5969
5970
5971
5972
5973
5974
5975
5976
5977
5978
5979
5980
5981
5982
5983
5984
5985
5986
5987
5988
5989
5990
5991
5992
5993
5994
5995
5996
5997
5998
5999
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034
6035
6036
6037
6038
6039
6040
6041
6042
6043
6044
6045
6046
6047
6048
6049
6050
6051
6052
6053
6054
6055
6056
6057
6058
6059
6060
6061
6062
6063
6064
6065
6066
6067
6068
6069
6070
6071
6072
6073
6074
6075
6076
6077
6078
6079
6080
6081
6082
6083
6084
6085
6086
6087
6088
6089
6090
6091
6092
6093
6094
6095
6096
6097
6098
6099
6100
6101
6102
6103
6104
6105
6106
6107
6108
6109
6110
6111
6112
6113
6114
6115
6116
6117
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6123
6124
6125
6126
6127
6128
6129
6130
6131
6132
6133
6134
6135
6136
6137
6138
6139
6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149
6150
6151
6152
6153
6154
6155
6156
6157
6158
6159
6160
6161
6162
6163
6164
6165
6166
6167
6168
6169
6170
6171
6172
6173
6174
6175
6176
6177
6178
6179
6180
6181
6182
6183
6184
6185
6186
6187
6188
6189
6190
6191
6192
6193
6194
6195
6196
6197
6198
6199
6200
6201
6202
6203
6204
6205
6206
6207
6208
6209
6210
6211
6212
6213
6214
6215
6216
6217
6218
6219
6220
6221
6222
6223
6224
6225
6226
6227
6228
6229
6230
6231
6232
6233
6234
6235
6236
6237
6238
6239
6240
6241
6242
6243
6244
6245
6246
6247
6248
6249
6250
6251
6252
6253
6254
6255
6256
6257
6258
6259
6260
6261
6262
6263
6264
6265
6266
6267
6268
6269
6270
6271
6272
6273
6274
6275
6276
6277
6278
6279
6280
6281
6282
6283
6284
6285
6286
6287
6288
6289
6290
6291
6292
6293
6294
6295
6296
6297
6298
6299
6300
6301
6302
6303
6304
6305
6306
6307
6308
6309
6310
6311
6312
6313
6314
6315
6316
6317
6318
6319
6320
6321
6322
6323
6324
6325
6326
6327
6328
6329
6330
6331
6332
6333
6334
6335
6336
6337
6338
6339
6340
6341
6342
6343
6344
6345
6346
6347
6348
6349
6350
6351
6352
6353
6354
6355
6356
6357
6358
6359
6360
6361
6362
6363
6364
6365
6366
6367
6368
6369
6370
6371
6372
6373
6374
6375
6376
6377
6378
6379
6380
6381
6382
6383
6384
6385
6386
6387
6388
6389
6390
6391
6392
6393
6394
6395
6396
6397
6398
6399
6400
6401
6402
6403
6404
6405
6406
6407
6408
6409
6410
6411
6412
6413
6414
6415
6416
6417
6418
6419
6420
6421
6422
6423
6424
6425
6426
6427
6428
6429
6430
6431
6432
6433
6434
6435
6436
6437
6438
6439
6440
6441
6442
6443
6444
6445
6446
6447
6448
6449
6450
6451
6452
6453
6454
6455
6456
6457
6458
6459
6460
6461
6462
6463
6464
6465
6466
6467
6468
6469
6470
6471
6472
6473
6474
6475
6476
6477
6478
6479
6480
6481
6482
6483
6484
6485
6486
6487
6488
6489
6490
6491
6492
6493
6494
6495
6496
6497
6498
6499
6500
6501
6502
6503
6504
6505
6506
6507
6508
6509
6510
6511
6512
6513
6514
6515
6516
6517
6518
6519
6520
6521
6522
6523
6524
6525
6526
6527
6528
6529
6530
6531
6532
6533
6534
6535
6536
6537
6538
6539
6540
6541
6542
6543
6544
6545
6546
6547
6548
6549
6550
6551
6552
6553
6554
6555
6556
6557
6558
6559
6560
6561
6562
6563
6564
6565
6566
6567
6568
6569
6570
6571
6572
6573
6574
6575
6576
6577
6578
6579
6580
6581
6582
6583
6584
6585
6586
6587
6588
6589
6590
6591
6592
6593
6594
6595
6596
6597
6598
6599
6600
6601
6602
6603
6604
6605
6606
6607
6608
6609
6610
6611
6612
6613
6614
6615
6616
6617
6618
6619
6620
6621
6622
6623
6624
6625
6626
6627
6628
6629
6630
6631
6632
6633
6634
6635
6636
6637
6638
6639
6640
6641
6642
6643
6644
6645
6646
6647
6648
6649
6650
6651
6652
6653
6654
6655
6656
6657
6658
6659
6660
6661
6662
6663
6664
6665
6666
6667
6668
6669
6670
6671
6672
6673
6674
6675
6676
6677
6678
6679
6680
6681
6682
6683
6684
6685
6686
6687
6688
6689
6690
6691
6692
6693
6694
6695
6696
6697
6698
6699
6700
6701
6702
6703
6704
6705
6706
6707
6708
6709
6710
6711
6712
6713
6714
6715
6716
6717
6718
6719
6720
6721
6722
6723
6724
6725
6726
6727
6728
6729
6730
6731
6732
6733
6734
6735
6736
6737
6738
6739
6740
6741
6742
6743
6744
6745
6746
6747
6748
6749
6750
6751
6752
6753
6754
6755
6756
6757
6758
6759
6760
6761
6762
6763
6764
6765
6766
6767
6768
6769
6770
6771
6772
6773
6774
6775
6776
6777
6778
6779
6780
6781
6782
6783
6784
6785
6786
6787
6788
6789
6790
6791
6792
6793
6794
6795
6796
6797
6798
6799
6800
6801
6802
6803
6804
6805
6806
6807
6808
6809
6810
6811
6812
6813
6814
6815
6816
6817
6818
6819
6820
6821
6822
6823
6824
6825
6826
6827
6828
6829
6830
6831
6832
6833
6834
6835
6836
6837
6838
6839
6840
6841
6842
6843
6844
6845
6846
6847
6848
6849
6850
6851
6852
6853
6854
6855
6856
6857
6858
6859
6860
6861
6862
6863
6864
6865
6866
6867
6868
6869
6870
6871
6872
6873
6874
6875
6876
6877
6878
6879
6880
6881
6882
6883
6884
6885
6886
6887
6888
6889
6890
6891
6892
6893
6894
6895
6896
6897
6898
6899
6900
6901
6902
6903
6904
6905
6906
6907
6908
6909
6910
6911
6912
6913
6914
6915
6916
6917
6918
6919
6920
6921
6922
6923
6924
6925
6926
6927
6928
6929
6930
6931
6932
6933
6934
6935
6936
6937
6938
6939
6940
6941
6942
6943
6944
6945
6946
6947
6948
6949
6950
6951
6952
6953
6954
6955
6956
6957
6958
6959
6960
6961
6962
6963
6964
6965
6966
6967
6968
6969
6970
6971
6972
6973
6974
6975
6976
6977
6978
6979
6980
6981
6982
6983
6984
6985
6986
6987
6988
6989
6990
6991
6992
6993
6994
6995
6996
6997
6998
6999
7000
7001
7002
7003
7004
7005
7006
7007
7008
7009
7010
7011
7012
7013
7014
7015
7016
7017
7018
7019
7020
7021
7022
7023
7024
7025
7026
7027
7028
7029
7030
7031
7032
7033
7034
7035
7036
7037
7038
7039
7040
7041
7042
7043
7044
7045
7046
7047
7048
7049
7050
7051
7052
7053
7054
7055
7056
7057
7058
7059
7060
7061
7062
7063
7064
7065
7066
7067
7068
7069
7070
7071
7072
7073
7074
7075
7076
7077
7078
7079
7080
7081
7082
7083
7084
7085
7086
7087
7088
7089
7090
7091
7092
7093
7094
7095
7096
7097
7098
7099
7100
7101
7102
7103
7104
7105
7106
7107
7108
7109
7110
7111
7112
7113
7114
7115
7116
7117
7118
7119
7120
7121
7122
7123
7124
7125
7126
7127
7128
7129
7130
7131
7132
7133
7134
7135
7136
7137
7138
7139
7140
7141
7142
7143
7144
7145
7146
7147
7148
7149
7150
7151
7152
7153
7154
7155
7156
7157
7158
7159
7160
7161
7162
7163
7164
7165
7166
7167
7168
7169
7170
7171
7172
7173
7174
7175
7176
7177
7178
7179
7180
7181
7182
7183
7184
7185
7186
7187
7188
7189
7190
7191
7192
7193
7194
7195
7196
7197
7198
7199
7200
7201
7202
7203
7204
7205
7206
7207
7208
7209
7210
7211
7212
7213
7214
7215
7216
7217
7218
7219
7220
7221
7222
7223
7224
7225
7226
7227
7228
7229
7230
7231
7232
7233
7234
7235
7236
7237
7238
7239
7240
7241
7242
7243
7244
7245
7246
7247
7248
7249
7250
7251
7252
7253
7254
7255
7256
7257
7258
7259
7260
7261
7262
7263
7264
7265
7266
7267
7268
7269
7270
7271
7272
7273
7274
7275
7276
7277
7278
7279
7280
7281
7282
7283
7284
7285
7286
7287
7288
7289
7290
7291
7292
7293
7294
7295
7296
7297
7298
7299
7300
7301
7302
7303
7304
7305
7306
7307
7308
7309
7310
7311
7312
7313
7314
7315
7316
7317
7318
7319
7320
7321
7322
7323
7324
7325
7326
7327
7328
7329
7330
7331
7332
7333
7334
7335
7336
7337
7338
7339
7340
7341
7342
7343
7344
7345
7346
7347
7348
7349
7350
7351
7352
7353
7354
7355
7356
7357
7358
7359
7360
7361
7362
7363
7364
7365
7366
7367
7368
7369
7370
7371
7372
7373
7374
7375
7376
7377
7378
7379
7380
7381
7382
7383
7384
7385
7386
7387
7388
7389
7390
7391
7392
7393
7394
7395
7396
7397
7398
7399
7400
7401
7402
7403
7404
7405
7406
7407
7408
7409
7410
7411
7412
7413
7414
7415
7416
7417
7418
7419
7420
7421
7422
7423
7424
7425
7426
7427
7428
7429
7430
7431
7432
7433
7434
7435
7436
7437
7438
7439
7440
7441
7442
7443
7444
7445
7446
7447
7448
7449
7450
7451
7452
7453
7454
7455
7456
7457
7458
7459
7460
7461
7462
7463
7464
7465
7466
7467
7468
7469
7470
7471
7472
7473
7474
7475
7476
7477
7478
7479
7480
7481
7482
7483
7484
7485
7486
7487
7488
7489
7490
7491
7492
7493
7494
7495
7496
7497
7498
7499
7500
7501
7502
7503
7504
7505
7506
7507
7508
7509
7510
7511
7512
7513
7514
7515
7516
7517
7518
7519
7520
7521
7522
7523
7524
7525
7526
7527
7528
7529
7530
7531
7532
7533
7534
7535
7536
7537
7538
7539
7540
7541
7542
7543
7544
7545
7546
7547
7548
7549
7550
7551
7552
7553
7554
7555
7556
7557
7558
7559
7560
7561
7562
7563
7564
7565
7566
7567
7568
7569
7570
7571
7572
7573
7574
7575
7576
7577
7578
7579
7580
7581
7582
7583
7584
7585
7586
7587
7588
7589
7590
7591
7592
7593
7594
7595
7596
7597
7598
7599
7600
7601
7602
7603
7604
7605
7606
7607
7608
7609
7610
7611
7612
7613
7614
7615
7616
7617
7618
7619
7620
7621
7622
7623
7624
7625
7626
7627
7628
7629
7630
7631
7632
7633
7634
7635
7636
7637
7638
7639
7640
7641
7642
7643
7644
7645
7646
7647
7648
7649
7650
7651
7652
7653
7654
7655
7656
7657
7658
7659
7660
7661
7662
7663
7664
7665
7666
7667
7668
7669
7670
7671
7672
7673
7674
7675
7676
7677
7678
7679
7680
7681
7682
7683
7684
7685
7686
7687
7688
7689
7690
7691
7692
7693
7694
7695
7696
7697
7698
7699
7700
7701
7702
7703
7704
7705
7706
7707
7708
7709
7710
7711
7712
7713
7714
7715
7716
7717
7718
7719
7720
7721
7722
7723
7724
7725
7726
7727
7728
7729
7730
7731
7732
7733
7734
7735
7736
7737
7738
7739
7740
7741
7742
7743
7744
7745
7746
7747
7748
7749
7750
7751
7752
7753
7754
7755
7756
7757
7758
7759
7760
7761
7762
7763
7764
7765
7766
7767
7768
7769
7770
7771
7772
7773
7774
7775
7776
7777
7778
7779
7780
7781
7782
7783
7784
7785
7786
7787
7788
7789
7790
7791
7792
7793
7794
7795
7796
7797
7798
7799
7800
7801
7802
7803
7804
7805
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813
7814
7815
7816
7817
7818
7819
7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825
7826
7827
7828
7829
7830
7831
7832
7833
7834
7835
7836
7837
7838
7839
7840
7841
7842
7843
7844
7845
7846
7847
7848
7849
7850
7851
7852
7853
7854
7855
7856
7857
7858
7859
7860
7861
7862
7863
7864
7865
7866
7867
7868
7869
7870
7871
7872
7873
7874
7875
7876
7877
7878
7879
7880
7881
7882
7883
7884
7885
7886
7887
7888
7889
7890
7891
7892
7893
7894
7895
7896
7897
7898
7899
7900
7901
7902
7903
7904
7905
7906
7907
7908
7909
7910
7911
7912
7913
7914
7915
7916
7917
7918
7919
7920
7921
7922
7923
7924
7925
7926
7927
7928
7929
7930
7931
7932
7933
7934
7935
7936
7937
7938
7939
7940
7941
7942
7943
7944
7945
7946
7947
7948
7949
7950
7951
7952
7953
7954
7955
7956
7957
7958
7959
7960
7961
7962
7963
7964
7965
7966
7967
7968
7969
7970
7971
7972
7973
7974
7975
7976
7977
7978
7979
7980
7981
7982
7983
7984
7985
7986
7987
7988
7989
7990
7991
7992
7993
7994
7995
7996
7997
7998
7999
8000
8001
8002
8003
8004
8005
8006
8007
8008
8009
8010
8011
8012
8013
8014
8015
8016
8017
8018
8019
8020
8021
8022
8023
8024
8025
8026
8027
8028
8029
8030
8031
8032
8033
8034
8035
8036
8037
8038
8039
8040
8041
8042
8043
8044
8045
8046
8047
8048
8049
8050
8051
8052
8053
8054
8055
8056
8057
8058
8059
8060
8061
8062
8063
8064
8065
8066
8067
8068
8069
8070
8071
8072
8073
8074
8075
8076
8077
8078
8079
8080
8081
8082
8083
8084
8085
8086
8087
8088
8089
8090
8091
8092
8093
8094
8095
8096
8097
8098
8099
8100
8101
8102
8103
8104
8105
8106
8107
8108
8109
8110
8111
8112
8113
8114
8115
8116
8117
8118
8119
8120
8121
8122
8123
8124
8125
8126
8127
8128
8129
8130
8131
8132
8133
8134
8135
8136
8137
8138
8139
8140
8141
8142
8143
8144
8145
8146
8147
8148
8149
8150
8151
8152
8153
8154
8155
8156
8157
8158
8159
8160
8161
8162
8163
8164
8165
8166
8167
8168
8169
8170
8171
8172
8173
8174
8175
8176
8177
8178
8179
8180
8181
8182
8183
8184
8185
8186
8187
8188
8189
8190
8191
8192
8193
8194
8195
8196
8197
8198
8199
8200
8201
8202
8203
8204
8205
8206
8207
8208
8209
8210
8211
8212
8213
8214
8215
8216
8217
8218
8219
8220
8221
8222
8223
8224
8225
8226
8227
8228
8229
8230
8231
8232
8233
8234
8235
8236
8237
8238
8239
8240
8241
8242
8243
8244
8245
8246
8247
8248
8249
8250
8251
8252
8253
8254
8255
8256
8257
8258
8259
8260
8261
8262
8263
8264
8265
8266
8267
8268
8269
8270
8271
8272
8273
8274
8275
8276
8277
8278
8279
8280
8281
8282
8283
8284
8285
8286
8287
8288
8289
8290
8291
8292
8293
8294
8295
8296
8297
8298
8299
8300
8301
8302
8303
8304
8305
8306
8307
8308
8309
8310
8311
8312
8313
8314
8315
8316
8317
8318
8319
8320
8321
8322
8323
8324
8325
8326
8327
8328
8329
8330
8331
8332
8333
8334
8335
8336
8337
8338
8339
8340
8341
8342
8343
8344
8345
8346
8347
8348
8349
8350
8351
8352
8353
8354
8355
8356
8357
8358
8359
8360
8361
8362
8363
8364
8365
8366
8367
8368
8369
8370
8371
8372
8373
8374
8375
8376
8377
8378
8379
8380
8381
8382
8383
8384
8385
8386
8387
8388
8389
8390
8391
8392
8393
8394
8395
8396
8397
8398
8399
8400
8401
8402
8403
8404
8405
8406
8407
8408
8409
8410
8411
8412
8413
8414
8415
8416
8417
8418
8419
8420
8421
8422
8423
8424
8425
8426
8427
8428
8429
8430
8431
8432
8433
8434
8435
8436
8437
8438
8439
8440
8441
8442
8443
8444
8445
8446
8447
8448
8449
8450
8451
8452
8453
8454
8455
8456
8457
8458
8459
8460
8461
8462
8463
8464
8465
8466
8467
8468
8469
8470
8471
8472
8473
8474
8475
8476
8477
8478
8479
8480
8481
8482
8483
8484
8485
8486
8487
8488
8489
8490
8491
8492
8493
8494
8495
8496
8497
8498
8499
8500
8501
8502
8503
8504
8505
8506
8507
8508
8509
8510
8511
8512
8513
8514
8515
8516
8517
8518
8519
8520
8521
8522
8523
8524
8525
8526
8527
8528
8529
8530
8531
8532
8533
8534
8535
8536
8537
8538
8539
8540
8541
8542
8543
8544
8545
8546
8547
8548
8549
8550
8551
8552
8553
8554
8555
8556
8557
8558
8559
8560
8561
8562
8563
8564
8565
8566
8567
8568
8569
8570
8571
8572
8573
8574
8575
8576
8577
8578
8579
8580
8581
8582
8583
8584
8585
8586
8587
8588
8589
8590
8591
8592
8593
8594
8595
8596
8597
8598
8599
8600
8601
8602
8603
8604
8605
8606
8607
8608
8609
8610
8611
8612
8613
8614
8615
8616
8617
8618
8619
8620
8621
8622
8623
8624
8625
8626
8627
8628
8629
8630
8631
8632
8633
8634
8635
8636
8637
8638
8639
8640
8641
8642
8643
8644
8645
8646
8647
8648
8649
8650
8651
8652
8653
8654
8655
8656
8657
8658
8659
8660
8661
8662
8663
8664
8665
8666
8667
8668
8669
8670
8671
8672
8673
8674
8675
8676
8677
8678
8679
8680
8681
8682
8683
8684
8685
8686
8687
8688
8689
8690
8691
8692
8693
8694
8695
8696
8697
8698
8699
8700
8701
8702
8703
8704
8705
8706
8707
8708
8709
8710
8711
8712
8713
8714
8715
8716
8717
8718
8719
8720
8721
8722
8723
8724
8725
8726
8727
8728
8729
8730
8731
8732
8733
8734
8735
8736
8737
8738
8739
8740
8741
8742
8743
8744
8745
8746
8747
8748
8749
8750
8751
8752
8753
8754
8755
8756
8757
8758
8759
8760
8761
8762
8763
8764
8765
8766
8767
8768
8769
8770
8771
8772
8773
8774
8775
8776
8777
8778
8779
8780
8781
8782
8783
8784
8785
8786
8787
8788
8789
8790
8791
8792
8793
8794
8795
8796
8797
8798
8799
8800
8801
8802
8803
8804
8805
8806
8807
8808
8809
8810
8811
8812
8813
8814
8815
8816
8817
8818
8819
8820
8821
8822
8823
8824
8825
8826
8827
8828
8829
8830
8831
8832
8833
8834
8835
8836
8837
8838
8839
8840
8841
8842
8843
8844
8845
8846
8847
8848
8849
8850
8851
8852
8853
8854
8855
8856
8857
8858
8859
8860
8861
8862
8863
8864
8865
8866
8867
8868
8869
8870
8871
8872
8873
8874
8875
8876
8877
8878
8879
8880
8881
8882
8883
8884
8885
8886
8887
8888
8889
8890
8891
8892
8893
8894
8895
8896
8897
8898
8899
8900
8901
8902
8903
8904
8905
8906
8907
8908
8909
8910
8911
8912
8913
8914
8915
8916
8917
8918
8919
8920
8921
8922
8923
8924
8925
8926
8927
8928
8929
8930
8931
8932
8933
8934
8935
8936
8937
8938
8939
8940
8941
8942
8943
8944
8945
8946
8947
8948
8949
8950
8951
8952
8953
8954
8955
8956
8957
8958
8959
8960
8961
8962
8963
8964
8965
8966
8967
8968
8969
8970
8971
8972
8973
8974
8975
8976
8977
8978
8979
8980
8981
8982
8983
8984
8985
8986
8987
8988
8989
8990
8991
8992
8993
8994
8995
8996
8997
8998
8999
9000
9001
9002
9003
9004
9005
9006
9007
9008
9009
9010
9011
9012
9013
9014
9015
9016
9017
9018
9019
9020
9021
9022
9023
9024
9025
9026
9027
9028
9029
9030
9031
9032
9033
9034
9035
9036
9037
9038
9039
9040
9041
9042
9043
9044
9045
9046
9047
9048
9049
9050
9051
9052
9053
9054
9055
9056
9057
9058
9059
9060
9061
9062
9063
9064
9065
9066
9067
9068
9069
9070
9071
9072
9073
9074
9075
9076
9077
9078
9079
9080
9081
9082
9083
9084
9085
9086
9087
9088
9089
9090
9091
9092
9093
9094
9095
9096
9097
9098
9099
9100
9101
9102
9103
9104
9105
9106
9107
9108
9109
9110
9111
9112
9113
9114
9115
9116
9117
9118
9119
9120
9121
9122
9123
9124
9125
9126
9127
9128
9129
9130
9131
9132
9133
9134
9135
9136
9137
9138
9139
9140
9141
9142
9143
9144
9145
9146
9147
9148
9149
9150
9151
9152
9153
9154
9155
9156
9157
9158
9159
9160
9161
9162
9163
9164
9165
9166
9167
9168
9169
9170
9171
9172
9173
9174
9175
9176
9177
9178
9179
9180
9181
9182
9183
9184
9185
9186
9187
9188
9189
9190
9191
9192
9193
9194
9195
9196
9197
9198
9199
9200
9201
9202
9203
9204
9205
9206
9207
9208
9209
9210
9211
9212
9213
9214
9215
9216
9217
9218
9219
9220
9221
9222
9223
9224
9225
9226
9227
9228
9229
9230
9231
9232
9233
9234
9235
9236
9237
9238
9239
9240
9241
9242
9243
9244
9245
9246
9247
9248
9249
9250
9251
9252
9253
9254
9255
9256
9257
9258
9259
9260
9261
9262
9263
9264
9265
9266
9267
9268
9269
9270
9271
9272
9273
9274
9275
9276
9277
9278
9279
9280
9281
9282
9283
9284
9285
9286
9287
9288
9289
9290
9291
9292
9293
9294
9295
9296
9297
9298
9299
9300
9301
9302
9303
9304
9305
9306
9307
9308
9309
9310
9311
9312
9313
9314
9315
9316
9317
9318
9319
9320
9321
9322
9323
9324
9325
9326
9327
9328
9329
9330
9331
9332
9333
9334
9335
9336
9337
9338
9339
9340
9341
9342
9343
9344
9345
9346
9347
9348
9349
9350
9351
9352
9353
9354
9355
9356
9357
9358
9359
9360
9361
9362
9363
9364
9365
9366
9367
9368
9369
9370
9371
9372
9373
9374
9375
9376
9377
9378
9379
9380
9381
9382
9383
9384
9385
9386
9387
9388
9389
9390
9391
9392
9393
9394
9395
9396
9397
9398
9399
9400
9401
9402
9403
9404
9405
9406
9407
9408
9409
9410
9411
9412
9413
9414
9415
9416
9417
9418
9419
9420
9421
9422
9423
9424
9425
9426
9427
9428
9429
9430
9431
9432
9433
9434
9435
9436
9437
9438
9439
9440
9441
9442
9443
9444
9445
9446
9447
9448
9449
9450
9451
9452
9453
9454
9455
9456
9457
9458
9459
9460
9461
9462
9463
9464
9465
9466
9467
9468
9469
9470
9471
9472
9473
9474
9475
9476
9477
9478
9479
9480
9481
9482
9483
9484
9485
9486
9487
9488
9489
9490
9491
9492
9493
9494
9495
9496
9497
9498
9499
9500
9501
9502
9503
9504
9505
9506
9507
9508
9509
9510
9511
9512
9513
9514
9515
9516
9517
9518
9519
9520
9521
9522
9523
9524
9525
9526
9527
9528
9529
9530
9531
9532
9533
9534
9535
9536
9537
9538
9539
9540
9541
9542
9543
9544
9545
9546
9547
9548
9549
9550
9551
9552
9553
9554
9555
9556
9557
9558
9559
9560
9561
9562
9563
9564
9565
9566
9567
9568
9569
9570
9571
9572
9573
9574
9575
9576
9577
9578
9579
9580
9581
9582
9583
9584
9585
9586
9587
9588
9589
9590
9591
9592
9593
9594
9595
9596
9597
9598
9599
9600
9601
9602
9603
9604
9605
9606
9607
9608
9609
9610
9611
9612
9613
9614
9615
9616
9617
9618
9619
9620
9621
9622
9623
9624
9625
9626
9627
9628
9629
9630
9631
9632
9633
9634
9635
9636
9637
9638
9639
9640
9641
9642
9643
9644
9645
9646
9647
9648
9649
9650
9651
9652
9653
9654
9655
9656
9657
9658
9659
9660
9661
9662
9663
9664
9665
9666
9667
9668
9669
9670
9671
9672
9673
9674
9675
9676
9677
9678
9679
9680
9681
9682
9683
9684
9685
9686
9687
9688
9689
9690
9691
9692
9693
9694
9695
9696
9697
9698
9699
9700
9701
9702
9703
9704
9705
9706
9707
9708
9709
9710
9711
9712
9713
9714
9715
9716
9717
9718
9719
9720
9721
9722
9723
9724
9725
9726
9727
9728
9729
9730
9731
9732
9733
9734
9735
9736
9737
9738
9739
9740
9741
9742
9743
9744
9745
9746
9747
9748
9749
9750
9751
9752
9753
9754
9755
9756
9757
9758
9759
9760
9761
9762
9763
9764
9765
9766
9767
9768
9769
9770
9771
9772
9773
9774
9775
9776
9777
9778
9779
9780
9781
9782
9783
9784
9785
9786
9787
9788
9789
9790
9791
9792
9793
9794
9795
9796
9797
9798
9799
9800
9801
9802
9803
9804
9805
9806
9807
9808
9809
9810
9811
9812
9813
9814
9815
9816
9817
9818
9819
9820
9821
9822
9823
9824
9825
9826
9827
9828
9829
9830
9831
9832
9833
9834
9835
9836
9837
9838
9839
9840
9841
9842
9843
9844
9845
9846
9847
9848
9849
9850
9851
9852
9853
9854
9855
9856
9857
9858
9859
9860
9861
9862
9863
9864
9865
9866
9867
9868
9869
9870
9871
9872
9873
9874
9875
9876
9877
9878
9879
9880
9881
9882
9883
9884
9885
9886
9887
9888
9889
9890
9891
9892
9893
9894
9895
9896
9897
9898
9899
9900
9901
9902
9903
9904
9905
9906
9907
9908
9909
9910
9911
9912
9913
9914
9915
9916
9917
9918
9919
9920
9921
9922
9923
9924
9925
9926
9927
9928
9929
9930
9931
9932
9933
9934
9935
9936
9937
9938
9939
9940
9941
9942
9943
9944
9945
9946
9947
9948
9949
9950
9951
9952
9953
9954
9955
9956
9957
9958
9959
9960
9961
9962
9963
9964
9965
9966
9967
9968
9969
9970
9971
9972
9973
9974
9975
9976
9977
9978
9979
9980
9981
9982
9983
9984
9985
9986
9987
9988
9989
9990
9991
9992
9993
9994
9995
9996
9997
9998
9999
10000
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10006
10007
10008
10009
10010
10011
10012
10013
10014
10015
10016
10017
10018
10019
10020
10021
10022
10023
10024
10025
10026
10027
10028
10029
10030
10031
10032
10033
10034
10035
10036
10037
10038
10039
10040
10041
10042
10043
10044
10045
10046
10047
10048
10049
10050
10051
10052
10053
10054
10055
10056
10057
10058
10059
10060
10061
10062
10063
10064
10065
10066
10067
10068
10069
10070
10071
10072
10073
10074
10075
10076
10077
10078
10079
10080
10081
10082
10083
10084
10085
10086
10087
10088
10089
10090
10091
10092
10093
10094
10095
10096
10097
10098
10099
10100
10101
10102
10103
10104
10105
10106
10107
10108
10109
10110
10111
10112
10113
10114
10115
10116
10117
10118
10119
10120
10121
10122
10123
10124
10125
10126
10127
10128
10129
10130
10131
10132
10133
10134
10135
10136
10137
10138
10139
10140
10141
10142
10143
10144
10145
10146
10147
10148
10149
10150
10151
10152
10153
10154
10155
10156
10157
10158
10159
10160
10161
10162
10163
10164
10165
10166
10167
10168
10169
10170
10171
10172
10173
10174
10175
10176
10177
10178
10179
10180
10181
10182
10183
10184
10185
10186
10187
10188
10189
10190
10191
10192
10193
10194
10195
10196
10197
10198
10199
10200
10201
10202
10203
10204
10205
10206
10207
10208
10209
10210
10211
10212
10213
10214
10215
10216
10217
10218
10219
10220
10221
10222
10223
10224
10225
10226
10227
10228
10229
10230
10231
10232
10233
10234
10235
10236
10237
10238
10239
10240
10241
10242
10243
10244
10245
10246
10247
10248
10249
10250
10251
10252
10253
10254
10255
10256
10257
10258
10259
10260
10261
10262
10263
10264
10265
10266
10267
10268
10269
10270
10271
10272
10273
10274
10275
10276
10277
10278
10279
10280
10281
10282
10283
10284
10285
10286
10287
10288
10289
10290
10291
10292
10293
10294
10295
10296
10297
10298
10299
10300
10301
10302
10303
10304
10305
10306
10307
10308
10309
10310
10311
10312
10313
10314
10315
10316
10317
10318
10319
10320
10321
10322
10323
10324
10325
10326
10327
10328
10329
10330
10331
10332
10333
10334
10335
10336
10337
10338
10339
10340
10341
10342
10343
10344
10345
10346
10347
10348
10349
10350
10351
10352
10353
10354
10355
10356
10357
10358
10359
10360
10361
10362
10363
10364
10365
10366
10367
10368
10369
10370
10371
10372
10373
10374
10375
10376
10377
10378
10379
10380
10381
10382
10383
10384
10385
10386
10387
10388
10389
10390
10391
10392
10393
10394
10395
10396
10397
10398
10399
10400
10401
10402
10403
10404
10405
10406
10407
10408
10409
10410
10411
10412
10413
10414
10415
10416
10417
10418
10419
10420
10421
10422
10423
10424
10425
10426
10427
10428
10429
10430
10431
10432
10433
10434
10435
10436
10437
10438
10439
10440
10441
10442
10443
10444
10445
10446
10447
10448
10449
10450
10451
10452
10453
10454
10455
10456
10457
10458
10459
10460
10461
10462
10463
10464
10465
10466
10467
10468
10469
10470
10471
10472
10473
10474
10475
10476
10477
10478
10479
10480
10481
10482
10483
10484
10485
10486
10487
10488
10489
10490
10491
10492
10493
10494
10495
10496
10497
10498
10499
10500
10501
10502
10503
10504
10505
10506
10507
10508
10509
10510
10511
10512
10513
10514
10515
10516
10517
10518
10519
10520
10521
10522
10523
10524
10525
10526
10527
10528
10529
10530
10531
10532
10533
10534
10535
10536
10537
10538
10539
10540
10541
10542
10543
10544
10545
10546
10547
10548
10549
10550
10551
10552
10553
10554
10555
10556
10557
10558
10559
10560
10561
10562
10563
10564
10565
10566
10567
10568
10569
10570
10571
10572
10573
10574
10575
10576
10577
10578
10579
10580
10581
10582
10583
10584
10585
10586
10587
10588
10589
10590
10591
10592
10593
10594
10595
10596
10597
10598
10599
10600
10601
10602
10603
10604
10605
10606
10607
10608
10609
10610
10611
10612
10613
10614
10615
10616
10617
10618
10619
10620
10621
10622
10623
10624
10625
10626
10627
10628
10629
10630
10631
10632
10633
10634
10635
10636
10637
10638
10639
10640
10641
10642
10643
10644
10645
10646
10647
10648
10649
10650
10651
10652
10653
10654
10655
10656
10657
10658
10659
10660
10661
10662
10663
10664
10665
10666
10667
10668
10669
10670
10671
10672
10673
10674
10675
10676
10677
10678
10679
10680
10681
10682
10683
10684
10685
10686
10687
10688
10689
10690
10691
10692
10693
10694
10695
10696
10697
10698
10699
10700
10701
10702
10703
10704
10705
10706
10707
10708
10709
10710
10711
10712
10713
10714
10715
10716
10717
10718
10719
10720
10721
10722
10723
10724
10725
10726
10727
10728
10729
10730
10731
10732
10733
10734
10735
10736
10737
10738
10739
10740
10741
10742
10743
10744
10745
10746
10747
10748
10749
10750
10751
10752
10753
10754
10755
10756
10757
10758
10759
10760
10761
10762
10763
10764
10765
10766
10767
10768
10769
10770
10771
10772
10773
10774
10775
10776
10777
10778
10779
10780
10781
10782
10783
10784
10785
10786
10787
10788
10789
10790
10791
10792
10793
10794
10795
10796
10797
10798
10799
10800
10801
10802
10803
10804
10805
10806
10807
10808
10809
10810
10811
10812
10813
10814
10815
10816
10817
10818
10819
10820
10821
10822
10823
10824
10825
10826
10827
10828
10829
10830
10831
10832
10833
10834
10835
10836
10837
10838
10839
10840
10841
10842
10843
10844
10845
10846
10847
10848
10849
10850
10851
10852
10853
10854
10855
10856
10857
10858
10859
10860
10861
10862
10863
10864
10865
10866
10867
10868
10869
10870
10871
10872
10873
10874
10875
10876
10877
10878
10879
10880
10881
10882
10883
10884
10885
10886
10887
10888
10889
10890
10891
10892
10893
10894
10895
10896
10897
10898
10899
10900
10901
10902
10903
10904
10905
10906
10907
10908
10909
10910
10911
10912
10913
10914
10915
10916
10917
10918
10919
10920
10921
10922
10923
10924
10925
10926
10927
10928
10929
10930
10931
10932
10933
10934
10935
10936
10937
10938
10939
10940
10941
10942
10943
10944
10945
10946
10947
10948
10949
10950
10951
10952
10953
10954
10955
10956
10957
10958
10959
10960
10961
10962
10963
10964
10965
10966
10967
10968
10969
10970
10971
10972
10973
10974
10975
10976
10977
10978
10979
10980
10981
10982
10983
10984
10985
10986
10987
10988
10989
10990
10991
10992
10993
10994
10995
10996
10997
10998
10999
11000
11001
11002
11003
11004
11005
11006
11007
11008
11009
11010
11011
11012
11013
11014
11015
11016
11017
11018
11019
11020
11021
11022
11023
11024
11025
11026
11027
11028
11029
11030
11031
11032
11033
11034
11035
11036
11037
11038
11039
11040
11041
11042
11043
11044
11045
11046
11047
11048
11049
11050
11051
11052
11053
11054
11055
11056
11057
11058
11059
11060
11061
11062
11063
11064
11065
11066
11067
11068
11069
11070
11071
11072
11073
11074
11075
11076
11077
11078
11079
11080
11081
11082
11083
11084
11085
11086
11087
11088
11089
11090
11091
11092
11093
11094
11095
11096
11097
11098
11099
11100
11101
11102
11103
11104
11105
11106
11107
11108
11109
11110
11111
11112
11113
11114
11115
11116
11117
11118
11119
11120
11121
11122
11123
11124
11125
11126
11127
11128
11129
11130
11131
11132
11133
11134
11135
11136
11137
11138
11139
11140
11141
11142
11143
11144
11145
11146
11147
11148
11149
11150
11151
11152
11153
11154
11155
11156
11157
11158
11159
11160
11161
11162
11163
11164
11165
11166
11167
11168
11169
11170
11171
11172
11173
11174
11175
11176
11177
11178
11179
11180
11181
11182
11183
11184
11185
11186
11187
11188
11189
11190
11191
11192
11193
11194
11195
11196
11197
11198
11199
11200
11201
11202
11203
11204
11205
11206
11207
11208
11209
11210
11211
11212
11213
11214
11215
11216
11217
11218
11219
11220
11221
11222
11223
11224
11225
11226
11227
11228
11229
11230
11231
11232
11233
11234
11235
11236
11237
11238
11239
11240
11241
11242
11243
11244
11245
11246
11247
11248
11249
11250
11251
11252
11253
11254
11255
11256
11257
11258
11259
11260
11261
11262
11263
11264
11265
11266
11267
11268
11269
11270
11271
11272
11273
11274
11275
11276
11277
11278
11279
11280
11281
11282
11283
11284
11285
11286
11287
11288
11289
11290
11291
11292
11293
11294
11295
11296
11297
11298
11299
11300
11301
11302
11303
11304
11305
11306
11307
11308
11309
11310
11311
11312
11313
11314
11315
11316
11317
11318
11319
11320
11321
11322
11323
11324
11325
11326
11327
11328
11329
11330
11331
11332
11333
11334
11335
11336
11337
11338
11339
11340
11341
11342
11343
11344
11345
11346
11347
11348
11349
11350
11351
11352
11353
11354
11355
11356
11357
11358
11359
11360
11361
11362
11363
11364
11365
11366
11367
11368
11369
11370
11371
11372
11373
11374
11375
11376
11377
11378
11379
11380
11381
11382
11383
11384
11385
11386
11387
11388
11389
11390
11391
11392
11393
11394
11395
11396
11397
11398
11399
11400
11401
11402
11403
11404
11405
11406
11407
11408
11409
11410
11411
11412
11413
11414
11415
11416
11417
11418
11419
11420
11421
11422
11423
11424
11425
11426
11427
11428
11429
11430
11431
11432
11433
11434
11435
11436
11437
11438
11439
11440
11441
11442
11443
11444
11445
11446
11447
11448
11449
11450
11451
11452
11453
11454
11455
11456
11457
11458
11459
11460
11461
11462
11463
11464
11465
11466
11467
11468
11469
11470
11471
11472
11473
11474
11475
11476
11477
11478
11479
11480
11481
11482
11483
11484
11485
11486
11487
11488
11489
11490
11491
11492
11493
11494
11495
11496
11497
11498
11499
11500
11501
11502
11503
11504
11505
11506
11507
11508
11509
11510
11511
11512
11513
11514
11515
11516
11517
11518
11519
11520
11521
11522
11523
11524
11525
11526
11527
11528
11529
11530
11531
11532
11533
11534
11535
11536
11537
11538
11539
11540
11541
11542
11543
11544
11545
11546
11547
11548
11549
11550
11551
11552
11553
11554
11555
11556
11557
11558
11559
11560
11561
11562
11563
11564
11565
11566
11567
11568
11569
11570
11571
11572
11573
11574
11575
11576
11577
11578
11579
11580
11581
11582
11583
11584
11585
11586
11587
11588
11589
11590
11591
11592
11593
11594
11595
11596
11597
11598
11599
11600
11601
11602
11603
11604
11605
11606
11607
11608
11609
11610
11611
11612
11613
11614
11615
11616
11617
11618
11619
11620
11621
11622
11623
11624
11625
11626
11627
11628
11629
11630
11631
11632
11633
11634
11635
11636
11637
11638
11639
11640
11641
11642
11643
11644
11645
11646
11647
11648
11649
11650
11651
11652
11653
11654
11655
11656
11657
11658
11659
11660
11661
11662
11663
11664
11665
11666
11667
11668
11669
11670
11671
11672
11673
11674
11675
11676
11677
11678
11679
11680
11681
11682
11683
11684
11685
11686
11687
11688
11689
11690
11691
11692
11693
11694
11695
11696
11697
11698
11699
11700
11701
11702
11703
11704
11705
11706
11707
11708
11709
11710
11711
11712
11713
11714
11715
11716
11717
11718
11719
11720
11721
11722
11723
11724
11725
11726
11727
11728
11729
11730
11731
11732
11733
11734
11735
11736
11737
11738
11739
11740
11741
11742
11743
11744
11745
11746
11747
11748
11749
11750
11751
11752
11753
11754
11755
11756
11757
11758
11759
11760
11761
11762
11763
11764
11765
11766
11767
11768
11769
11770
11771
11772
11773
11774
11775
11776
11777
11778
11779
11780
11781
11782
11783
11784
11785
11786
11787
11788
11789
11790
11791
11792
11793
11794
11795
11796
11797
11798
11799
11800
11801
11802
11803
11804
11805
11806
11807
11808
11809
11810
11811
11812
11813
11814
11815
11816
11817
11818
11819
11820
11821
11822
11823
11824
11825
11826
11827
11828
11829
11830
11831
11832
11833
11834
11835
11836
11837
11838
11839
11840
11841
11842
11843
11844
11845
11846
11847
11848
11849
11850
11851
11852
11853
11854
11855
11856
11857
11858
11859
11860
11861
11862
11863
11864
11865
11866
11867
11868
11869
11870
11871
11872
11873
11874
11875
11876
11877
11878
11879
11880
11881
11882
11883
11884
11885
11886
11887
11888
11889
11890
11891
11892
11893
11894
11895
11896
11897
11898
11899
11900
11901
11902
11903
11904
11905
11906
11907
11908
11909
11910
11911
11912
11913
11914
11915
11916
11917
11918
11919
11920
11921
11922
11923
11924
11925
11926
11927
11928
11929
11930
11931
11932
11933
11934
11935
11936
11937
11938
11939
11940
11941
11942
11943
11944
11945
11946
11947
11948
11949
11950
11951
11952
11953
11954
11955
11956
11957
11958
11959
11960
11961
11962
11963
11964
11965
11966
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
11975
11976
11977
11978
11979
11980
11981
11982
11983
11984
11985
11986
11987
11988
11989
11990
11991
11992
11993
11994
11995
11996
11997
11998
11999
12000
12001
12002
12003
12004
12005
12006
12007
12008
12009
12010
12011
12012
12013
12014
12015
12016
12017
12018
12019
12020
12021
12022
12023
12024
12025
12026
12027
12028
12029
12030
12031
12032
12033
12034
12035
12036
12037
12038
12039
12040
12041
12042
12043
12044
12045
12046
12047
12048
12049
12050
12051
12052
12053
12054
12055
12056
12057
12058
12059
12060
12061
12062
12063
12064
12065
12066
12067
12068
12069
12070
12071
12072
12073
12074
12075
12076
12077
12078
12079
12080
12081
12082
12083
12084
12085
12086
12087
12088
12089
12090
12091
12092
12093
12094
12095
12096
12097
12098
12099
12100
12101
12102
12103
12104
12105
12106
12107
12108
12109
12110
12111
12112
12113
12114
12115
12116
12117
12118
12119
12120
12121
12122
12123
12124
12125
12126
12127
12128
12129
12130
12131
12132
12133
12134
12135
12136
12137
12138
12139
12140
12141
12142
12143
12144
12145
12146
12147
12148
12149
12150
12151
12152
12153
12154
12155
12156
12157
12158
12159
12160
12161
12162
12163
12164
12165
12166
12167
12168
12169
12170
12171
12172
12173
12174
12175
12176
12177
12178
12179
12180
12181
12182
12183
12184
12185
12186
12187
12188
12189
12190
12191
12192
12193
12194
12195
12196
12197
12198
12199
12200
12201
12202
12203
12204
12205
12206
12207
12208
12209
12210
12211
12212
12213
12214
12215
12216
12217
12218
12219
12220
12221
12222
12223
12224
12225
12226
12227
12228
12229
12230
12231
12232
12233
12234
12235
12236
12237
12238
12239
12240
12241
12242
12243
12244
12245
12246
12247
12248
12249
12250
12251
12252
12253
12254
12255
12256
12257
12258
12259
12260
12261
12262
12263
12264
12265
12266
12267
12268
12269
12270
12271
12272
12273
12274
12275
12276
12277
12278
12279
12280
12281
12282
12283
12284
12285
12286
12287
12288
12289
12290
12291
12292
12293
12294
12295
12296
12297
12298
12299
12300
12301
12302
12303
12304
12305
12306
12307
12308
12309
12310
12311
12312
12313
12314
12315
12316
12317
12318
12319
12320
12321
12322
12323
12324
12325
12326
12327
12328
12329
12330
12331
12332
12333
12334
12335
12336
12337
12338
12339
12340
12341
12342
12343
12344
12345
12346
12347
12348
12349
12350
12351
12352
12353
12354
12355
12356
12357
12358
12359
12360
12361
12362
12363
12364
12365
12366
12367
12368
12369
12370
12371
12372
12373
12374
12375
12376
12377
12378
12379
12380
12381
12382
12383
12384
12385
12386
12387
12388
12389
12390
12391
12392
12393
12394
12395
12396
12397
12398
12399
12400
12401
12402
12403
12404
12405
12406
12407
12408
12409
12410
12411
12412
12413
12414
12415
12416
12417
12418
12419
12420
12421
12422
12423
12424
12425
12426
12427
12428
12429
12430
12431
12432
12433
12434
12435
12436
12437
12438
12439
12440
12441
12442
12443
12444
12445
12446
12447
12448
12449
12450
12451
12452
12453
12454
12455
12456
12457
12458
12459
12460
12461
12462
12463
12464
12465
12466
12467
12468
12469
12470
12471
12472
12473
12474
12475
12476
12477
12478
12479
12480
12481
12482
12483
12484
12485
12486
12487
12488
12489
12490
12491
12492
12493
12494
12495
12496
12497
12498
12499
12500
12501
12502
12503
12504
12505
12506
12507
12508
12509
12510
12511
12512
12513
12514
12515
12516
12517
12518
12519
12520
12521
12522
12523
12524
12525
12526
12527
12528
12529
12530
12531
12532
12533
12534
12535
12536
12537
12538
12539
12540
12541
12542
12543
12544
12545
12546
12547
12548
12549
12550
12551
12552
12553
12554
12555
12556
12557
12558
12559
12560
12561
12562
12563
12564
12565
12566
12567
12568
12569
12570
12571
12572
12573
12574
12575
12576
12577
12578
12579
12580
12581
12582
12583
12584
12585
12586
12587
12588
12589
12590
12591
12592
12593
12594
12595
12596
12597
12598
12599
12600
12601
12602
12603
12604
12605
12606
12607
12608
12609
12610
12611
12612
12613
12614
12615
12616
12617
12618
12619
12620
12621
12622
12623
12624
12625
12626
12627
12628
12629
12630
12631
12632
12633
12634
12635
12636
12637
12638
12639
12640
12641
12642
12643
12644
12645
12646
12647
12648
12649
12650
12651
12652
12653
12654
12655
12656
12657
12658
12659
12660
12661
12662
12663
12664
12665
12666
12667
12668
12669
12670
12671
12672
12673
12674
12675
12676
12677
12678
12679
12680
12681
12682
12683
12684
12685
12686
12687
12688
12689
12690
12691
12692
12693
12694
12695
12696
12697
12698
12699
12700
12701
12702
12703
12704
12705
12706
12707
12708
12709
12710
12711
12712
12713
12714
12715
12716
12717
12718
12719
12720
12721
12722
12723
12724
12725
12726
12727
12728
12729
12730
12731
12732
12733
12734
12735
12736
12737
12738
12739
12740
12741
12742
12743
12744
12745
12746
12747
12748
12749
12750
12751
12752
12753
12754
12755
12756
12757
12758
12759
12760
12761
12762
12763
12764
12765
12766
12767
12768
12769
12770
12771
12772
12773
12774
12775
12776
12777
12778
12779
12780
12781
12782
12783
12784
12785
12786
12787
12788
12789
12790
12791
12792
12793
12794
12795
12796
12797
12798
12799
12800
12801
12802
12803
12804
12805
12806
12807
12808
12809
12810
12811
12812
12813
12814
12815
12816
12817
12818
12819
12820
12821
12822
12823
12824
12825
12826
12827
12828
12829
12830
12831
12832
12833
12834
12835
12836
12837
12838
12839
12840
12841
12842
12843
12844
12845
12846
12847
12848
12849
12850
12851
12852
12853
12854
12855
12856
12857
12858
12859
12860
12861
12862
12863
12864
12865
12866
12867
12868
12869
12870
12871
12872
12873
12874
12875
12876
12877
12878
12879
12880
12881
12882
12883
12884
12885
12886
12887
12888
12889
12890
12891
12892
12893
12894
12895
12896
12897
12898
12899
12900
12901
12902
12903
12904
12905
12906
12907
12908
12909
12910
12911
12912
12913
12914
12915
12916
12917
12918
12919
12920
12921
12922
12923
12924
12925
12926
12927
12928
12929
12930
12931
12932
12933
12934
12935
12936
12937
12938
12939
12940
12941
12942
12943
12944
12945
12946
12947
12948
12949
12950
12951
12952
12953
12954
12955
12956
12957
12958
12959
12960
12961
12962
12963
12964
12965
12966
12967
12968
12969
12970
12971
12972
12973
12974
12975
12976
12977
12978
12979
12980
12981
12982
12983
12984
12985
12986
12987
12988
12989
12990
12991
12992
12993
12994
12995
12996
12997
12998
12999
13000
13001
13002
13003
13004
13005
13006
13007
13008
13009
13010
13011
13012
13013
13014
13015
13016
13017
13018
13019
13020
13021
13022
13023
13024
13025
13026
13027
13028
13029
13030
13031
13032
13033
13034
13035
13036
13037
13038
13039
13040
13041
13042
13043
13044
13045
13046
13047
13048
13049
13050
13051
13052
13053
13054
13055
13056
13057
13058
13059
13060
13061
13062
13063
13064
13065
13066
13067
13068
13069
13070
13071
13072
13073
13074
13075
13076
13077
13078
13079
13080
13081
13082
13083
13084
13085
13086
13087
13088
13089
13090
13091
13092
13093
13094
13095
13096
13097
13098
13099
13100
13101
13102
13103
13104
13105
13106
13107
13108
13109
13110
13111
13112
13113
13114
13115
13116
13117
13118
13119
13120
13121
13122
13123
13124
13125
13126
13127
13128
13129
13130
13131
13132
13133
13134
13135
13136
13137
13138
13139
13140
13141
13142
13143
13144
13145
13146
13147
13148
13149
13150
13151
13152
13153
13154
13155
13156
13157
13158
13159
13160
13161
13162
13163
13164
13165
13166
13167
13168
13169
13170
13171
13172
13173
13174
13175
13176
13177
13178
13179
13180
13181
13182
13183
13184
13185
13186
13187
13188
13189
13190
13191
13192
13193
13194
13195
13196
13197
13198
13199
13200
13201
13202
13203
13204
13205
13206
13207
13208
13209
13210
13211
13212
13213
13214
13215
13216
13217
13218
13219
13220
13221
13222
13223
13224
13225
13226
13227
13228
13229
13230
13231
13232
13233
13234
13235
13236
13237
13238
13239
13240
13241
13242
13243
13244
13245
13246
13247
13248
13249
13250
13251
13252
13253
13254
13255
13256
13257
13258
13259
13260
13261
13262
13263
13264
13265
13266
13267
13268
13269
13270
13271
13272
13273
13274
13275
13276
13277
13278
13279
13280
13281
13282
13283
13284
13285
13286
13287
13288
13289
13290
13291
13292
13293
13294
13295
13296
13297
13298
13299
13300
13301
13302
13303
13304
13305
13306
13307
13308
13309
13310
13311
13312
13313
13314
13315
13316
13317
13318
13319
13320
13321
13322
13323
13324
13325
13326
13327
13328
13329
13330
13331
13332
13333
13334
13335
13336
13337
13338
13339
13340
13341
13342
13343
13344
13345
13346
13347
13348
13349
13350
13351
13352
13353
13354
13355
13356
13357
13358
13359
13360
13361
13362
13363
13364
13365
13366
13367
13368
13369
13370
13371
13372
13373
13374
13375
13376
13377
13378
13379
13380
13381
13382
13383
13384
13385
13386
13387
13388
13389
13390
13391
13392
13393
13394
13395
13396
13397
13398
13399
13400
13401
13402
13403
13404
13405
13406
13407
13408
13409
13410
13411
13412
13413
13414
13415
13416
13417
13418
13419
13420
13421
13422
13423
13424
13425
13426
13427
13428
13429
13430
13431
13432
13433
13434
13435
13436
13437
13438
13439
13440
13441
13442
13443
13444
13445
13446
13447
13448
13449
13450
13451
13452
13453
13454
13455
13456
13457
13458
13459
13460
13461
13462
13463
13464
13465
13466
13467
13468
13469
13470
13471
13472
13473
13474
13475
13476
13477
13478
13479
13480
13481
13482
13483
13484
13485
13486
13487
13488
13489
13490
13491
13492
13493
13494
13495
13496
13497
13498
13499
13500
13501
13502
13503
13504
13505
13506
13507
13508
13509
13510
13511
13512
13513
13514
13515
13516
13517
13518
13519
13520
13521
13522
13523
13524
13525
13526
13527
13528
13529
13530
13531
13532
13533
13534
13535
13536
13537
13538
13539
13540
13541
13542
13543
13544
13545
13546
13547
13548
13549
13550
13551
13552
13553
13554
13555
13556
13557
13558
13559
13560
13561
13562
13563
13564
13565
13566
13567
13568
13569
13570
13571
13572
13573
13574
13575
13576
13577
13578
13579
13580
13581
13582
13583
13584
13585
13586
13587
13588
13589
13590
13591
13592
13593
13594
13595
13596
13597
13598
13599
13600
13601
13602
13603
13604
13605
13606
13607
13608
13609
13610
13611
13612
13613
13614
13615
13616
13617
13618
13619
13620
13621
13622
13623
13624
13625
13626
13627
13628
13629
13630
13631
13632
13633
13634
13635
13636
13637
13638
13639
13640
13641
13642
13643
13644
13645
13646
13647
13648
13649
13650
13651
13652
13653
13654
13655
13656
13657
13658
13659
13660
13661
13662
13663
13664
13665
13666
13667
13668
13669
13670
13671
13672
13673
13674
13675
13676
13677
13678
13679
13680
13681
13682
13683
13684
13685
13686
13687
13688
13689
13690
13691
13692
13693
13694
13695
13696
13697
13698
13699
13700
13701
13702
13703
13704
13705
13706
13707
13708
13709
13710
13711
13712
13713
13714
13715
13716
13717
13718
13719
13720
13721
13722
13723
13724
13725
13726
13727
13728
13729
13730
13731
13732
13733
13734
13735
13736
13737
13738
13739
13740
13741
13742
13743
13744
13745
13746
13747
13748
13749
13750
13751
13752
13753
13754
13755
13756
13757
13758
13759
13760
13761
13762
13763
13764
13765
13766
13767
13768
13769
13770
13771
13772
13773
13774
13775
13776
13777
13778
13779
13780
13781
13782
13783
13784
13785
13786
13787
13788
13789
13790
13791
13792
13793
13794
13795
13796
13797
13798
13799
13800
13801
13802
13803
13804
13805
13806
13807
13808
13809
13810
13811
13812
13813
13814
13815
13816
13817
13818
13819
13820
13821
13822
13823
13824
13825
13826
13827
13828
13829
13830
13831
13832
13833
13834
13835
13836
13837
13838
13839
13840
13841
13842
13843
13844
13845
13846
13847
13848
13849
13850
13851
13852
13853
13854
13855
13856
13857
13858
13859
13860
13861
13862
13863
13864
13865
13866
13867
13868
13869
13870
13871
13872
13873
13874
13875
13876
13877
13878
13879
13880
13881
13882
13883
13884
13885
13886
13887
13888
13889
13890
13891
13892
13893
13894
13895
13896
13897
13898
13899
13900
13901
13902
13903
13904
13905
13906
13907
13908
13909
13910
13911
13912
13913
13914
13915
13916
13917
13918
13919
13920
13921
13922
13923
13924
13925
13926
13927
13928
13929
13930
13931
13932
13933
13934
13935
13936
13937
13938
13939
13940
13941
13942
13943
13944
13945
13946
13947
13948
13949
13950
13951
13952
13953
13954
13955
13956
13957
13958
13959
13960
13961
13962
13963
13964
13965
13966
13967
13968
13969
13970
13971
13972
13973
13974
13975
13976
13977
13978
13979
13980
13981
13982
13983
13984
13985
13986
13987
13988
13989
13990
13991
13992
13993
13994
13995
13996
13997
13998
13999
14000
14001
14002
14003
14004
14005
14006
14007
14008
14009
14010
14011
14012
14013
14014
14015
14016
14017
14018
14019
14020
14021
14022
14023
14024
14025
14026
14027
14028
14029
14030
14031
14032
14033
14034
14035
14036
14037
14038
14039
14040
14041
14042
14043
14044
14045
14046
14047
14048
14049
14050
14051
14052
14053
14054
14055
14056
14057
14058
14059
14060
14061
14062
14063
14064
14065
14066
14067
14068
14069
14070
14071
14072
14073
14074
14075
14076
14077
14078
14079
14080
14081
14082
14083
14084
14085
14086
14087
14088
14089
14090
14091
14092
14093
14094
14095
14096
14097
14098
14099
14100
14101
14102
14103
14104
14105
14106
14107
14108
14109
14110
14111
14112
14113
14114
14115
14116
14117
14118
14119
14120
14121
14122
14123
14124
14125
14126
14127
14128
14129
14130
14131
14132
14133
14134
14135
14136
14137
14138
14139
14140
14141
14142
14143
14144
14145
14146
14147
14148
14149
14150
14151
14152
14153
14154
14155
14156
14157
14158
14159
14160
14161
14162
14163
14164
14165
14166
14167
14168
14169
14170
14171
14172
14173
14174
14175
14176
14177
14178
14179
14180
14181
14182
14183
14184
14185
14186
14187
14188
14189
14190
14191
14192
14193
14194
14195
14196
14197
14198
14199
14200
14201
14202
14203
14204
14205
14206
14207
14208
14209
14210
14211
14212
14213
14214
14215
14216
14217
14218
14219
14220
14221
14222
14223
14224
14225
14226
14227
14228
14229
14230
14231
14232
14233
14234
14235
14236
14237
14238
14239
14240
14241
14242
14243
14244
14245
14246
14247
14248
14249
14250
14251
14252
14253
14254
14255
14256
14257
14258
14259
14260
14261
14262
14263
14264
14265
14266
14267
14268
14269
14270
14271
14272
14273
14274
14275
14276
14277
14278
14279
14280
14281
14282
14283
14284
14285
14286
14287
14288
14289
14290
14291
14292
14293
14294
14295
14296
14297
14298
14299
14300
14301
14302
14303
14304
14305
14306
14307
14308
14309
14310
14311
14312
14313
14314
14315
14316
14317
14318
14319
14320
14321
14322
14323
14324
14325
14326
14327
14328
14329
14330
14331
14332
14333
14334
14335
14336
14337
14338
14339
14340
14341
14342
14343
14344
14345
14346
14347
14348
14349
14350
14351
14352
14353
14354
14355
14356
14357
14358
14359
14360
14361
14362
14363
14364
14365
14366
14367
14368
14369
14370
14371
14372
14373
14374
14375
14376
14377
14378
14379
14380
14381
14382
14383
14384
14385
14386
14387
14388
14389
14390
14391
14392
14393
14394
14395
14396
14397
14398
14399
14400
14401
14402
14403
14404
14405
14406
14407
14408
14409
14410
14411
14412
14413
14414
14415
14416
14417
14418
14419
14420
14421
14422
14423
14424
14425
14426
14427
14428
14429
14430
14431
14432
14433
14434
14435
14436
14437
14438
14439
14440
14441
14442
14443
14444
14445
14446
14447
14448
14449
14450
14451
14452
14453
14454
14455
14456
14457
14458
14459
14460
14461
14462
14463
14464
14465
14466
14467
14468
14469
14470
14471
14472
14473
14474
14475
14476
14477
14478
14479
14480
14481
14482
14483
14484
14485
14486
14487
14488
14489
14490
14491
14492
14493
14494
14495
14496
14497
14498
14499
14500
14501
14502
14503
14504
14505
14506
14507
14508
14509
14510
14511
14512
14513
14514
14515
14516
14517
14518
14519
14520
14521
14522
14523
14524
14525
14526
14527
14528
14529
14530
14531
14532
14533
14534
14535
14536
14537
14538
14539
14540
14541
14542
14543
14544
14545
14546
14547
14548
14549
14550
14551
14552
14553
14554
14555
14556
14557
14558
14559
14560
14561
14562
14563
14564
14565
14566
14567
14568
14569
14570
14571
14572
14573
14574
14575
14576
14577
14578
14579
14580
14581
14582
14583
14584
14585
14586
14587
14588
14589
14590
14591
14592
14593
14594
14595
14596
14597
14598
14599
14600
14601
14602
14603
14604
14605
14606
14607
14608
14609
14610
14611
14612
14613
14614
14615
14616
14617
14618
14619
14620
14621
14622
14623
14624
14625
14626
14627
14628
14629
14630
14631
14632
14633
14634
14635
14636
14637
14638
14639
14640
14641
14642
14643
14644
14645
14646
14647
14648
14649
14650
14651
14652
14653
14654
14655
14656
14657
14658
14659
14660
14661
14662
14663
14664
14665
14666
14667
14668
14669
14670
14671
14672
14673
14674
14675
14676
14677
14678
14679
14680
14681
14682
14683
14684
14685
14686
14687
14688
14689
14690
14691
14692
14693
14694
14695
14696
14697
14698
14699
14700
14701
14702
14703
14704
14705
14706
14707
14708
14709
14710
14711
14712
14713
14714
14715
14716
14717
14718
14719
14720
14721
14722
14723
14724
14725
14726
14727
14728
14729
14730
14731
14732
14733
14734
14735
14736
14737
14738
14739
14740
14741
14742
14743
14744
14745
14746
14747
14748
14749
14750
14751
14752
14753
14754
14755
14756
14757
14758
14759
14760
14761
14762
14763
14764
14765
14766
14767
14768
14769
14770
14771
14772
14773
14774
14775
14776
14777
14778
14779
14780
14781
14782
14783
14784
14785
14786
14787
14788
14789
14790
14791
14792
14793
14794
14795
14796
14797
14798
14799
14800
14801
14802
14803
14804
14805
14806
14807
14808
14809
14810
14811
14812
14813
14814
14815
14816
14817
14818
14819
14820
14821
14822
14823
14824
14825
14826
14827
14828
14829
14830
14831
14832
14833
14834
14835
14836
14837
14838
14839
14840
14841
14842
14843
14844
14845
14846
14847
14848
14849
14850
14851
14852
14853
14854
14855
14856
14857
14858
14859
14860
14861
14862
14863
14864
14865
14866
14867
14868
14869
14870
14871
14872
14873
14874
14875
14876
14877
14878
14879
14880
14881
14882
14883
14884
14885
14886
14887
14888
14889
14890
14891
14892
14893
14894
14895
14896
14897
14898
14899
14900
14901
14902
14903
14904
14905
14906
14907
14908
14909
14910
14911
14912
14913
14914
14915
14916
14917
14918
14919
14920
14921
14922
14923
14924
14925
14926
14927
14928
14929
14930
14931
14932
14933
14934
14935
14936
14937
14938
14939
14940
14941
14942
14943
14944
14945
14946
14947
14948
14949
14950
14951
14952
14953
14954
14955
14956
14957
14958
14959
14960
14961
14962
14963
14964
14965
14966
14967
14968
14969
14970
14971
14972
14973
14974
14975
14976
14977
14978
14979
14980
14981
14982
14983
14984
14985
14986
14987
14988
14989
14990
14991
14992
14993
14994
14995
14996
14997
14998
14999
15000
15001
15002
15003
15004
15005
15006
15007
15008
15009
15010
15011
15012
15013
15014
15015
15016
15017
15018
15019
15020
15021
15022
15023
15024
15025
15026
15027
15028
15029
15030
15031
15032
15033
15034
15035
15036
15037
15038
15039
15040
15041
15042
15043
15044
15045
15046
15047
15048
15049
15050
15051
15052
15053
15054
15055
15056
15057
15058
15059
15060
15061
15062
15063
15064
15065
15066
15067
15068
15069
15070
15071
15072
15073
15074
15075
15076
15077
15078
15079
15080
15081
15082
15083
15084
15085
15086
15087
15088
15089
15090
15091
15092
15093
15094
15095
15096
15097
15098
15099
15100
15101
15102
15103
15104
15105
15106
15107
15108
15109
15110
15111
15112
15113
15114
15115
15116
15117
15118
15119
15120
15121
15122
15123
15124
15125
15126
15127
15128
15129
15130
15131
15132
15133
15134
15135
15136
15137
15138
15139
15140
15141
15142
15143
15144
15145
15146
15147
15148
15149
15150
15151
15152
15153
15154
15155
15156
15157
15158
15159
15160
15161
15162
15163
15164
15165
15166
15167
15168
15169
15170
15171
15172
15173
15174
15175
15176
15177
15178
15179
15180
15181
15182
15183
15184
15185
15186
15187
15188
15189
15190
15191
15192
15193
15194
15195
15196
15197
15198
15199
15200
15201
15202
15203
15204
15205
15206
15207
15208
15209
15210
15211
15212
15213
15214
15215
15216
15217
15218
15219
15220
15221
15222
15223
15224
15225
15226
15227
15228
15229
15230
15231
15232
15233
15234
15235
15236
15237
15238
15239
15240
15241
15242
15243
15244
15245
15246
15247
15248
15249
15250
15251
15252
15253
15254
15255
15256
15257
15258
15259
15260
15261
15262
15263
15264
15265
15266
15267
15268
15269
15270
15271
15272
15273
15274
15275
15276
15277
15278
15279
15280
15281
15282
15283
15284
15285
15286
15287
15288
15289
15290
15291
15292
15293
15294
15295
15296
15297
15298
15299
15300
15301
15302
15303
15304
15305
15306
15307
15308
15309
15310
15311
15312
15313
15314
15315
15316
15317
15318
15319
15320
15321
15322
15323
15324
15325
15326
15327
15328
15329
15330
15331
15332
15333
15334
15335
15336
15337
15338
15339
15340
15341
15342
15343
15344
15345
15346
15347
15348
15349
15350
15351
15352
15353
15354
15355
15356
15357
15358
15359
15360
15361
15362
15363
15364
15365
15366
15367
15368
15369
15370
15371
15372
15373
15374
15375
15376
15377
15378
15379
15380
15381
15382
15383
15384
15385
15386
15387
15388
15389
15390
15391
15392
15393
15394
15395
15396
15397
15398
15399
15400
15401
15402
15403
15404
15405
15406
15407
15408
15409
15410
15411
15412
15413
15414
15415
15416
15417
15418
15419
15420
15421
15422
15423
15424
15425
15426
15427
15428
15429
15430
15431
15432
15433
15434
15435
15436
15437
15438
15439
15440
15441
15442
15443
15444
15445
15446
15447
15448
15449
15450
15451
15452
15453
15454
15455
15456
15457
15458
15459
15460
15461
15462
15463
15464
15465
15466
15467
15468
15469
15470
15471
15472
15473
15474
15475
15476
15477
15478
15479
15480
15481
15482
15483
15484
15485
15486
15487
15488
15489
15490
15491
15492
15493
15494
15495
15496
15497
15498
15499
15500
15501
15502
15503
15504
15505
15506
15507
15508
15509
15510
15511
15512
15513
15514
15515
15516
15517
15518
15519
15520
15521
15522
15523
15524
15525
15526
15527
15528
15529
15530
15531
15532
15533
15534
15535
15536
15537
15538
15539
15540
15541
15542
15543
15544
15545
15546
15547
15548
15549
15550
15551
15552
15553
15554
15555
15556
15557
15558
15559
15560
15561
15562
15563
15564
15565
15566
15567
15568
15569
15570
15571
15572
15573
15574
15575
15576
15577
15578
15579
15580
15581
15582
15583
15584
15585
15586
15587
15588
15589
15590
15591
15592
15593
15594
15595
15596
15597
15598
15599
15600
15601
15602
15603
15604
15605
15606
15607
15608
15609
15610
15611
15612
15613
15614
15615
15616
15617
15618
15619
15620
15621
15622
15623
15624
15625
15626
15627
15628
15629
15630
15631
15632
15633
15634
15635
15636
15637
15638
15639
15640
15641
15642
15643
15644
15645
15646
15647
15648
15649
15650
15651
15652
15653
15654
15655
15656
15657
15658
15659
15660
15661
15662
15663
15664
15665
15666
15667
15668
15669
15670
15671
15672
15673
15674
15675
15676
15677
15678
15679
15680
15681
15682
15683
15684
15685
15686
15687
15688
15689
15690
15691
15692
15693
15694
15695
15696
15697
15698
15699
15700
15701
15702
15703
15704
15705
15706
15707
15708
15709
15710
15711
15712
15713
15714
15715
15716
15717
15718
15719
15720
15721
15722
15723
15724
15725
15726
15727
15728
15729
15730
15731
15732
15733
15734
15735
15736
15737
15738
15739
15740
15741
15742
15743
15744
15745
15746
15747
15748
15749
15750
15751
15752
15753
15754
15755
15756
15757
15758
15759
15760
15761
15762
15763
15764
15765
15766
15767
15768
15769
15770
15771
15772
15773
15774
15775
15776
15777
15778
15779
15780
15781
15782
15783
15784
15785
15786
15787
15788
15789
15790
15791
15792
15793
15794
15795
15796
15797
15798
15799
15800
15801
15802
15803
15804
15805
15806
15807
15808
15809
15810
15811
15812
15813
15814
15815
15816
15817
15818
15819
15820
15821
15822
15823
15824
15825
15826
15827
15828
15829
15830
15831
15832
15833
15834
15835
15836
15837
15838
15839
15840
15841
15842
15843
15844
15845
15846
15847
15848
15849
15850
15851
15852
15853
15854
15855
15856
15857
15858
15859
15860
15861
15862
15863
15864
15865
15866
15867
15868
15869
15870
15871
15872
15873
15874
15875
15876
15877
15878
15879
15880
15881
15882
15883
15884
15885
15886
15887
15888
15889
15890
15891
15892
15893
15894
15895
15896
15897
15898
15899
15900
15901
15902
15903
15904
15905
15906
15907
15908
15909
15910
15911
15912
15913
15914
15915
15916
15917
15918
15919
15920
15921
15922
15923
15924
15925
15926
15927
15928
15929
15930
15931
15932
15933
15934
15935
15936
15937
15938
15939
15940
15941
15942
15943
15944
15945
15946
15947
15948
15949
15950
15951
15952
15953
15954
15955
15956
15957
15958
15959
15960
15961
15962
15963
15964
15965
15966
15967
15968
15969
15970
15971
15972
15973
15974
15975
15976
15977
15978
15979
15980
15981
15982
15983
15984
15985
15986
15987
15988
15989
15990
15991
15992
15993
15994
15995
15996
15997
15998
15999
16000
16001
16002
16003
16004
16005
16006
16007
16008
16009
16010
16011
16012
16013
16014
16015
16016
16017
16018
16019
16020
16021
16022
16023
16024
16025
16026
16027
16028
16029
16030
16031
16032
16033
16034
16035
16036
16037
16038
16039
16040
16041
16042
16043
16044
16045
16046
16047
16048
16049
16050
16051
16052
16053
16054
16055
16056
16057
16058
16059
16060
16061
16062
16063
16064
16065
16066
16067
16068
16069
16070
16071
16072
16073
16074
16075
16076
16077
16078
16079
16080
16081
16082
16083
16084
16085
16086
16087
16088
16089
16090
16091
16092
16093
16094
16095
16096
16097
16098
16099
16100
16101
16102
16103
16104
16105
16106
16107
16108
16109
16110
16111
16112
16113
16114
16115
16116
16117
16118
16119
16120
16121
16122
16123
16124
16125
16126
16127
16128
16129
16130
16131
16132
16133
16134
16135
16136
16137
16138
16139
16140
16141
16142
16143
16144
16145
16146
16147
16148
16149
16150
16151
16152
16153
16154
16155
16156
16157
16158
16159
16160
16161
16162
16163
16164
16165
16166
16167
16168
16169
16170
16171
16172
16173
16174
16175
16176
16177
16178
16179
16180
16181
16182
16183
16184
16185
16186
16187
16188
16189
16190
16191
16192
16193
16194
16195
16196
16197
16198
16199
16200
16201
16202
16203
16204
16205
16206
16207
16208
16209
16210
16211
16212
16213
16214
16215
16216
16217
16218
16219
16220
16221
16222
16223
16224
16225
16226
16227
16228
16229
16230
16231
16232
16233
16234
16235
16236
16237
16238
16239
16240
16241
16242
16243
16244
16245
16246
16247
16248
16249
16250
16251
16252
16253
16254
16255
16256
16257
16258
16259
16260
16261
16262
16263
16264
16265
16266
16267
16268
16269
16270
16271
16272
16273
16274
16275
16276
16277
16278
16279
16280
16281
16282
16283
16284
16285
16286
16287
16288
16289
16290
16291
16292
16293
16294
16295
16296
16297
16298
16299
16300
16301
16302
16303
16304
16305
16306
16307
16308
16309
16310
16311
16312
16313
16314
16315
16316
16317
16318
16319
16320
16321
16322
16323
16324
16325
16326
16327
16328
16329
16330
16331
16332
16333
16334
16335
16336
16337
16338
16339
16340
16341
16342
16343
16344
16345
16346
16347
16348
16349
16350
16351
16352
16353
16354
16355
16356
16357
16358
16359
16360
16361
16362
16363
16364
16365
16366
16367
16368
16369
16370
16371
16372
16373
16374
16375
16376
16377
16378
16379
16380
16381
16382
16383
16384
16385
16386
16387
16388
16389
16390
16391
16392
16393
16394
16395
16396
16397
16398
16399
16400
16401
16402
16403
16404
16405
16406
16407
16408
16409
16410
16411
16412
16413
16414
16415
16416
16417
16418
16419
16420
16421
16422
16423
16424
16425
16426
16427
16428
16429
16430
16431
16432
16433
16434
16435
16436
16437
16438
16439
16440
16441
16442
16443
16444
16445
16446
16447
16448
16449
16450
16451
16452
16453
16454
16455
16456
16457
16458
16459
16460
16461
16462
16463
16464
16465
16466
16467
16468
16469
16470
16471
16472
16473
16474
16475
16476
16477
16478
16479
16480
16481
16482
16483
16484
16485
16486
16487
16488
16489
16490
16491
16492
16493
16494
16495
16496
16497
16498
16499
16500
16501
16502
16503
16504
16505
16506
16507
16508
16509
16510
16511
16512
16513
16514
16515
16516
16517
16518
16519
16520
16521
16522
16523
16524
16525
16526
16527
16528
16529
16530
16531
16532
16533
16534
16535
16536
16537
16538
16539
16540
16541
16542
16543
16544
16545
16546
16547
16548
16549
16550
16551
16552
16553
16554
16555
16556
16557
16558
16559
16560
16561
16562
16563
16564
16565
16566
16567
16568
16569
16570
16571
16572
16573
16574
16575
16576
16577
16578
16579
16580
16581
16582
16583
16584
16585
16586
16587
16588
16589
16590
16591
16592
16593
16594
16595
16596
16597
16598
16599
16600
16601
16602
16603
16604
16605
16606
16607
16608
16609
16610
16611
16612
16613
16614
16615
16616
16617
16618
16619
16620
16621
16622
16623
16624
16625
16626
16627
16628
16629
16630
16631
16632
16633
16634
16635
16636
16637
16638
16639
16640
16641
16642
16643
16644
16645
16646
16647
16648
16649
16650
16651
16652
16653
16654
16655
16656
16657
16658
16659
16660
16661
16662
16663
16664
16665
16666
16667
16668
16669
16670
16671
16672
16673
16674
16675
16676
16677
16678
16679
16680
16681
16682
16683
16684
16685
16686
16687
16688
16689
16690
16691
16692
16693
16694
16695
16696
16697
16698
16699
16700
16701
16702
16703
16704
16705
16706
16707
16708
16709
16710
16711
16712
16713
16714
16715
16716
16717
16718
16719
16720
16721
16722
16723
16724
16725
16726
16727
16728
16729
16730
16731
16732
16733
16734
16735
16736
16737
16738
16739
16740
16741
16742
16743
16744
16745
16746
16747
16748
16749
16750
16751
16752
16753
16754
16755
16756
16757
16758
16759
16760
16761
16762
16763
16764
16765
16766
16767
16768
16769
16770
16771
16772
16773
16774
16775
16776
16777
16778
16779
16780
16781
16782
16783
16784
16785
16786
16787
16788
16789
16790
16791
16792
16793
16794
16795
16796
16797
16798
16799
16800
16801
16802
16803
16804
16805
16806
16807
16808
16809
16810
16811
16812
16813
16814
16815
16816
16817
16818
16819
16820
16821
16822
16823
16824
16825
16826
16827
16828
16829
16830
16831
16832
16833
16834
16835
16836
16837
16838
16839
16840
16841
16842
16843
16844
16845
16846
16847
16848
16849
16850
16851
16852
16853
16854
16855
16856
16857
16858
16859
16860
16861
16862
16863
16864
16865
16866
16867
16868
16869
16870
16871
16872
16873
16874
16875
16876
16877
16878
16879
16880
16881
16882
16883
16884
16885
16886
16887
16888
16889
16890
16891
16892
16893
16894
16895
16896
16897
16898
16899
16900
16901
16902
16903
16904
16905
16906
16907
16908
16909
16910
16911
16912
16913
16914
16915
16916
16917
16918
16919
16920
16921
16922
16923
16924
16925
16926
16927
16928
16929
16930
16931
16932
16933
16934
16935
16936
16937
16938
16939
16940
16941
16942
16943
16944
16945
16946
16947
16948
16949
16950
16951
16952
16953
16954
16955
16956
16957
16958
16959
16960
16961
16962
16963
16964
16965
16966
16967
16968
16969
16970
16971
16972
16973
16974
16975
16976
16977
16978
16979
16980
16981
16982
16983
16984
16985
16986
16987
16988
16989
16990
16991
16992
16993
16994
16995
16996
16997
16998
16999
17000
17001
17002
17003
17004
17005
17006
17007
17008
17009
17010
17011
17012
17013
17014
17015
17016
17017
17018
17019
17020
17021
17022
17023
17024
17025
17026
17027
17028
17029
17030
17031
17032
17033
17034
17035
17036
17037
17038
17039
17040
17041
17042
17043
17044
17045
17046
17047
17048
17049
17050
17051
17052
17053
17054
17055
17056
17057
17058
17059
17060
17061
17062
17063
17064
17065
17066
17067
17068
17069
17070
17071
17072
17073
17074
17075
17076
17077
17078
17079
17080
17081
17082
17083
17084
17085
17086
17087
17088
17089
17090
17091
17092
17093
17094
17095
17096
17097
17098
17099
17100
17101
17102
17103
17104
17105
17106
17107
17108
17109
17110
17111
17112
17113
17114
17115
17116
17117
17118
17119
17120
17121
17122
17123
17124
17125
17126
17127
17128
17129
17130
17131
17132
17133
17134
17135
17136
17137
17138
17139
17140
17141
17142
17143
17144
17145
17146
17147
17148
17149
17150
17151
17152
17153
17154
17155
17156
17157
17158
17159
17160
17161
17162
17163
17164
17165
17166
17167
17168
17169
17170
17171
17172
17173
17174
17175
17176
17177
17178
17179
17180
17181
17182
17183
17184
17185
17186
17187
17188
17189
17190
17191
17192
17193
17194
17195
17196
17197
17198
17199
17200
17201
17202
17203
17204
17205
17206
17207
17208
17209
17210
17211
17212
17213
17214
17215
17216
17217
17218
17219
17220
17221
17222
17223
17224
17225
17226
17227
17228
17229
17230
17231
17232
17233
17234
17235
17236
17237
17238
17239
17240
17241
17242
17243
17244
17245
17246
17247
17248
17249
17250
17251
17252
17253
17254
17255
17256
17257
17258
17259
17260
17261
17262
17263
17264
17265
17266
17267
17268
17269
17270
17271
17272
17273
17274
17275
17276
17277
17278
17279
17280
17281
17282
17283
17284
17285
17286
17287
17288
17289
17290
17291
17292
17293
17294
17295
17296
17297
17298
17299
17300
17301
17302
17303
17304
17305
17306
17307
17308
17309
17310
17311
17312
17313
17314
17315
17316
17317
17318
17319
17320
17321
17322
17323
17324
17325
17326
17327
17328
17329
17330
17331
17332
17333
17334
17335
17336
17337
17338
17339
17340
17341
17342
17343
17344
17345
17346
17347
17348
17349
17350
17351
17352
17353
17354
17355
17356
17357
17358
17359
17360
17361
17362
17363
17364
17365
17366
17367
17368
17369
17370
17371
17372
17373
17374
17375
17376
17377
17378
17379
17380
17381
17382
17383
17384
17385
17386
17387
17388
17389
17390
17391
17392
17393
17394
17395
17396
17397
17398
17399
17400
17401
17402
17403
17404
17405
17406
17407
17408
17409
17410
17411
17412
17413
17414
17415
17416
17417
17418
17419
17420
17421
17422
17423
17424
17425
17426
17427
17428
17429
17430
17431
17432
17433
17434
17435
17436
17437
17438
17439
17440
17441
17442
17443
17444
17445
17446
17447
17448
17449
17450
17451
17452
17453
17454
17455
17456
17457
17458
17459
17460
17461
17462
17463
17464
17465
17466
17467
17468
17469
17470
17471
17472
17473
17474
17475
17476
17477
17478
17479
17480
17481
17482
17483
17484
17485
17486
17487
17488
17489
17490
17491
17492
17493
17494
17495
17496
17497
17498
17499
17500
17501
17502
17503
17504
17505
17506
17507
17508
17509
17510
17511
17512
17513
17514
17515
17516
17517
17518
17519
17520
17521
17522
17523
17524
17525
17526
17527
17528
17529
17530
17531
17532
17533
17534
17535
17536
17537
17538
17539
17540
17541
17542
17543
17544
17545
17546
17547
17548
17549
17550
17551
17552
17553
17554
17555
17556
17557
17558
17559
17560
17561
17562
17563
17564
17565
17566
17567
17568
17569
17570
17571
17572
17573
17574
17575
17576
17577
17578
17579
17580
17581
17582
17583
17584
17585
17586
17587
17588
17589
17590
17591
17592
17593
17594
17595
17596
17597
17598
17599
17600
17601
17602
17603
17604
17605
17606
17607
17608
17609
17610
17611
17612
17613
17614
17615
17616
17617
17618
17619
17620
17621
17622
17623
17624
17625
17626
17627
17628
17629
17630
17631
17632
17633
17634
17635
17636
17637
17638
17639
17640
17641
17642
17643
17644
17645
17646
17647
17648
17649
17650
17651
17652
17653
17654
17655
17656
17657
17658
17659
17660
17661
17662
17663
17664
17665
17666
17667
17668
17669
17670
17671
17672
17673
17674
17675
17676
17677
17678
17679
17680
17681
17682
17683
17684
17685
17686
17687
17688
17689
17690
17691
17692
17693
17694
17695
17696
17697
17698
17699
17700
17701
17702
17703
17704
17705
17706
17707
17708
17709
17710
17711
17712
17713
17714
17715
17716
17717
17718
17719
17720
17721
17722
17723
17724
17725
17726
17727
17728
17729
17730
17731
17732
17733
17734
17735
17736
17737
17738
17739
17740
17741
17742
17743
17744
17745
17746
17747
17748
17749
17750
17751
17752
17753
17754
17755
17756
17757
17758
17759
17760
17761
17762
17763
17764
17765
17766
17767
17768
17769
17770
17771
17772
17773
17774
17775
17776
17777
17778
17779
17780
17781
17782
17783
17784
17785
17786
17787
17788
17789
17790
17791
17792
17793
17794
17795
17796
17797
17798
17799
17800
17801
17802
17803
17804
17805
17806
17807
17808
17809
17810
17811
17812
17813
17814
17815
17816
17817
17818
17819
17820
17821
17822
17823
17824
17825
17826
17827
17828
17829
17830
17831
17832
17833
17834
17835
17836
17837
17838
17839
17840
17841
17842
17843
17844
17845
17846
17847
17848
17849
17850
17851
17852
17853
17854
17855
17856
17857
17858
17859
17860
17861
17862
17863
17864
17865
17866
17867
17868
17869
17870
17871
17872
17873
17874
17875
17876
17877
17878
17879
17880
17881
17882
17883
17884
17885
17886
17887
17888
17889
17890
17891
17892
17893
17894
17895
17896
17897
17898
17899
17900
17901
17902
17903
17904
17905
17906
17907
17908
17909
17910
17911
17912
17913
17914
17915
17916
17917
17918
17919
17920
17921
17922
17923
17924
17925
17926
17927
17928
17929
17930
17931
17932
17933
17934
17935
17936
17937
17938
17939
17940
17941
17942
17943
17944
17945
17946
17947
17948
17949
17950
17951
17952
17953
17954
17955
17956
17957
17958
17959
17960
17961
17962
17963
17964
17965
17966
17967
17968
17969
17970
17971
17972
17973
17974
17975
17976
17977
17978
17979
17980
17981
17982
17983
17984
17985
17986
17987
17988
17989
17990
17991
17992
17993
17994
17995
17996
17997
17998
17999
18000
18001
18002
18003
18004
18005
18006
18007
18008
18009
18010
18011
18012
18013
18014
18015
18016
18017
18018
18019
18020
18021
18022
18023
18024
18025
18026
18027
18028
18029
18030
18031
18032
18033
18034
18035
18036
18037
18038
18039
18040
18041
18042
18043
18044
18045
18046
18047
18048
18049
18050
18051
18052
18053
18054
18055
18056
18057
18058
18059
18060
18061
18062
18063
18064
18065
18066
18067
18068
18069
18070
18071
18072
18073
18074
18075
18076
18077
18078
18079
18080
18081
18082
18083
18084
18085
18086
18087
18088
18089
18090
18091
18092
18093
18094
18095
18096
18097
18098
18099
18100
18101
18102
18103
18104
18105
18106
18107
18108
18109
18110
18111
18112
18113
18114
18115
18116
18117
18118
18119
18120
18121
18122
18123
18124
18125
18126
18127
18128
18129
18130
18131
18132
18133
18134
18135
18136
18137
18138
18139
18140
18141
18142
18143
18144
18145
18146
18147
18148
18149
18150
18151
18152
18153
18154
18155
18156
18157
18158
18159
18160
18161
18162
18163
18164
18165
18166
18167
18168
18169
18170
18171
18172
18173
18174
18175
18176
18177
18178
18179
18180
18181
18182
18183
18184
18185
18186
18187
18188
18189
18190
18191
18192
18193
18194
18195
18196
18197
18198
18199
18200
18201
18202
18203
18204
18205
18206
18207
18208
18209
18210
18211
18212
18213
18214
18215
18216
18217
18218
18219
18220
18221
18222
18223
18224
18225
18226
18227
18228
18229
18230
18231
18232
18233
18234
18235
18236
18237
18238
18239
18240
18241
18242
18243
18244
18245
18246
18247
18248
18249
18250
18251
18252
18253
18254
18255
18256
18257
18258
18259
18260
18261
18262
18263
18264
18265
18266
18267
18268
18269
18270
18271
18272
18273
18274
18275
18276
18277
18278
18279
18280
18281
18282
18283
18284
18285
18286
18287
18288
18289
18290
18291
18292
18293
18294
18295
18296
18297
18298
18299
18300
18301
18302
18303
18304
18305
18306
18307
18308
18309
18310
18311
18312
18313
18314
18315
18316
18317
18318
18319
18320
18321
18322
18323
18324
18325
18326
18327
18328
18329
18330
18331
18332
18333
18334
18335
18336
18337
18338
18339
18340
18341
18342
18343
18344
18345
18346
18347
18348
18349
18350
18351
18352
18353
18354
18355
18356
18357
18358
18359
18360
18361
18362
18363
18364
18365
18366
18367
18368
18369
18370
18371
18372
18373
18374
18375
18376
18377
18378
18379
18380
18381
18382
18383
18384
18385
18386
18387
18388
18389
18390
18391
18392
18393
18394
18395
18396
18397
18398
18399
18400
18401
18402
18403
18404
18405
18406
18407
18408
18409
18410
18411
18412
18413
18414
18415
18416
18417
18418
18419
18420
18421
18422
18423
18424
18425
18426
18427
18428
18429
18430
18431
18432
18433
18434
18435
18436
18437
18438
18439
18440
18441
18442
18443
18444
18445
18446
18447
18448
18449
18450
18451
18452
18453
18454
18455
18456
18457
18458
18459
18460
18461
18462
18463
18464
18465
18466
18467
18468
18469
18470
18471
18472
18473
18474
18475
18476
18477
18478
18479
18480
18481
18482
18483
18484
18485
18486
18487
18488
18489
18490
18491
18492
18493
18494
18495
18496
18497
18498
18499
18500
18501
18502
18503
18504
18505
18506
18507
18508
18509
18510
18511
18512
18513
18514
18515
18516
18517
18518
18519
18520
18521
18522
18523
18524
18525
18526
18527
18528
18529
18530
18531
18532
18533
18534
18535
18536
18537
18538
18539
18540
18541
18542
18543
18544
18545
18546
18547
18548
18549
18550
18551
18552
18553
18554
18555
18556
18557
18558
18559
18560
18561
18562
18563
18564
18565
18566
18567
18568
18569
18570
18571
18572
18573
18574
18575
18576
18577
18578
18579
18580
18581
18582
18583
18584
18585
18586
18587
18588
18589
18590
18591
18592
18593
18594
18595
18596
18597
18598
18599
18600
18601
18602
18603
18604
18605
18606
18607
18608
18609
18610
18611
18612
18613
18614
18615
18616
18617
18618
18619
18620
18621
18622
18623
18624
18625
18626
18627
18628
18629
18630
18631
18632
18633
18634
18635
18636
18637
18638
18639
18640
18641
18642
18643
18644
18645
18646
18647
18648
18649
18650
18651
18652
18653
18654
18655
18656
18657
18658
18659
18660
18661
18662
18663
18664
18665
18666
18667
18668
18669
18670
18671
18672
18673
18674
18675
18676
18677
18678
18679
18680
18681
18682
18683
18684
18685
18686
18687
18688
18689
18690
18691
18692
18693
18694
18695
18696
18697
18698
18699
18700
18701
18702
18703
18704
18705
18706
18707
18708
18709
18710
18711
18712
18713
18714
18715
18716
18717
18718
18719
18720
18721
18722
18723
18724
18725
18726
18727
18728
18729
18730
18731
18732
18733
18734
18735
18736
18737
18738
18739
18740
18741
18742
18743
18744
18745
18746
18747
18748
18749
18750
18751
18752
18753
18754
18755
18756
18757
18758
18759
18760
18761
18762
18763
18764
18765
18766
18767
18768
18769
18770
18771
18772
18773
18774
18775
18776
18777
18778
18779
18780
18781
18782
18783
18784
18785
18786
18787
18788
18789
18790
18791
18792
18793
18794
18795
18796
18797
18798
18799
18800
18801
18802
18803
18804
18805
18806
18807
18808
18809
18810
18811
18812
18813
18814
18815
18816
18817
18818
18819
18820
18821
18822
18823
18824
18825
18826
18827
18828
18829
18830
18831
18832
18833
18834
18835
18836
18837
18838
18839
18840
18841
18842
18843
18844
18845
18846
18847
18848
18849
18850
18851
18852
18853
18854
18855
18856
18857
18858
18859
18860
18861
18862
18863
18864
18865
18866
18867
18868
18869
18870
18871
18872
18873
18874
18875
18876
18877
18878
18879
18880
18881
18882
18883
18884
18885
18886
18887
18888
18889
18890
18891
18892
18893
18894
18895
18896
18897
18898
18899
18900
18901
18902
18903
18904
18905
18906
18907
18908
18909
18910
18911
18912
18913
18914
18915
18916
18917
18918
18919
18920
18921
18922
18923
18924
18925
18926
18927
18928
18929
18930
18931
18932
18933
18934
18935
18936
18937
18938
18939
18940
18941
18942
18943
18944
18945
18946
18947
18948
18949
18950
18951
18952
18953
18954
18955
18956
18957
18958
18959
18960
18961
18962
18963
18964
18965
18966
18967
18968
18969
18970
18971
18972
18973
18974
18975
18976
18977
18978
18979
18980
18981
18982
18983
18984
18985
18986
18987
18988
18989
18990
18991
18992
18993
18994
18995
18996
18997
18998
18999
19000
19001
19002
19003
19004
19005
19006
19007
19008
19009
19010
19011
19012
19013
19014
19015
19016
19017
19018
19019
19020
19021
19022
19023
19024
19025
19026
19027
19028
19029
19030
19031
19032
19033
19034
19035
19036
19037
19038
19039
19040
19041
19042
19043
19044
19045
19046
19047
19048
19049
19050
19051
19052
19053
19054
19055
19056
19057
19058
19059
19060
19061
19062
19063
19064
19065
19066
19067
19068
19069
19070
19071
19072
19073
19074
19075
19076
19077
19078
19079
19080
19081
19082
19083
19084
19085
19086
19087
19088
19089
19090
19091
19092
19093
19094
19095
19096
19097
19098
19099
19100
19101
19102
19103
19104
19105
19106
19107
19108
19109
19110
19111
19112
19113
19114
19115
19116
19117
19118
19119
19120
19121
19122
19123
19124
19125
19126
19127
19128
19129
19130
19131
19132
19133
19134
19135
19136
19137
19138
19139
19140
19141
19142
19143
19144
19145
19146
19147
19148
19149
19150
19151
19152
19153
19154
19155
19156
19157
19158
19159
19160
19161
19162
19163
19164
19165
19166
19167
19168
19169
19170
19171
19172
19173
19174
19175
19176
19177
19178
19179
19180
19181
19182
19183
19184
19185
19186
19187
19188
19189
19190
19191
19192
19193
19194
19195
19196
19197
19198
19199
19200
19201
19202
19203
19204
19205
19206
19207
19208
19209
19210
19211
19212
19213
19214
19215
19216
19217
19218
19219
19220
19221
19222
19223
19224
19225
19226
19227
19228
19229
19230
19231
19232
19233
19234
19235
19236
19237
19238
19239
19240
19241
19242
19243
19244
19245
19246
19247
19248
19249
19250
19251
19252
19253
19254
19255
19256
19257
19258
19259
19260
19261
19262
19263
19264
19265
19266
19267
19268
19269
19270
19271
19272
19273
19274
19275
19276
19277
19278
19279
19280
19281
19282
19283
19284
19285
19286
19287
19288
19289
19290
19291
19292
19293
19294
19295
19296
19297
19298
19299
19300
19301
19302
19303
19304
19305
19306
19307
19308
19309
19310
19311
19312
19313
19314
19315
19316
19317
19318
19319
19320
19321
19322
19323
19324
19325
19326
19327
19328
19329
19330
19331
19332
19333
19334
19335
19336
19337
19338
19339
19340
19341
19342
19343
19344
19345
19346
19347
19348
19349
19350
19351
19352
19353
19354
19355
19356
19357
19358
19359
19360
19361
19362
19363
19364
19365
19366
19367
19368
19369
19370
19371
19372
19373
19374
19375
19376
19377
19378
19379
19380
19381
19382
19383
19384
19385
19386
19387
19388
19389
19390
19391
19392
19393
19394
19395
19396
19397
19398
19399
19400
19401
19402
19403
19404
19405
19406
19407
19408
19409
19410
19411
19412
19413
19414
19415
19416
19417
19418
19419
19420
19421
19422
19423
19424
19425
19426
19427
19428
19429
19430
19431
19432
19433
19434
19435
19436
19437
19438
19439
19440
19441
19442
19443
19444
19445
19446
19447
19448
19449
19450
19451
19452
19453
19454
19455
19456
19457
19458
19459
19460
19461
19462
19463
19464
19465
19466
19467
19468
19469
19470
19471
19472
19473
19474
19475
19476
19477
19478
19479
19480
19481
19482
19483
19484
19485
19486
19487
19488
19489
19490
19491
19492
19493
19494
19495
19496
19497
19498
19499
19500
19501
19502
19503
19504
19505
19506
19507
19508
19509
19510
19511
19512
19513
19514
19515
19516
19517
19518
19519
19520
19521
19522
19523
19524
19525
19526
19527
19528
19529
19530
19531
19532
19533
19534
19535
19536
19537
19538
19539
19540
19541
19542
19543
19544
19545
19546
19547
19548
19549
19550
19551
19552
19553
19554
19555
19556
19557
19558
19559
19560
19561
19562
19563
19564
19565
19566
19567
19568
19569
19570
19571
19572
19573
19574
19575
19576
19577
19578
19579
19580
19581
19582
19583
19584
19585
19586
19587
19588
19589
19590
19591
19592
19593
19594
19595
19596
19597
19598
19599
19600
19601
19602
19603
19604
19605
19606
19607
19608
19609
19610
19611
19612
19613
19614
19615
19616
19617
19618
19619
19620
19621
19622
19623
19624
19625
19626
19627
19628
19629
19630
19631
19632
19633
19634
19635
19636
19637
19638
19639
19640
19641
19642
19643
19644
19645
19646
19647
19648
19649
19650
19651
19652
19653
19654
19655
19656
19657
19658
19659
19660
19661
19662
19663
19664
19665
19666
19667
19668
19669
19670
19671
19672
19673
19674
19675
19676
19677
19678
19679
19680
19681
19682
19683
19684
19685
19686
19687
19688
19689
19690
19691
19692
19693
19694
19695
19696
19697
19698
19699
19700
19701
19702
19703
19704
19705
19706
19707
19708
19709
19710
19711
19712
19713
19714
19715
19716
19717
19718
19719
19720
19721
19722
19723
19724
19725
19726
19727
19728
19729
19730
19731
19732
19733
19734
19735
19736
19737
19738
19739
19740
19741
19742
19743
19744
19745
19746
19747
19748
19749
19750
19751
19752
19753
19754
19755
19756
19757
19758
19759
19760
19761
19762
19763
19764
19765
19766
19767
19768
19769
19770
19771
19772
19773
19774
19775
19776
19777
19778
19779
19780
19781
19782
19783
19784
19785
19786
19787
19788
19789
19790
19791
19792
19793
19794
19795
19796
19797
19798
19799
19800
19801
19802
19803
19804
19805
19806
19807
19808
19809
19810
19811
19812
19813
19814
19815
19816
19817
19818
19819
19820
19821
19822
19823
19824
19825
19826
19827
19828
19829
19830
19831
19832
19833
19834
19835
19836
19837
19838
19839
19840
19841
19842
19843
19844
19845
19846
19847
19848
19849
19850
19851
19852
19853
19854
19855
19856
19857
19858
19859
19860
19861
19862
19863
19864
19865
19866
19867
19868
19869
19870
19871
19872
19873
19874
19875
19876
19877
19878
19879
19880
19881
19882
19883
19884
19885
19886
19887
19888
19889
19890
19891
19892
19893
19894
19895
19896
19897
19898
19899
19900
19901
19902
19903
19904
19905
19906
19907
19908
19909
19910
19911
19912
19913
19914
19915
19916
19917
19918
19919
19920
19921
19922
19923
19924
19925
19926
19927
19928
19929
19930
19931
19932
19933
19934
19935
19936
19937
19938
19939
19940
19941
19942
19943
19944
19945
19946
19947
19948
19949
19950
19951
19952
19953
19954
19955
19956
19957
19958
19959
19960
19961
19962
19963
19964
19965
19966
19967
19968
19969
19970
19971
19972
19973
19974
19975
19976
19977
19978
19979
19980
19981
19982
19983
19984
19985
19986
19987
19988
19989
19990
19991
19992
19993
19994
19995
19996
19997
19998
19999
20000
20001
20002
20003
20004
20005
20006
20007
20008
20009
20010
20011
20012
20013
20014
20015
20016
20017
20018
20019
20020
20021
20022
20023
20024
20025
20026
20027
20028
20029
20030
20031
20032
20033
20034
20035
20036
20037
20038
20039
20040
20041
20042
20043
20044
20045
20046
20047
20048
20049
20050
20051
20052
20053
20054
20055
20056
20057
20058
20059
20060
20061
20062
20063
20064
20065
20066
20067
20068
20069
20070
20071
20072
20073
20074
20075
20076
20077
20078
20079
20080
20081
20082
20083
20084
20085
20086
20087
20088
20089
20090
20091
20092
20093
20094
20095
20096
20097
20098
20099
20100
20101
20102
20103
20104
20105
20106
20107
20108
20109
20110
20111
20112
20113
20114
20115
20116
20117
20118
20119
20120
20121
20122
20123
20124
20125
20126
20127
20128
20129
20130
20131
20132
20133
20134
20135
20136
20137
20138
20139
20140
20141
20142
20143
20144
20145
20146
20147
20148
20149
20150
20151
20152
20153
20154
20155
20156
20157
20158
20159
20160
20161
20162
20163
20164
20165
20166
20167
20168
20169
20170
20171
20172
20173
20174
20175
20176
20177
20178
20179
20180
20181
20182
20183
20184
20185
20186
20187
20188
20189
20190
20191
20192
20193
20194
20195
20196
20197
20198
20199
20200
20201
20202
20203
20204
20205
20206
20207
20208
20209
20210
20211
20212
20213
20214
20215
20216
20217
20218
20219
20220
20221
20222
20223
20224
20225
20226
20227
20228
20229
20230
20231
20232
20233
20234
20235
20236
20237
20238
20239
20240
20241
20242
20243
20244
20245
20246
20247
20248
20249
20250
20251
20252
20253
20254
20255
20256
20257
20258
20259
20260
20261
20262
20263
20264
20265
20266
20267
20268
20269
20270
20271
20272
20273
20274
20275
20276
20277
20278
20279
20280
20281
20282
20283
20284
20285
20286
20287
20288
20289
20290
20291
20292
20293
20294
20295
20296
20297
20298
20299
20300
20301
20302
20303
20304
20305
20306
20307
20308
20309
20310
20311
20312
20313
20314
20315
20316
20317
20318
20319
20320
20321
20322
20323
20324
20325
20326
20327
20328
20329
20330
20331
20332
20333
20334
20335
20336
20337
20338
20339
20340
20341
20342
20343
20344
20345
20346
20347
20348
20349
20350
20351
20352
20353
20354
20355
20356
20357
20358
20359
20360
20361
20362
20363
20364
20365
20366
20367
20368
20369
20370
20371
20372
20373
20374
20375
20376
20377
20378
20379
20380
20381
20382
20383
20384
20385
20386
20387
20388
20389
20390
20391
20392
20393
20394
20395
20396
20397
20398
20399
20400
20401
20402
20403
20404
20405
20406
20407
20408
20409
20410
20411
20412
20413
20414
20415
20416
20417
20418
20419
20420
20421
20422
20423
20424
20425
20426
20427
20428
20429
20430
20431
20432
20433
20434
20435
20436
20437
20438
20439
20440
20441
20442
20443
20444
20445
20446
20447
20448
20449
20450
20451
20452
20453
20454
20455
20456
20457
20458
20459
20460
20461
20462
20463
20464
20465
20466
20467
20468
20469
20470
20471
20472
20473
20474
20475
20476
20477
20478
20479
20480
20481
20482
20483
20484
20485
20486
20487
20488
20489
20490
20491
20492
20493
20494
20495
20496
20497
20498
20499
20500
20501
20502
20503
20504
20505
20506
20507
20508
20509
20510
20511
20512
20513
20514
20515
20516
20517
20518
20519
20520
20521
20522
20523
20524
20525
20526
20527
20528
20529
20530
20531
20532
20533
20534
20535
20536
20537
20538
20539
20540
20541
20542
20543
20544
20545
20546
20547
20548
20549
20550
20551
20552
20553
20554
20555
20556
20557
20558
20559
20560
20561
20562
20563
20564
20565
20566
20567
20568
20569
20570
20571
20572
20573
20574
20575
20576
20577
20578
20579
20580
20581
20582
20583
20584
20585
20586
20587
20588
20589
20590
20591
20592
20593
20594
20595
20596
20597
20598
20599
20600
20601
20602
20603
20604
20605
20606
20607
20608
20609
20610
20611
20612
20613
20614
20615
20616
20617
20618
20619
20620
20621
20622
20623
20624
20625
20626
20627
20628
20629
20630
20631
20632
20633
20634
20635
20636
20637
20638
20639
20640
20641
20642
20643
20644
20645
20646
20647
20648
20649
20650
20651
20652
20653
20654
20655
20656
20657
20658
20659
20660
20661
20662
20663
20664
20665
20666
20667
20668
20669
20670
20671
20672
20673
20674
20675
20676
20677
20678
20679
20680
20681
20682
20683
20684
20685
20686
20687
20688
20689
20690
20691
20692
20693
20694
20695
20696
20697
20698
20699
20700
20701
20702
20703
20704
20705
20706
20707
20708
20709
20710
20711
20712
20713
20714
20715
20716
20717
20718
20719
20720
20721
20722
20723
20724
20725
20726
20727
20728
20729
20730
20731
20732
20733
20734
20735
20736
20737
20738
20739
20740
20741
20742
20743
20744
20745
20746
20747
20748
20749
20750
20751
20752
20753
20754
20755
20756
20757
20758
20759
20760
20761
20762
20763
20764
20765
20766
20767
20768
20769
20770
20771
20772
20773
20774
20775
20776
20777
20778
20779
20780
20781
20782
20783
20784
20785
20786
20787
20788
20789
20790
20791
20792
20793
20794
20795
20796
20797
20798
20799
20800
20801
20802
20803
20804
20805
20806
20807
20808
20809
20810
20811
20812
20813
20814
20815
20816
20817
20818
20819
20820
20821
20822
20823
20824
20825
20826
20827
20828
20829
20830
20831
20832
20833
20834
20835
20836
20837
20838
20839
20840
20841
20842
20843
20844
20845
20846
20847
20848
20849
20850
20851
20852
20853
20854
20855
20856
20857
20858
20859
20860
20861
20862
20863
20864
20865
20866
20867
20868
20869
20870
20871
20872
20873
20874
20875
20876
20877
20878
20879
20880
20881
20882
20883
20884
20885
20886
20887
20888
20889
20890
20891
20892
20893
20894
20895
20896
20897
20898
20899
20900
20901
20902
20903
20904
20905
20906
20907
20908
20909
20910
20911
20912
20913
20914
20915
20916
20917
20918
20919
20920
20921
20922
20923
20924
20925
20926
20927
20928
20929
20930
20931
20932
20933
20934
20935
20936
20937
20938
20939
20940
20941
20942
20943
20944
20945
20946
20947
20948
20949
20950
20951
20952
20953
20954
20955
20956
20957
20958
20959
20960
20961
20962
20963
20964
20965
20966
20967
20968
20969
20970
20971
20972
20973
20974
20975
20976
20977
20978
20979
20980
20981
20982
20983
20984
20985
20986
20987
20988
20989
20990
20991
20992
20993
20994
20995
20996
20997
20998
20999
21000
21001
21002
21003
21004
21005
21006
21007
21008
21009
21010
21011
21012
21013
21014
21015
21016
21017
21018
21019
21020
21021
21022
21023
21024
21025
21026
21027
21028
21029
21030
21031
21032
21033
21034
21035
21036
21037
21038
21039
21040
21041
21042
21043
21044
21045
21046
21047
21048
21049
21050
21051
21052
21053
21054
21055
21056
21057
21058
21059
21060
21061
21062
21063
21064
21065
21066
21067
21068
21069
21070
21071
21072
21073
21074
21075
21076
21077
21078
21079
21080
21081
21082
21083
21084
21085
21086
21087
21088
21089
21090
21091
21092
21093
21094
21095
21096
21097
21098
21099
21100
21101
21102
21103
21104
21105
21106
21107
21108
21109
21110
21111
21112
21113
21114
21115
21116
21117
21118
21119
21120
21121
21122
21123
21124
21125
21126
21127
21128
21129
21130
21131
21132
21133
21134
21135
21136
21137
21138
21139
21140
21141
21142
21143
21144
21145
21146
21147
21148
21149
21150
21151
21152
21153
21154
21155
21156
21157
21158
21159
21160
21161
21162
21163
21164
21165
21166
21167
21168
21169
21170
21171
21172
21173
21174
21175
21176
21177
21178
21179
21180
21181
21182
21183
21184
21185
21186
21187
21188
21189
21190
21191
21192
21193
21194
21195
21196
21197
21198
21199
21200
21201
21202
21203
21204
21205
21206
21207
21208
21209
21210
21211
21212
21213
21214
21215
21216
21217
21218
21219
21220
21221
21222
21223
21224
21225
21226
21227
21228
21229
21230
21231
21232
21233
21234
21235
21236
21237
21238
21239
21240
21241
21242
21243
21244
21245
21246
21247
21248
21249
21250
21251
21252
21253
21254
21255
21256
21257
21258
21259
21260
21261
21262
21263
21264
21265
21266
21267
21268
21269
21270
21271
21272
21273
21274
21275
21276
21277
21278
21279
21280
21281
21282
21283
21284
21285
21286
21287
21288
21289
21290
21291
21292
21293
21294
21295
21296
21297
21298
21299
21300
21301
21302
21303
21304
21305
21306
21307
21308
21309
21310
21311
21312
21313
21314
21315
21316
21317
21318
21319
21320
21321
21322
21323
21324
21325
21326
21327
21328
21329
21330
21331
21332
21333
21334
21335
21336
21337
21338
21339
21340
21341
21342
21343
21344
21345
21346
21347
21348
21349
21350
21351
21352
21353
21354
21355
21356
21357
21358
21359
21360
21361
21362
21363
21364
21365
21366
21367
21368
21369
21370
21371
21372
21373
21374
21375
21376
21377
21378
21379
21380
21381
21382
21383
21384
21385
21386
21387
21388
21389
21390
21391
21392
21393
21394
21395
21396
21397
21398
21399
21400
21401
21402
21403
21404
21405
21406
21407
21408
21409
21410
21411
21412
21413
21414
21415
21416
21417
21418
21419
21420
21421
21422
21423
21424
21425
21426
21427
21428
21429
21430
21431
21432
21433
21434
21435
21436
21437
21438
21439
21440
21441
21442
21443
21444
21445
21446
21447
21448
21449
21450
21451
21452
21453
21454
21455
21456
21457
21458
21459
21460
21461
21462
21463
21464
21465
21466
21467
21468
21469
21470
21471
21472
21473
21474
21475
21476
21477
21478
21479
21480
21481
21482
21483
21484
21485
21486
21487
21488
21489
21490
21491
21492
21493
21494
21495
21496
21497
21498
21499
21500
21501
21502
21503
21504
21505
21506
21507
21508
21509
21510
21511
21512
21513
21514
21515
21516
21517
21518
21519
21520
21521
21522
21523
21524
21525
21526
21527
21528
21529
21530
21531
21532
21533
21534
21535
21536
21537
21538
21539
21540
21541
21542
21543
21544
21545
21546
21547
21548
21549
21550
21551
21552
21553
21554
21555
21556
21557
21558
21559
21560
21561
21562
21563
21564
21565
21566
21567
21568
21569
21570
21571
21572
21573
21574
21575
21576
21577
21578
21579
21580
21581
21582
21583
21584
21585
21586
21587
21588
21589
21590
21591
21592
21593
21594
21595
21596
21597
21598
21599
21600
21601
21602
21603
21604
21605
21606
21607
21608
21609
21610
21611
21612
21613
21614
21615
21616
21617
21618
21619
21620
21621
21622
21623
21624
21625
21626
21627
21628
21629
21630
21631
21632
21633
21634
21635
21636
21637
21638
21639
21640
21641
21642
21643
21644
21645
21646
21647
21648
21649
21650
21651
21652
21653
21654
21655
21656
21657
21658
21659
21660
21661
21662
21663
21664
21665
21666
21667
21668
21669
21670
21671
21672
21673
21674
21675
21676
21677
21678
21679
21680
21681
21682
21683
21684
21685
21686
21687
21688
21689
21690
21691
21692
21693
21694
21695
21696
21697
21698
21699
21700
21701
21702
21703
21704
21705
21706
21707
21708
21709
21710
21711
21712
21713
21714
21715
21716
21717
21718
21719
21720
21721
21722
21723
21724
21725
21726
21727
21728
21729
21730
21731
21732
21733
21734
21735
21736
21737
21738
21739
21740
21741
21742
21743
21744
21745
21746
21747
21748
21749
21750
21751
21752
21753
21754
21755
21756
21757
21758
21759
21760
21761
21762
21763
21764
21765
21766
21767
21768
21769
21770
21771
21772
21773
21774
21775
21776
21777
21778
21779
21780
21781
21782
21783
21784
21785
21786
21787
21788
21789
21790
21791
21792
21793
21794
21795
21796
21797
21798
21799
21800
21801
21802
21803
21804
21805
21806
21807
21808
21809
21810
21811
21812
21813
21814
21815
21816
21817
21818
21819
21820
21821
21822
21823
21824
21825
21826
21827
21828
21829
21830
21831
21832
21833
21834
21835
21836
21837
21838
21839
21840
21841
21842
21843
21844
21845
21846
21847
21848
21849
21850
21851
21852
21853
21854
21855
21856
21857
21858
21859
21860
21861
21862
21863
21864
21865
21866
21867
21868
21869
21870
21871
21872
21873
21874
21875
21876
21877
21878
21879
21880
21881
21882
21883
21884
21885
21886
21887
21888
21889
21890
21891
21892
21893
21894
21895
21896
21897
21898
21899
21900
21901
21902
21903
21904
21905
21906
21907
21908
21909
21910
21911
21912
21913
21914
21915
21916
21917
21918
21919
21920
21921
21922
21923
21924
21925
21926
21927
21928
21929
21930
21931
21932
21933
21934
21935
21936
21937
21938
21939
21940
21941
21942
21943
21944
21945
21946
21947
21948
21949
21950
21951
21952
21953
21954
21955
21956
21957
21958
21959
21960
21961
21962
21963
21964
21965
21966
21967
21968
21969
21970
21971
21972
21973
21974
21975
21976
21977
21978
21979
21980
21981
21982
21983
21984
21985
21986
21987
21988
21989
21990
21991
21992
21993
21994
21995
21996
21997
21998
21999
22000
22001
22002
22003
22004
22005
22006
22007
22008
22009
22010
22011
22012
22013
22014
22015
22016
22017
22018
22019
22020
22021
22022
22023
22024
22025
22026
22027
22028
22029
22030
22031
22032
22033
22034
22035
22036
22037
22038
22039
22040
22041
22042
22043
22044
22045
22046
22047
22048
22049
22050
22051
22052
22053
22054
22055
22056
22057
22058
22059
22060
22061
22062
22063
22064
22065
22066
22067
22068
22069
22070
22071
22072
22073
22074
22075
22076
22077
22078
22079
22080
22081
22082
22083
22084
22085
22086
22087
22088
22089
22090
22091
22092
22093
22094
22095
22096
22097
22098
22099
22100
22101
22102
22103
22104
22105
22106
22107
22108
22109
22110
22111
22112
22113
22114
22115
22116
22117
22118
22119
22120
22121
22122
22123
22124
22125
22126
22127
22128
22129
22130
22131
22132
22133
22134
22135
22136
22137
22138
22139
22140
22141
22142
22143
22144
22145
22146
22147
22148
22149
22150
22151
22152
22153
22154
22155
22156
22157
22158
22159
22160
22161
22162
22163
22164
22165
22166
22167
22168
22169
22170
22171
22172
22173
22174
22175
22176
22177
22178
22179
22180
22181
22182
22183
22184
22185
22186
22187
22188
22189
22190
22191
22192
22193
22194
22195
22196
22197
22198
22199
22200
22201
22202
22203
22204
22205
22206
22207
22208
22209
22210
22211
22212
22213
22214
22215
22216
22217
22218
22219
22220
22221
22222
22223
22224
22225
22226
22227
22228
22229
22230
22231
22232
22233
22234
22235
22236
22237
22238
22239
22240
22241
22242
22243
22244
22245
22246
22247
22248
22249
22250
22251
22252
22253
22254
22255
22256
22257
22258
22259
22260
22261
22262
22263
22264
22265
22266
22267
22268
22269
22270
22271
22272
22273
22274
22275
22276
22277
22278
22279
22280
22281
22282
22283
22284
22285
22286
22287
22288
22289
22290
22291
22292
22293
22294
22295
22296
22297
22298
22299
22300
22301
22302
22303
22304
22305
22306
22307
22308
22309
22310
22311
22312
22313
22314
22315
22316
22317
22318
22319
22320
22321
22322
22323
22324
22325
22326
22327
22328
22329
22330
22331
22332
22333
22334
22335
22336
22337
22338
22339
22340
22341
22342
22343
22344
22345
22346
22347
22348
22349
22350
22351
22352
22353
22354
22355
22356
22357
22358
22359
22360
22361
22362
22363
22364
22365
22366
22367
22368
22369
22370
22371
22372
22373
22374
22375
22376
22377
22378
22379
22380
22381
22382
22383
22384
22385
22386
22387
22388
22389
22390
22391
22392
22393
22394
22395
22396
22397
22398
22399
22400
22401
22402
22403
22404
22405
22406
22407
22408
22409
22410
22411
22412
22413
22414
22415
22416
22417
22418
22419
22420
22421
22422
22423
22424
22425
22426
22427
22428
22429
22430
22431
22432
22433
22434
22435
22436
22437
22438
22439
22440
22441
22442
22443
22444
22445
22446
22447
22448
22449
22450
22451
22452
22453
22454
22455
22456
22457
22458
22459
22460
22461
22462
22463
22464
22465
22466
22467
22468
22469
22470
22471
22472
22473
22474
22475
22476
22477
22478
22479
22480
22481
22482
22483
22484
22485
22486
22487
22488
22489
22490
22491
22492
22493
22494
22495
22496
22497
22498
22499
22500
22501
22502
22503
22504
22505
22506
22507
22508
22509
22510
22511
22512
22513
22514
22515
22516
22517
22518
22519
22520
22521
22522
22523
22524
22525
22526
22527
22528
22529
22530
22531
22532
22533
22534
22535
22536
22537
22538
22539
22540
22541
22542
22543
22544
22545
22546
22547
22548
22549
22550
22551
22552
22553
22554
22555
22556
22557
22558
22559
22560
22561
22562
22563
22564
22565
22566
22567
22568
22569
22570
22571
22572
22573
22574
22575
22576
22577
22578
22579
22580
22581
22582
22583
22584
22585
22586
22587
22588
22589
22590
22591
22592
22593
22594
22595
22596
22597
22598
22599
22600
22601
22602
22603
22604
22605
22606
22607
22608
22609
22610
22611
22612
22613
22614
22615
22616
22617
22618
22619
22620
22621
22622
22623
22624
22625
22626
22627
22628
22629
22630
22631
22632
22633
22634
22635
22636
22637
22638
22639
22640
22641
22642
22643
22644
22645
22646
22647
22648
22649
22650
22651
22652
22653
22654
22655
22656
22657
22658
22659
22660
22661
22662
22663
22664
22665
22666
22667
22668
22669
22670
22671
22672
22673
22674
22675
22676
22677
22678
22679
22680
22681
22682
22683
22684
22685
22686
22687
22688
22689
22690
22691
22692
22693
22694
22695
22696
22697
22698
22699
22700
22701
22702
22703
22704
22705
22706
22707
22708
22709
22710
22711
22712
22713
22714
22715
22716
22717
22718
22719
22720
22721
22722
22723
22724
22725
22726
22727
22728
22729
22730
22731
22732
22733
22734
22735
22736
22737
22738
22739
22740
22741
22742
22743
22744
22745
22746
22747
22748
22749
22750
22751
22752
22753
22754
22755
22756
22757
22758
22759
22760
22761
22762
22763
22764
22765
22766
22767
22768
22769
22770
22771
22772
22773
22774
22775
22776
22777
22778
22779
22780
22781
22782
22783
22784
22785
22786
22787
22788
22789
22790
22791
22792
22793
22794
22795
22796
22797
22798
22799
22800
22801
22802
22803
22804
22805
22806
22807
22808
22809
22810
22811
22812
22813
22814
22815
22816
22817
22818
22819
22820
22821
22822
22823
22824
22825
22826
22827
22828
22829
22830
22831
22832
22833
22834
22835
22836
22837
22838
22839
22840
22841
22842
22843
22844
22845
22846
22847
22848
22849
22850
22851
22852
22853
22854
22855
22856
22857
22858
22859
22860
22861
22862
22863
22864
22865
22866
22867
22868
22869
22870
22871
22872
22873
22874
22875
22876
22877
22878
22879
22880
22881
22882
22883
22884
22885
22886
22887
22888
22889
22890
22891
22892
22893
22894
22895
22896
22897
22898
22899
22900
22901
22902
22903
22904
22905
22906
22907
22908
22909
22910
22911
22912
22913
22914
22915
22916
22917
22918
22919
22920
22921
22922
22923
22924
22925
22926
22927
22928
22929
22930
22931
22932
22933
22934
22935
22936
22937
22938
22939
22940
22941
22942
22943
22944
22945
22946
22947
22948
22949
22950
22951
22952
22953
22954
22955
22956
22957
22958
22959
22960
22961
22962
22963
22964
22965
22966
22967
22968
22969
22970
22971
22972
22973
22974
22975
22976
22977
22978
22979
22980
22981
22982
22983
22984
22985
22986
22987
22988
22989
22990
22991
22992
22993
22994
22995
22996
22997
22998
22999
23000
23001
23002
23003
23004
23005
23006
23007
23008
23009
23010
23011
23012
23013
23014
23015
23016
23017
23018
23019
23020
23021
23022
23023
23024
23025
23026
23027
23028
23029
23030
23031
23032
23033
23034
23035
23036
23037
23038
23039
23040
23041
23042
23043
23044
23045
23046
23047
23048
23049
23050
23051
23052
23053
23054
23055
23056
23057
23058
23059
23060
23061
23062
23063
23064
23065
23066
23067
23068
23069
23070
23071
23072
23073
23074
23075
23076
23077
23078
23079
23080
23081
23082
23083
23084
23085
23086
23087
23088
23089
23090
23091
23092
23093
23094
23095
23096
23097
23098
23099
23100
23101
23102
23103
23104
23105
23106
23107
23108
23109
23110
23111
23112
23113
23114
23115
23116
23117
23118
23119
23120
23121
23122
23123
23124
23125
23126
23127
23128
23129
23130
23131
23132
23133
23134
23135
23136
23137
23138
23139
23140
23141
23142
23143
23144
23145
23146
23147
23148
23149
23150
23151
23152
23153
23154
23155
23156
23157
23158
23159
23160
23161
23162
23163
23164
23165
23166
23167
23168
23169
23170
23171
23172
23173
23174
23175
23176
23177
23178
23179
23180
23181
23182
23183
23184
23185
23186
23187
23188
23189
23190
23191
23192
23193
23194
23195
23196
23197
23198
23199
23200
23201
23202
23203
23204
23205
23206
23207
23208
23209
23210
23211
23212
23213
23214
23215
23216
23217
23218
23219
23220
23221
23222
23223
23224
23225
23226
23227
23228
23229
23230
23231
23232
23233
23234
23235
23236
23237
23238
23239
23240
23241
23242
23243
23244
23245
23246
23247
23248
23249
23250
23251
23252
23253
23254
23255
23256
23257
23258
23259
23260
23261
23262
23263
23264
23265
23266
23267
23268
23269
23270
23271
23272
23273
23274
23275
23276
23277
23278
23279
23280
23281
23282
23283
23284
23285
23286
23287
23288
23289
23290
23291
23292
23293
23294
23295
23296
23297
23298
23299
23300
23301
23302
23303
23304
23305
23306
23307
23308
23309
23310
23311
23312
23313
23314
23315
23316
23317
23318
23319
23320
23321
23322
23323
23324
23325
23326
23327
23328
23329
23330
23331
23332
23333
23334
23335
23336
23337
23338
23339
23340
23341
23342
23343
23344
23345
23346
23347
23348
23349
23350
23351
23352
23353
23354
23355
23356
23357
23358
23359
23360
23361
23362
23363
23364
23365
23366
23367
23368
23369
23370
23371
23372
23373
23374
23375
23376
23377
23378
23379
23380
23381
23382
23383
23384
23385
23386
23387
23388
23389
23390
23391
23392
23393
23394
23395
23396
23397
23398
23399
23400
23401
23402
23403
23404
23405
23406
23407
23408
23409
23410
23411
23412
23413
23414
23415
23416
23417
23418
23419
23420
23421
23422
23423
23424
23425
23426
23427
23428
23429
23430
23431
23432
23433
23434
23435
23436
23437
23438
23439
23440
23441
23442
23443
23444
23445
23446
23447
23448
23449
23450
23451
23452
23453
23454
23455
23456
23457
23458
23459
23460
23461
23462
23463
23464
23465
23466
23467
23468
23469
23470
23471
23472
23473
23474
23475
23476
23477
23478
23479
23480
23481
23482
23483
23484
23485
23486
23487
23488
23489
23490
23491
23492
23493
23494
23495
23496
23497
23498
23499
23500
23501
23502
23503
23504
23505
23506
23507
23508
23509
23510
23511
23512
23513
23514
23515
23516
23517
23518
23519
23520
23521
23522
23523
23524
23525
23526
23527
23528
23529
23530
23531
23532
23533
23534
23535
23536
23537
23538
23539
23540
23541
23542
23543
23544
23545
23546
23547
23548
23549
23550
23551
23552
23553
23554
23555
23556
23557
23558
23559
23560
23561
23562
23563
23564
23565
23566
23567
23568
23569
23570
23571
23572
23573
23574
23575
23576
23577
23578
23579
23580
23581
23582
23583
23584
23585
23586
23587
23588
23589
23590
23591
23592
23593
23594
23595
23596
23597
23598
23599
23600
23601
23602
23603
23604
23605
23606
23607
23608
23609
23610
23611
23612
23613
23614
23615
23616
23617
23618
23619
23620
23621
23622
23623
23624
23625
23626
23627
23628
23629
23630
23631
23632
23633
23634
23635
23636
23637
23638
23639
23640
23641
23642
23643
23644
23645
23646
23647
23648
23649
23650
23651
23652
23653
23654
23655
23656
23657
23658
23659
23660
23661
23662
23663
23664
23665
23666
23667
23668
23669
23670
23671
23672
23673
23674
23675
23676
23677
23678
23679
23680
23681
23682
23683
23684
23685
23686
23687
23688
23689
23690
23691
23692
23693
23694
23695
23696
23697
23698
23699
23700
23701
23702
23703
23704
23705
23706
23707
23708
23709
23710
23711
23712
23713
23714
23715
23716
23717
23718
23719
23720
23721
23722
23723
23724
23725
23726
23727
23728
23729
23730
23731
23732
23733
23734
23735
23736
23737
23738
23739
23740
23741
23742
23743
23744
23745
23746
23747
23748
23749
23750
23751
23752
23753
23754
23755
23756
23757
23758
23759
23760
23761
23762
23763
23764
23765
23766
23767
23768
23769
23770
23771
23772
23773
23774
23775
23776
23777
23778
23779
23780
23781
23782
23783
23784
23785
23786
23787
23788
23789
23790
23791
23792
23793
23794
23795
23796
23797
23798
23799
23800
23801
23802
23803
23804
23805
23806
23807
23808
23809
23810
23811
23812
23813
23814
23815
23816
23817
23818
23819
23820
23821
23822
23823
23824
23825
23826
23827
23828
23829
23830
23831
23832
23833
23834
23835
23836
23837
23838
23839
23840
23841
23842
23843
23844
23845
23846
23847
23848
23849
23850
23851
23852
23853
23854
23855
23856
23857
23858
23859
23860
23861
23862
23863
23864
23865
23866
23867
23868
23869
23870
23871
23872
23873
23874
23875
23876
23877
23878
23879
23880
23881
23882
23883
23884
23885
23886
23887
23888
23889
23890
23891
23892
23893
23894
23895
23896
23897
23898
23899
23900
23901
23902
23903
23904
23905
23906
23907
23908
23909
23910
23911
23912
23913
23914
23915
23916
23917
23918
23919
23920
23921
23922
23923
23924
23925
23926
23927
23928
23929
23930
23931
23932
23933
23934
23935
23936
23937
23938
23939
23940
23941
23942
23943
23944
23945
23946
23947
23948
23949
23950
23951
23952
23953
23954
23955
23956
23957
23958
23959
23960
23961
23962
23963
23964
23965
23966
23967
23968
23969
23970
23971
23972
23973
23974
23975
23976
23977
23978
23979
23980
23981
23982
23983
23984
23985
23986
23987
23988
23989
23990
23991
23992
23993
23994
23995
23996
23997
23998
23999
24000
24001
24002
24003
24004
24005
24006
24007
24008
24009
24010
24011
24012
24013
24014
24015
24016
24017
24018
24019
24020
24021
24022
24023
24024
24025
24026
24027
24028
24029
24030
24031
24032
24033
24034
24035
24036
24037
24038
24039
24040
24041
24042
24043
24044
24045
24046
24047
24048
24049
24050
24051
24052
24053
24054
24055
24056
24057
24058
24059
24060
24061
24062
24063
24064
24065
24066
24067
24068
24069
24070
24071
24072
24073
24074
24075
24076
24077
24078
24079
24080
24081
24082
24083
24084
24085
24086
24087
24088
24089
24090
24091
24092
24093
24094
24095
24096
24097
24098
24099
24100
24101
24102
24103
24104
24105
24106
24107
24108
24109
24110
24111
24112
24113
24114
24115
24116
24117
24118
24119
24120
24121
24122
24123
24124
24125
24126
24127
24128
24129
24130
24131
24132
24133
24134
24135
24136
24137
24138
24139
24140
24141
24142
24143
24144
24145
24146
24147
24148
24149
24150
24151
24152
24153
24154
24155
24156
24157
24158
24159
24160
24161
24162
24163
24164
24165
24166
24167
24168
24169
24170
24171
24172
24173
24174
24175
24176
24177
24178
24179
24180
24181
24182
24183
24184
24185
24186
24187
24188
24189
24190
24191
24192
24193
24194
24195
24196
24197
24198
24199
24200
24201
24202
24203
24204
24205
24206
24207
24208
24209
24210
24211
24212
24213
24214
24215
24216
24217
24218
24219
24220
24221
24222
24223
24224
24225
24226
24227
24228
24229
24230
24231
24232
24233
24234
24235
24236
24237
24238
24239
24240
24241
24242
24243
24244
24245
24246
24247
24248
24249
24250
24251
24252
24253
24254
24255
24256
24257
24258
24259
24260
24261
24262
24263
24264
24265
24266
24267
24268
24269
24270
24271
24272
24273
24274
24275
24276
24277
24278
24279
24280
24281
24282
24283
24284
24285
24286
24287
24288
24289
24290
24291
24292
24293
24294
24295
24296
24297
24298
24299
24300
24301
24302
24303
24304
24305
24306
24307
24308
24309
24310
24311
24312
24313
24314
24315
24316
24317
24318
24319
24320
24321
24322
24323
24324
24325
24326
24327
24328
24329
24330
24331
24332
24333
24334
24335
24336
24337
24338
24339
24340
24341
24342
24343
24344
24345
24346
24347
24348
24349
24350
24351
24352
24353
24354
24355
24356
24357
24358
24359
24360
24361
24362
24363
24364
24365
24366
24367
24368
24369
24370
24371
24372
24373
24374
24375
24376
24377
24378
24379
24380
24381
24382
24383
24384
24385
24386
24387
24388
24389
24390
24391
24392
24393
24394
24395
24396
24397
24398
24399
24400
24401
24402
24403
24404
24405
24406
24407
24408
24409
24410
24411
24412
24413
24414
24415
24416
24417
24418
24419
24420
24421
24422
24423
24424
24425
24426
24427
24428
24429
24430
24431
24432
24433
24434
24435
24436
24437
24438
24439
24440
24441
24442
24443
24444
24445
24446
24447
24448
24449
24450
24451
24452
24453
24454
24455
24456
24457
24458
24459
24460
24461
24462
24463
24464
24465
24466
24467
24468
24469
24470
24471
24472
24473
24474
24475
24476
24477
24478
24479
24480
24481
24482
24483
24484
24485
24486
24487
24488
24489
24490
24491
24492
24493
24494
24495
24496
24497
24498
24499
24500
24501
24502
24503
24504
24505
24506
24507
24508
24509
24510
24511
24512
24513
24514
24515
24516
24517
24518
24519
24520
24521
24522
24523
24524
24525
24526
24527
24528
24529
24530
24531
24532
24533
24534
24535
24536
24537
24538
24539
24540
24541
24542
24543
24544
24545
24546
24547
24548
24549
24550
24551
24552
24553
24554
24555
24556
24557
24558
24559
24560
24561
24562
24563
24564
24565
24566
24567
24568
24569
24570
24571
24572
24573
24574
24575
24576
24577
24578
24579
24580
24581
24582
24583
24584
24585
24586
24587
24588
24589
24590
24591
24592
24593
24594
24595
24596
24597
24598
24599
24600
24601
24602
24603
24604
24605
24606
24607
24608
24609
24610
24611
24612
24613
24614
24615
24616
24617
24618
24619
24620
24621
24622
24623
24624
24625
24626
24627
24628
24629
24630
24631
24632
24633
24634
24635
24636
24637
24638
24639
24640
24641
24642
24643
24644
24645
24646
24647
24648
24649
24650
24651
24652
24653
24654
24655
24656
24657
24658
24659
24660
24661
24662
24663
24664
24665
24666
24667
24668
24669
24670
24671
24672
24673
24674
24675
24676
24677
24678
24679
24680
24681
24682
24683
24684
24685
24686
24687
24688
24689
24690
24691
24692
24693
24694
24695
24696
24697
24698
24699
24700
24701
24702
24703
24704
24705
24706
24707
24708
24709
24710
24711
24712
24713
24714
24715
24716
24717
24718
24719
24720
24721
24722
24723
24724
24725
24726
24727
24728
24729
24730
24731
24732
24733
24734
24735
24736
24737
24738
24739
24740
24741
24742
24743
24744
24745
24746
24747
24748
24749
24750
24751
24752
24753
24754
24755
24756
24757
24758
24759
24760
24761
24762
24763
24764
24765
24766
24767
24768
24769
24770
24771
24772
24773
24774
24775
24776
24777
24778
24779
24780
24781
24782
24783
24784
24785
24786
24787
24788
24789
24790
24791
24792
24793
24794
24795
24796
24797
24798
24799
24800
24801
24802
24803
24804
24805
24806
24807
24808
24809
24810
24811
24812
24813
24814
24815
24816
24817
24818
24819
24820
24821
24822
24823
24824
24825
24826
24827
24828
24829
24830
24831
24832
24833
24834
24835
24836
24837
24838
24839
24840
24841
24842
24843
24844
24845
24846
24847
24848
24849
24850
24851
24852
24853
24854
24855
24856
24857
24858
24859
24860
24861
24862
24863
24864
24865
24866
24867
24868
24869
24870
24871
24872
24873
24874
24875
24876
24877
24878
24879
24880
24881
24882
24883
24884
24885
24886
24887
24888
24889
24890
24891
24892
24893
24894
24895
24896
24897
24898
24899
24900
24901
24902
24903
24904
24905
24906
24907
24908
24909
24910
24911
24912
24913
24914
24915
24916
24917
24918
24919
24920
24921
24922
24923
24924
24925
24926
24927
24928
24929
24930
24931
24932
24933
24934
24935
24936
24937
24938
24939
24940
24941
24942
24943
24944
24945
24946
24947
24948
24949
24950
24951
24952
24953
24954
24955
24956
24957
24958
24959
24960
24961
24962
24963
24964
24965
24966
24967
24968
24969
24970
24971
24972
24973
24974
24975
24976
24977
24978
24979
24980
24981
24982
24983
24984
24985
24986
24987
24988
24989
24990
24991
24992
24993
24994
24995
24996
24997
24998
24999
25000
25001
25002
25003
25004
25005
25006
25007
25008
25009
25010
25011
25012
25013
25014
25015
25016
25017
25018
25019
25020
25021
25022
25023
25024
25025
25026
25027
25028
25029
25030
25031
25032
25033
25034
25035
25036
25037
25038
25039
25040
25041
25042
25043
25044
25045
25046
25047
25048
25049
25050
25051
25052
25053
25054
25055
25056
25057
25058
25059
25060
25061
25062
25063
25064
25065
25066
25067
25068
25069
25070
25071
25072
25073
25074
25075
25076
25077
25078
25079
25080
25081
25082
25083
25084
25085
25086
25087
25088
25089
25090
25091
25092
25093
25094
25095
25096
25097
25098
25099
25100
25101
25102
25103
25104
25105
25106
25107
25108
25109
25110
25111
25112
25113
25114
25115
25116
25117
25118
25119
25120
25121
25122
25123
25124
25125
25126
25127
25128
25129
25130
25131
25132
25133
25134
25135
25136
25137
25138
25139
25140
25141
25142
25143
25144
25145
25146
25147
25148
25149
25150
25151
25152
25153
25154
25155
25156
25157
25158
25159
25160
25161
25162
25163
25164
25165
25166
25167
25168
25169
25170
25171
25172
25173
25174
25175
25176
25177
25178
25179
25180
25181
25182
25183
25184
25185
25186
25187
25188
25189
25190
25191
25192
25193
25194
25195
25196
25197
25198
25199
25200
25201
25202
25203
25204
25205
25206
25207
25208
25209
25210
25211
25212
25213
25214
25215
25216
25217
25218
25219
25220
25221
25222
25223
25224
25225
25226
25227
25228
25229
25230
25231
25232
25233
25234
25235
25236
25237
25238
25239
25240
25241
25242
25243
25244
25245
25246
25247
25248
25249
25250
25251
25252
25253
25254
25255
25256
25257
25258
25259
25260
25261
25262
25263
25264
25265
25266
25267
25268
25269
25270
25271
25272
25273
25274
25275
25276
25277
25278
25279
25280
25281
25282
25283
25284
25285
25286
25287
25288
25289
25290
25291
25292
25293
25294
25295
25296
25297
25298
25299
25300
25301
25302
25303
25304
25305
25306
25307
25308
25309
25310
25311
25312
25313
25314
25315
25316
25317
25318
25319
25320
25321
25322
25323
25324
25325
25326
25327
25328
25329
25330
25331
25332
25333
25334
25335
25336
25337
25338
25339
25340
25341
25342
25343
25344
25345
25346
25347
25348
25349
25350
25351
25352
25353
25354
25355
25356
25357
25358
25359
25360
25361
25362
25363
25364
25365
25366
25367
25368
25369
25370
25371
25372
25373
25374
25375
25376
25377
25378
25379
25380
25381
25382
25383
25384
25385
25386
25387
25388
25389
25390
25391
25392
25393
25394
25395
25396
25397
25398
25399
25400
25401
25402
25403
25404
25405
25406
25407
25408
25409
25410
25411
25412
25413
25414
25415
25416
25417
25418
25419
25420
25421
25422
25423
25424
25425
25426
25427
25428
25429
25430
25431
25432
25433
25434
25435
25436
25437
25438
25439
25440
25441
25442
25443
25444
25445
25446
25447
25448
25449
25450
25451
25452
25453
25454
25455
25456
25457
25458
25459
25460
25461
25462
25463
25464
25465
25466
25467
25468
25469
25470
25471
25472
25473
25474
25475
25476
25477
25478
25479
25480
25481
25482
25483
25484
25485
25486
25487
25488
25489
25490
25491
25492
25493
25494
25495
25496
25497
25498
25499
25500
25501
25502
25503
25504
25505
25506
25507
25508
25509
25510
25511
25512
25513
25514
25515
25516
25517
25518
25519
25520
25521
25522
25523
25524
25525
25526
25527
25528
25529
25530
25531
25532
25533
25534
25535
25536
25537
25538
25539
25540
25541
25542
25543
25544
25545
25546
25547
25548
25549
25550
25551
25552
25553
25554
25555
25556
25557
25558
25559
25560
25561
25562
25563
25564
25565
25566
25567
25568
25569
25570
25571
25572
25573
25574
25575
25576
25577
25578
25579
25580
25581
25582
25583
25584
25585
25586
25587
25588
25589
25590
25591
25592
25593
25594
25595
25596
25597
25598
25599
25600
25601
25602
25603
25604
25605
25606
25607
25608
25609
25610
25611
25612
25613
25614
25615
25616
25617
25618
25619
25620
25621
25622
25623
25624
25625
25626
25627
25628
25629
25630
25631
25632
25633
25634
25635
25636
25637
25638
25639
25640
25641
25642
25643
25644
25645
25646
25647
25648
25649
25650
25651
25652
25653
25654
25655
25656
25657
25658
25659
25660
25661
25662
25663
25664
25665
25666
25667
25668
25669
25670
25671
25672
25673
25674
25675
25676
25677
25678
25679
25680
25681
25682
25683
25684
25685
25686
25687
25688
25689
25690
25691
25692
25693
25694
25695
25696
25697
25698
25699
25700
25701
25702
25703
25704
25705
25706
25707
25708
25709
25710
25711
25712
25713
25714
25715
25716
25717
25718
25719
25720
25721
25722
25723
25724
25725
25726
25727
25728
25729
25730
25731
25732
25733
25734
25735
25736
25737
25738
25739
25740
25741
25742
25743
25744
25745
25746
25747
25748
25749
25750
25751
25752
25753
25754
25755
25756
25757
25758
25759
25760
25761
25762
25763
25764
25765
25766
25767
25768
25769
25770
25771
25772
25773
25774
25775
25776
25777
25778
25779
25780
25781
25782
25783
25784
25785
25786
25787
25788
25789
25790
25791
25792
25793
25794
25795
25796
25797
25798
25799
25800
25801
25802
25803
25804
25805
25806
25807
25808
25809
25810
25811
25812
25813
25814
25815
25816
25817
25818
25819
25820
25821
25822
25823
25824
25825
25826
25827
25828
25829
25830
25831
25832
25833
25834
25835
25836
25837
25838
25839
25840
25841
25842
25843
25844
25845
25846
25847
25848
25849
25850
25851
25852
25853
25854
25855
25856
25857
25858
25859
25860
25861
25862
25863
25864
25865
25866
25867
25868
25869
25870
25871
25872
25873
25874
25875
25876
25877
25878
25879
25880
25881
25882
25883
25884
25885
25886
25887
25888
25889
25890
25891
25892
25893
25894
25895
25896
25897
25898
25899
25900
25901
25902
25903
25904
25905
25906
25907
25908
25909
25910
25911
25912
25913
25914
25915
25916
25917
25918
25919
25920
25921
25922
25923
25924
25925
25926
25927
25928
25929
25930
25931
25932
25933
25934
25935
25936
25937
25938
25939
25940
25941
25942
25943
25944
25945
25946
25947
25948
25949
25950
25951
25952
25953
25954
25955
25956
25957
25958
25959
25960
25961
25962
25963
25964
25965
25966
25967
25968
25969
25970
25971
25972
25973
25974
25975
25976
25977
25978
25979
25980
25981
25982
25983
25984
25985
25986
25987
25988
25989
25990
25991
25992
25993
25994
25995
25996
25997
25998
25999
26000
26001
26002
26003
26004
26005
26006
26007
26008
26009
26010
26011
26012
26013
26014
26015
26016
26017
26018
26019
26020
26021
26022
26023
26024
26025
26026
26027
26028
26029
26030
26031
26032
26033
26034
26035
26036
26037
26038
26039
26040
26041
26042
26043
26044
26045
26046
26047
26048
26049
26050
26051
26052
26053
26054
26055
26056
26057
26058
26059
26060
26061
26062
26063
26064
26065
26066
26067
26068
26069
26070
26071
26072
26073
26074
26075
26076
26077
26078
26079
26080
26081
26082
26083
26084
26085
26086
26087
26088
26089
26090
26091
26092
26093
26094
26095
26096
26097
26098
26099
26100
26101
26102
26103
26104
26105
26106
26107
26108
26109
26110
26111
26112
26113
26114
26115
26116
26117
26118
26119
26120
26121
26122
26123
26124
26125
26126
26127
26128
26129
26130
26131
26132
26133
26134
26135
26136
26137
26138
26139
26140
26141
26142
26143
26144
26145
26146
26147
26148
26149
26150
26151
26152
26153
26154
26155
26156
26157
26158
26159
26160
26161
26162
26163
26164
26165
26166
26167
26168
26169
26170
26171
26172
26173
26174
26175
26176
26177
26178
26179
26180
26181
26182
26183
26184
26185
26186
26187
26188
26189
26190
26191
26192
26193
26194
26195
26196
26197
26198
26199
26200
26201
26202
26203
26204
26205
26206
26207
26208
26209
26210
26211
26212
26213
26214
26215
26216
26217
26218
26219
26220
26221
26222
26223
26224
26225
26226
26227
26228
26229
26230
26231
26232
26233
26234
26235
26236
26237
26238
26239
26240
26241
26242
26243
26244
26245
26246
26247
26248
26249
26250
26251
26252
26253
26254
26255
26256
26257
26258
26259
26260
26261
26262
26263
26264
26265
26266
26267
26268
26269
26270
26271
26272
26273
26274
26275
26276
26277
26278
26279
26280
26281
26282
26283
26284
26285
26286
26287
26288
26289
26290
26291
26292
26293
26294
26295
26296
26297
26298
26299
26300
26301
26302
26303
26304
26305
26306
26307
26308
26309
26310
26311
26312
26313
26314
26315
26316
26317
26318
26319
26320
26321
26322
26323
26324
26325
26326
26327
26328
26329
26330
26331
26332
26333
26334
26335
26336
26337
26338
26339
26340
26341
26342
26343
26344
26345
26346
26347
26348
26349
26350
26351
26352
26353
26354
26355
26356
26357
26358
26359
26360
26361
26362
26363
26364
26365
26366
26367
26368
26369
26370
26371
26372
26373
26374
26375
26376
26377
26378
26379
26380
26381
26382
26383
26384
26385
26386
26387
26388
26389
26390
26391
26392
26393
26394
26395
26396
26397
26398
26399
26400
26401
26402
26403
26404
26405
26406
26407
26408
26409
26410
26411
26412
26413
26414
26415
26416
26417
26418
26419
26420
26421
26422
26423
26424
26425
26426
26427
26428
26429
26430
26431
26432
26433
26434
26435
26436
26437
26438
26439
26440
26441
26442
26443
26444
26445
26446
26447
26448
26449
26450
26451
26452
26453
26454
26455
26456
26457
26458
26459
26460
26461
26462
26463
26464
26465
26466
26467
26468
26469
26470
26471
26472
26473
26474
26475
26476
26477
26478
26479
26480
26481
26482
26483
26484
26485
26486
26487
26488
26489
26490
26491
26492
26493
26494
26495
26496
26497
26498
26499
26500
26501
26502
26503
26504
26505
26506
26507
26508
26509
26510
26511
26512
26513
26514
26515
26516
26517
26518
26519
26520
26521
26522
26523
26524
26525
26526
26527
26528
26529
26530
26531
26532
26533
26534
26535
26536
26537
26538
26539
26540
26541
26542
26543
26544
26545
26546
26547
26548
26549
26550
26551
26552
26553
26554
26555
26556
26557
26558
26559
26560
26561
26562
26563
26564
26565
26566
26567
26568
26569
26570
26571
26572
26573
26574
26575
26576
26577
26578
26579
26580
26581
26582
26583
26584
26585
26586
26587
26588
26589
26590
26591
26592
26593
26594
26595
26596
26597
26598
26599
26600
26601
26602
26603
26604
26605
26606
26607
26608
26609
26610
26611
26612
26613
26614
26615
26616
26617
26618
26619
26620
26621
26622
26623
26624
26625
26626
26627
26628
26629
26630
26631
26632
26633
26634
26635
26636
26637
26638
26639
26640
26641
26642
26643
26644
26645
26646
26647
26648
26649
26650
26651
26652
26653
26654
26655
26656
26657
26658
26659
26660
26661
26662
26663
26664
26665
26666
26667
26668
26669
26670
26671
26672
26673
26674
26675
26676
26677
26678
26679
26680
26681
26682
26683
26684
26685
26686
26687
26688
26689
26690
26691
26692
26693
26694
26695
26696
26697
26698
26699
26700
26701
26702
26703
26704
26705
26706
26707
26708
26709
26710
26711
26712
26713
26714
26715
26716
26717
26718
26719
26720
26721
26722
26723
26724
26725
26726
26727
26728
26729
26730
26731
26732
26733
26734
26735
26736
26737
26738
26739
26740
26741
26742
26743
26744
26745
26746
26747
26748
26749
26750
26751
26752
26753
26754
26755
26756
26757
26758
26759
26760
26761
26762
26763
26764
26765
26766
26767
26768
26769
26770
26771
26772
26773
26774
26775
26776
26777
26778
26779
26780
26781
26782
26783
26784
26785
26786
26787
26788
26789
26790
26791
26792
26793
26794
26795
26796
26797
26798
26799
26800
26801
26802
26803
26804
26805
26806
26807
26808
26809
26810
26811
26812
26813
26814
26815
26816
26817
26818
26819
26820
26821
26822
26823
26824
26825
26826
26827
26828
26829
26830
26831
26832
26833
26834
26835
26836
26837
26838
26839
26840
26841
26842
26843
26844
26845
26846
26847
26848
26849
26850
26851
26852
26853
26854
26855
26856
26857
26858
26859
26860
26861
26862
26863
26864
26865
26866
26867
26868
26869
26870
26871
26872
26873
26874
26875
26876
26877
26878
26879
26880
26881
26882
26883
26884
26885
26886
26887
26888
26889
26890
26891
26892
26893
26894
26895
26896
26897
26898
26899
26900
26901
26902
26903
26904
26905
26906
26907
26908
26909
26910
26911
26912
26913
26914
26915
26916
26917
26918
26919
26920
26921
26922
26923
26924
26925
26926
26927
26928
26929
26930
26931
26932
26933
26934
26935
26936
26937
26938
26939
26940
26941
26942
26943
26944
26945
26946
26947
26948
26949
26950
26951
26952
26953
26954
26955
26956
26957
26958
26959
26960
26961
26962
26963
26964
26965
26966
26967
26968
26969
26970
26971
26972
26973
26974
26975
26976
26977
26978
26979
26980
26981
26982
26983
26984
26985
26986
26987
26988
26989
26990
26991
26992
26993
26994
26995
26996
26997
26998
26999
27000
27001
27002
27003
27004
27005
27006
27007
27008
27009
27010
27011
27012
27013
27014
27015
27016
27017
27018
27019
27020
27021
27022
27023
27024
27025
27026
27027
27028
27029
27030
27031
27032
27033
27034
27035
27036
27037
27038
27039
27040
27041
27042
27043
27044
27045
27046
27047
27048
27049
27050
27051
27052
27053
27054
27055
27056
27057
27058
27059
27060
27061
27062
27063
27064
27065
27066
27067
27068
27069
27070
27071
27072
27073
27074
27075
27076
27077
27078
27079
27080
27081
27082
27083
27084
27085
27086
27087
27088
27089
27090
27091
27092
27093
27094
27095
27096
27097
27098
27099
27100
27101
27102
27103
27104
27105
27106
27107
27108
27109
27110
27111
27112
27113
27114
27115
27116
27117
27118
27119
27120
27121
27122
27123
27124
27125
27126
27127
27128
27129
27130
27131
27132
27133
27134
27135
27136
27137
27138
27139
27140
27141
27142
27143
27144
27145
27146
27147
27148
27149
27150
27151
27152
27153
27154
27155
27156
27157
27158
27159
27160
27161
27162
27163
27164
27165
27166
27167
27168
27169
27170
27171
27172
27173
27174
27175
27176
27177
27178
27179
27180
27181
27182
27183
27184
27185
27186
27187
27188
27189
27190
27191
27192
27193
27194
27195
27196
27197
27198
27199
27200
27201
27202
27203
27204
27205
27206
27207
27208
27209
27210
27211
27212
27213
27214
27215
27216
27217
27218
27219
27220
27221
27222
27223
27224
27225
27226
27227
27228
27229
27230
27231
27232
27233
27234
27235
27236
27237
27238
27239
27240
27241
27242
27243
27244
27245
27246
27247
27248
27249
27250
27251
27252
27253
27254
27255
27256
27257
27258
27259
27260
27261
27262
27263
27264
27265
27266
27267
27268
27269
27270
27271
27272
27273
27274
27275
27276
27277
27278
27279
27280
27281
27282
27283
27284
27285
27286
27287
27288
27289
27290
27291
27292
27293
27294
27295
27296
27297
27298
27299
27300
27301
27302
27303
27304
27305
27306
27307
27308
27309
27310
27311
27312
27313
27314
27315
27316
27317
27318
27319
27320
27321
27322
27323
27324
27325
27326
27327
27328
27329
27330
27331
27332
27333
27334
27335
27336
27337
27338
27339
27340
27341
27342
27343
27344
27345
27346
27347
27348
27349
27350
27351
27352
27353
27354
27355
27356
27357
27358
27359
27360
27361
27362
27363
27364
27365
27366
27367
27368
27369
27370
27371
27372
27373
27374
27375
27376
27377
27378
27379
27380
27381
27382
27383
27384
27385
27386
27387
27388
27389
27390
27391
27392
27393
27394
27395
27396
27397
27398
27399
27400
27401
27402
27403
27404
27405
27406
27407
27408
27409
27410
27411
27412
27413
27414
27415
27416
27417
27418
27419
27420
27421
27422
27423
27424
27425
27426
27427
27428
27429
27430
27431
27432
27433
27434
27435
27436
27437
27438
27439
27440
27441
27442
27443
27444
27445
27446
27447
27448
27449
27450
27451
27452
27453
27454
27455
27456
27457
27458
27459
27460
27461
27462
27463
27464
27465
27466
27467
27468
27469
27470
27471
27472
27473
27474
27475
27476
27477
27478
27479
27480
27481
27482
27483
27484
27485
27486
27487
27488
27489
27490
27491
27492
27493
27494
27495
27496
27497
27498
27499
27500
27501
27502
27503
27504
27505
27506
27507
27508
27509
27510
27511
27512
27513
27514
27515
27516
27517
27518
27519
27520
27521
27522
27523
27524
27525
27526
27527
27528
27529
27530
27531
27532
27533
27534
27535
27536
27537
27538
27539
27540
27541
27542
27543
27544
27545
27546
27547
27548
27549
27550
27551
27552
27553
27554
27555
27556
27557
27558
27559
27560
27561
27562
27563
27564
27565
27566
27567
27568
27569
27570
27571
27572
27573
27574
27575
27576
27577
27578
27579
27580
27581
27582
27583
27584
27585
27586
27587
27588
27589
27590
27591
27592
27593
27594
27595
27596
27597
27598
27599
27600
27601
27602
27603
27604
27605
27606
27607
27608
27609
27610
27611
27612
27613
27614
27615
27616
27617
27618
27619
27620
27621
27622
27623
27624
27625
27626
27627
27628
27629
27630
27631
27632
27633
27634
27635
27636
27637
27638
27639
27640
27641
27642
27643
27644
27645
27646
27647
27648
27649
27650
27651
27652
27653
27654
27655
27656
27657
27658
27659
27660
27661
27662
27663
27664
27665
27666
27667
27668
27669
27670
27671
27672
27673
27674
27675
27676
27677
27678
27679
27680
27681
27682
27683
27684
27685
27686
27687
27688
27689
27690
27691
27692
27693
27694
27695
27696
27697
27698
27699
27700
27701
27702
27703
27704
27705
27706
27707
27708
27709
27710
27711
27712
27713
27714
27715
27716
27717
27718
27719
27720
27721
27722
27723
27724
27725
27726
27727
27728
27729
27730
27731
27732
27733
27734
27735
27736
27737
27738
27739
27740
27741
27742
27743
27744
27745
27746
27747
27748
27749
27750
27751
27752
27753
27754
27755
27756
27757
27758
27759
27760
27761
27762
27763
27764
27765
27766
27767
27768
27769
27770
27771
27772
27773
27774
27775
27776
27777
27778
27779
27780
27781
27782
27783
27784
27785
27786
27787
27788
27789
27790
27791
27792
27793
27794
27795
27796
27797
27798
27799
27800
27801
27802
27803
27804
27805
27806
27807
27808
27809
27810
27811
27812
27813
27814
27815
27816
27817
27818
27819
27820
27821
27822
27823
27824
27825
27826
27827
27828
27829
27830
27831
27832
27833
27834
27835
27836
27837
27838
27839
27840
27841
27842
27843
27844
27845
27846
27847
27848
27849
27850
27851
27852
27853
27854
27855
27856
27857
27858
27859
27860
27861
27862
27863
27864
27865
27866
27867
27868
27869
27870
27871
27872
27873
27874
27875
27876
27877
27878
27879
27880
27881
27882
27883
27884
27885
27886
27887
27888
27889
27890
27891
27892
27893
27894
27895
27896
27897
27898
27899
27900
27901
27902
27903
27904
27905
27906
27907
27908
27909
27910
27911
27912
27913
27914
27915
27916
27917
27918
27919
27920
27921
27922
27923
27924
27925
27926
27927
27928
27929
27930
27931
27932
27933
27934
27935
27936
27937
27938
27939
27940
27941
27942
27943
27944
27945
27946
27947
27948
27949
27950
27951
27952
27953
27954
27955
27956
27957
27958
27959
27960
27961
27962
27963
27964
27965
27966
27967
27968
27969
27970
27971
27972
27973
27974
27975
27976
27977
27978
27979
27980
27981
27982
27983
27984
27985
27986
27987
27988
27989
27990
27991
27992
27993
27994
27995
27996
27997
27998
27999
28000
28001
28002
28003
28004
28005
28006
28007
28008
28009
28010
28011
28012
28013
28014
28015
28016
28017
28018
28019
28020
28021
28022
28023
28024
28025
28026
28027
28028
28029
28030
28031
28032
28033
28034
28035
28036
28037
28038
28039
28040
28041
28042
28043
28044
28045
28046
28047
28048
28049
28050
28051
28052
28053
28054
28055
28056
28057
28058
28059
28060
28061
28062
28063
28064
28065
28066
28067
28068
28069
28070
28071
28072
28073
28074
28075
28076
28077
28078
28079
28080
28081
28082
28083
28084
28085
28086
28087
28088
28089
28090
28091
28092
28093
28094
28095
28096
28097
28098
28099
28100
28101
28102
28103
28104
28105
28106
28107
28108
28109
28110
28111
28112
28113
28114
28115
28116
28117
28118
28119
28120
28121
28122
28123
28124
28125
28126
28127
28128
28129
28130
28131
28132
28133
28134
28135
28136
28137
28138
28139
28140
28141
28142
28143
28144
28145
28146
28147
28148
28149
28150
28151
28152
28153
28154
28155
28156
28157
28158
28159
28160
28161
28162
28163
28164
28165
28166
28167
28168
28169
28170
28171
28172
28173
28174
28175
28176
28177
28178
28179
28180
28181
28182
28183
28184
28185
28186
28187
28188
28189
28190
28191
28192
28193
28194
28195
28196
28197
28198
28199
28200
28201
28202
28203
28204
28205
28206
28207
28208
28209
28210
28211
28212
28213
28214
28215
28216
28217
28218
28219
28220
28221
28222
28223
28224
28225
28226
28227
28228
28229
28230
28231
28232
28233
28234
28235
28236
28237
28238
28239
28240
28241
28242
28243
28244
28245
28246
28247
28248
28249
28250
28251
28252
28253
28254
28255
28256
28257
28258
28259
28260
28261
28262
28263
28264
28265
28266
28267
28268
28269
28270
28271
28272
28273
28274
28275
28276
28277
28278
28279
28280
28281
28282
28283
28284
28285
28286
28287
28288
28289
28290
28291
28292
28293
28294
28295
28296
28297
28298
28299
28300
28301
28302
28303
28304
28305
28306
28307
28308
28309
28310
28311
28312
28313
28314
28315
28316
28317
28318
28319
28320
28321
28322
28323
28324
28325
28326
28327
28328
28329
28330
28331
28332
28333
28334
28335
28336
28337
28338
28339
28340
28341
28342
28343
28344
28345
28346
28347
28348
28349
28350
28351
28352
28353
28354
28355
28356
28357
28358
28359
28360
28361
28362
28363
28364
28365
28366
28367
28368
28369
28370
28371
28372
28373
28374
28375
28376
28377
28378
28379
28380
28381
28382
28383
28384
28385
28386
28387
28388
28389
28390
28391
28392
28393
28394
28395
28396
28397
28398
28399
28400
28401
28402
28403
28404
28405
28406
28407
28408
28409
28410
28411
28412
28413
28414
28415
28416
28417
28418
28419
28420
28421
28422
28423
28424
28425
28426
28427
28428
28429
28430
28431
28432
28433
28434
28435
28436
28437
28438
28439
28440
28441
28442
28443
28444
28445
28446
28447
28448
28449
28450
28451
28452
28453
28454
28455
28456
28457
28458
28459
28460
28461
28462
28463
28464
28465
28466
28467
28468
28469
28470
28471
28472
28473
28474
28475
28476
28477
28478
28479
28480
28481
28482
28483
28484
28485
28486
28487
28488
28489
28490
28491
28492
28493
28494
28495
28496
28497
28498
28499
28500
28501
28502
28503
28504
28505
28506
28507
28508
28509
28510
28511
28512
28513
28514
28515
28516
28517
28518
28519
28520
28521
28522
28523
28524
28525
28526
28527
28528
28529
28530
28531
28532
28533
28534
28535
28536
28537
28538
28539
28540
28541
28542
28543
28544
28545
28546
28547
28548
28549
28550
28551
28552
28553
28554
28555
28556
28557
28558
28559
28560
28561
28562
28563
28564
28565
28566
28567
28568
28569
28570
28571
28572
28573
28574
28575
28576
28577
28578
28579
28580
28581
28582
28583
28584
28585
28586
28587
28588
28589
28590
28591
28592
28593
28594
28595
28596
28597
28598
28599
28600
28601
28602
28603
28604
28605
28606
28607
28608
28609
28610
28611
28612
28613
28614
28615
28616
28617
28618
28619
28620
28621
28622
28623
28624
28625
28626
28627
28628
28629
28630
28631
28632
28633
28634
28635
28636
28637
28638
28639
28640
28641
28642
28643
28644
28645
28646
28647
28648
28649
28650
28651
28652
28653
28654
28655
28656
28657
28658
28659
28660
28661
28662
28663
28664
28665
28666
28667
28668
28669
28670
28671
28672
28673
28674
28675
28676
28677
28678
28679
28680
28681
28682
28683
28684
28685
28686
28687
28688
28689
28690
28691
28692
28693
28694
28695
28696
28697
28698
28699
28700
28701
28702
28703
28704
28705
28706
28707
28708
28709
28710
28711
28712
28713
28714
28715
28716
28717
28718
28719
28720
28721
28722
28723
28724
28725
28726
28727
28728
28729
28730
28731
28732
28733
28734
28735
28736
28737
28738
28739
28740
28741
28742
28743
28744
28745
28746
28747
28748
28749
28750
28751
28752
28753
28754
28755
28756
28757
28758
28759
28760
28761
28762
28763
28764
28765
28766
28767
28768
28769
28770
28771
28772
28773
28774
28775
28776
28777
28778
28779
28780
28781
28782
28783
28784
28785
28786
28787
28788
28789
28790
28791
28792
28793
28794
28795
28796
28797
28798
28799
28800
28801
28802
28803
28804
28805
28806
28807
28808
28809
28810
28811
28812
28813
28814
28815
28816
28817
28818
28819
28820
28821
28822
28823
28824
28825
28826
28827
28828
28829
28830
28831
28832
28833
28834
28835
28836
28837
28838
28839
28840
28841
28842
28843
28844
28845
28846
28847
28848
28849
28850
28851
28852
28853
28854
28855
28856
28857
28858
28859
28860
28861
28862
28863
28864
28865
28866
28867
28868
28869
28870
28871
28872
28873
28874
28875
28876
28877
28878
28879
28880
28881
28882
28883
28884
28885
28886
28887
28888
28889
28890
28891
28892
28893
28894
28895
28896
28897
28898
28899
28900
28901
28902
28903
28904
28905
28906
28907
28908
28909
28910
28911
28912
28913
28914
28915
28916
28917
28918
28919
28920
28921
28922
28923
28924
28925
28926
28927
28928
28929
28930
28931
28932
28933
28934
28935
28936
28937
28938
28939
28940
28941
28942
28943
28944
28945
28946
28947
28948
28949
28950
28951
28952
28953
28954
28955
28956
28957
28958
28959
28960
28961
28962
28963
28964
28965
28966
28967
28968
28969
28970
28971
28972
28973
28974
28975
28976
28977
28978
28979
28980
28981
28982
28983
28984
28985
28986
28987
28988
28989
28990
28991
28992
28993
28994
28995
28996
28997
28998
28999
29000
29001
29002
29003
29004
29005
29006
29007
29008
29009
29010
29011
29012
29013
29014
29015
29016
29017
29018
29019
29020
29021
29022
29023
29024
29025
29026
29027
29028
29029
29030
29031
29032
29033
29034
29035
29036
29037
29038
29039
29040
29041
29042
29043
29044
29045
29046
29047
29048
29049
29050
29051
29052
29053
29054
29055
29056
29057
29058
29059
29060
29061
29062
29063
29064
29065
29066
29067
29068
29069
29070
29071
29072
29073
29074
29075
29076
29077
29078
29079
29080
29081
29082
29083
29084
29085
29086
29087
29088
29089
29090
29091
29092
29093
29094
29095
29096
29097
29098
29099
29100
29101
29102
29103
29104
29105
29106
29107
29108
29109
29110
29111
29112
29113
29114
29115
29116
29117
29118
29119
29120
29121
29122
29123
29124
29125
29126
29127
29128
29129
29130
29131
29132
29133
29134
29135
29136
29137
29138
29139
29140
29141
29142
29143
29144
29145
29146
29147
29148
29149
29150
29151
29152
29153
29154
29155
29156
29157
29158
29159
29160
29161
29162
29163
29164
29165
29166
29167
29168
29169
29170
29171
29172
29173
29174
29175
29176
29177
29178
29179
29180
29181
29182
29183
29184
29185
29186
29187
29188
29189
29190
29191
29192
29193
29194
29195
29196
29197
29198
29199
29200
29201
29202
29203
29204
29205
29206
29207
29208
29209
29210
29211
29212
29213
29214
29215
29216
29217
29218
29219
29220
29221
29222
29223
29224
29225
29226
29227
29228
29229
29230
29231
29232
29233
29234
29235
29236
29237
29238
29239
29240
29241
29242
29243
29244
29245
29246
29247
29248
29249
29250
29251
29252
29253
29254
29255
29256
29257
29258
29259
29260
29261
29262
29263
29264
29265
29266
29267
29268
29269
29270
29271
29272
29273
29274
29275
29276
29277
29278
29279
29280
29281
29282
29283
29284
29285
29286
29287
29288
29289
29290
29291
29292
29293
29294
29295
29296
29297
29298
29299
29300
29301
29302
29303
29304
29305
29306
29307
29308
29309
29310
29311
29312
29313
29314
29315
29316
29317
29318
29319
29320
29321
29322
29323
29324
29325
29326
29327
29328
29329
29330
29331
29332
29333
29334
29335
29336
29337
29338
29339
29340
29341
29342
29343
29344
29345
29346
29347
29348
29349
29350
29351
29352
29353
29354
29355
29356
29357
29358
29359
29360
29361
29362
29363
29364
29365
29366
29367
29368
29369
29370
29371
29372
29373
29374
29375
29376
29377
29378
29379
29380
29381
29382
29383
29384
29385
29386
29387
29388
29389
29390
29391
29392
29393
29394
29395
29396
29397
29398
29399
29400
29401
29402
29403
29404
29405
29406
29407
29408
29409
29410
29411
29412
29413
29414
29415
29416
29417
29418
29419
29420
29421
29422
29423
29424
29425
29426
29427
29428
29429
29430
29431
29432
29433
29434
29435
29436
29437
29438
29439
29440
29441
29442
29443
29444
29445
29446
29447
29448
29449
29450
29451
29452
29453
29454
29455
29456
29457
29458
29459
29460
29461
29462
29463
29464
29465
29466
29467
29468
29469
29470
29471
29472
29473
29474
29475
29476
29477
29478
29479
29480
29481
29482
29483
29484
29485
29486
29487
29488
29489
29490
29491
29492
29493
29494
29495
29496
29497
29498
29499
29500
29501
29502
29503
29504
29505
29506
29507
29508
29509
29510
29511
29512
29513
29514
29515
29516
29517
29518
29519
29520
29521
29522
29523
29524
29525
29526
29527
29528
29529
29530
29531
29532
29533
29534
29535
29536
29537
29538
29539
29540
29541
29542
29543
29544
29545
29546
29547
29548
29549
29550
29551
29552
29553
29554
29555
29556
29557
29558
29559
29560
29561
29562
29563
29564
29565
29566
29567
29568
29569
29570
29571
29572
29573
29574
29575
29576
29577
29578
29579
29580
29581
29582
29583
29584
29585
29586
29587
29588
29589
29590
29591
29592
29593
29594
29595
29596
29597
29598
29599
29600
29601
29602
29603
29604
29605
29606
29607
29608
29609
29610
29611
29612
29613
29614
29615
29616
29617
29618
29619
29620
29621
29622
29623
29624
29625
29626
29627
29628
29629
29630
29631
29632
29633
29634
29635
29636
29637
29638
29639
29640
29641
29642
29643
29644
29645
29646
29647
29648
29649
29650
29651
29652
29653
29654
29655
29656
29657
29658
29659
29660
29661
29662
29663
29664
29665
29666
29667
29668
29669
29670
29671
29672
29673
29674
29675
29676
29677
29678
29679
29680
29681
29682
29683
29684
29685
29686
29687
29688
29689
29690
29691
29692
29693
29694
29695
29696
29697
29698
29699
29700
29701
29702
29703
29704
29705
29706
29707
29708
29709
29710
29711
29712
29713
29714
29715
29716
29717
29718
29719
29720
29721
29722
29723
29724
29725
29726
29727
29728
29729
29730
29731
29732
29733
29734
29735
29736
29737
29738
29739
29740
29741
29742
29743
29744
29745
29746
29747
29748
29749
29750
29751
29752
29753
29754
29755
29756
29757
29758
29759
29760
29761
29762
29763
29764
29765
29766
29767
29768
29769
29770
29771
29772
29773
29774
29775
29776
29777
29778
29779
29780
29781
29782
29783
29784
29785
29786
29787
29788
29789
29790
29791
29792
29793
29794
29795
29796
29797
29798
29799
29800
29801
29802
29803
29804
29805
29806
29807
29808
29809
29810
29811
29812
29813
29814
29815
29816
29817
29818
29819
29820
29821
29822
29823
29824
29825
29826
29827
29828
29829
29830
29831
29832
29833
29834
29835
29836
29837
29838
29839
29840
29841
29842
29843
29844
29845
29846
29847
29848
29849
29850
29851
29852
29853
29854
29855
29856
29857
29858
29859
29860
29861
29862
29863
29864
29865
29866
29867
29868
29869
29870
29871
29872
29873
29874
29875
29876
29877
29878
29879
29880
29881
29882
29883
29884
29885
29886
29887
29888
29889
29890
29891
29892
29893
29894
29895
29896
29897
29898
29899
29900
29901
29902
29903
29904
29905
29906
29907
29908
29909
29910
29911
29912
29913
29914
29915
29916
29917
29918
29919
29920
29921
29922
29923
29924
29925
29926
29927
29928
29929
29930
29931
29932
29933
29934
29935
29936
29937
29938
29939
29940
29941
29942
29943
29944
29945
29946
29947
29948
29949
29950
29951
29952
29953
29954
29955
29956
29957
29958
29959
29960
29961
29962
29963
29964
29965
29966
29967
29968
29969
29970
29971
29972
29973
29974
29975
29976
29977
29978
29979
29980
29981
29982
29983
29984
29985
29986
29987
29988
29989
29990
29991
29992
29993
29994
29995
29996
29997
29998
29999
30000
30001
30002
30003
30004
30005
30006
30007
30008
30009
30010
30011
30012
30013
30014
30015
30016
30017
30018
30019
30020
30021
30022
30023
30024
30025
30026
30027
30028
30029
30030
30031
30032
30033
30034
30035
30036
30037
30038
30039
30040
30041
30042
30043
30044
30045
30046
30047
30048
30049
30050
30051
30052
30053
30054
30055
30056
30057
30058
30059
30060
30061
30062
30063
30064
30065
30066
30067
30068
30069
30070
30071
30072
30073
30074
30075
30076
30077
30078
30079
30080
30081
30082
30083
30084
30085
30086
30087
30088
30089
30090
30091
30092
30093
30094
30095
30096
30097
30098
30099
30100
30101
30102
30103
30104
30105
30106
30107
30108
30109
30110
30111
30112
30113
30114
30115
30116
30117
30118
30119
30120
30121
30122
30123
30124
30125
30126
30127
30128
30129
30130
30131
30132
30133
30134
30135
30136
30137
30138
30139
30140
30141
30142
30143
30144
30145
30146
30147
30148
30149
30150
30151
30152
30153
30154
30155
30156
30157
30158
30159
30160
30161
30162
30163
30164
30165
30166
30167
30168
30169
30170
30171
30172
30173
30174
30175
30176
30177
30178
30179
30180
30181
30182
30183
30184
30185
30186
30187
30188
30189
30190
30191
30192
30193
30194
30195
30196
30197
30198
30199
30200
30201
30202
30203
30204
30205
30206
30207
30208
30209
30210
30211
30212
30213
30214
30215
30216
30217
30218
30219
30220
30221
30222
30223
30224
30225
30226
30227
30228
30229
30230
30231
30232
30233
30234
30235
30236
30237
30238
30239
30240
30241
30242
30243
30244
30245
30246
30247
30248
30249
30250
30251
30252
30253
30254
30255
30256
30257
30258
30259
30260
30261
30262
30263
30264
30265
30266
30267
30268
30269
30270
30271
30272
30273
30274
30275
30276
30277
30278
30279
30280
30281
30282
30283
30284
30285
30286
30287
30288
30289
30290
30291
30292
30293
30294
30295
30296
30297
30298
30299
30300
30301
30302
30303
30304
30305
30306
30307
30308
30309
30310
30311
30312
30313
30314
30315
30316
30317
30318
30319
30320
30321
30322
30323
30324
30325
30326
30327
30328
30329
30330
30331
30332
30333
30334
30335
30336
30337
30338
30339
30340
30341
30342
30343
30344
30345
30346
30347
30348
30349
30350
30351
30352
30353
30354
30355
30356
30357
30358
30359
30360
30361
30362
30363
30364
30365
30366
30367
30368
30369
30370
30371
30372
30373
30374
30375
30376
30377
30378
30379
30380
30381
30382
30383
30384
30385
30386
30387
30388
30389
30390
30391
30392
30393
30394
30395
30396
30397
30398
30399
30400
30401
30402
30403
30404
30405
30406
30407
30408
30409
30410
30411
30412
30413
30414
30415
30416
30417
30418
30419
30420
30421
30422
30423
30424
30425
30426
30427
30428
30429
30430
30431
30432
30433
30434
30435
30436
30437
30438
30439
30440
30441
30442
30443
30444
30445
30446
30447
30448
30449
30450
30451
30452
30453
30454
30455
30456
30457
30458
30459
30460
30461
30462
30463
30464
30465
30466
30467
30468
30469
30470
30471
30472
30473
30474
30475
30476
30477
30478
30479
30480
30481
30482
30483
30484
30485
30486
30487
30488
30489
30490
30491
30492
30493
30494
30495
30496
30497
30498
30499
30500
30501
30502
30503
30504
30505
30506
30507
30508
30509
30510
30511
30512
30513
30514
30515
30516
30517
30518
30519
30520
30521
30522
30523
30524
30525
30526
30527
30528
30529
30530
30531
30532
30533
30534
30535
30536
30537
30538
30539
30540
30541
30542
30543
30544
30545
30546
30547
30548
30549
30550
30551
30552
30553
30554
30555
30556
30557
30558
30559
30560
30561
30562
30563
30564
30565
30566
30567
30568
30569
30570
30571
30572
30573
30574
30575
30576
30577
30578
30579
30580
30581
30582
30583
30584
30585
30586
30587
30588
30589
30590
30591
30592
30593
30594
30595
30596
30597
30598
30599
30600
30601
30602
30603
30604
30605
30606
30607
30608
30609
30610
30611
30612
30613
30614
30615
30616
30617
30618
30619
30620
30621
30622
30623
30624
30625
30626
30627
30628
30629
30630
30631
30632
30633
30634
30635
30636
30637
30638
30639
30640
30641
30642
30643
30644
30645
30646
30647
30648
30649
30650
30651
30652
30653
30654
30655
30656
30657
30658
30659
30660
30661
30662
30663
30664
30665
30666
30667
30668
30669
30670
30671
30672
30673
30674
30675
30676
30677
30678
30679
30680
30681
30682
30683
30684
30685
30686
30687
30688
30689
30690
30691
30692
30693
30694
30695
30696
30697
30698
30699
30700
30701
30702
30703
30704
30705
30706
30707
30708
30709
30710
30711
30712
30713
30714
30715
30716
30717
30718
30719
30720
30721
30722
30723
30724
30725
30726
30727
30728
30729
30730
30731
30732
30733
30734
30735
30736
30737
30738
30739
30740
30741
30742
30743
30744
30745
30746
30747
30748
30749
30750
30751
30752
30753
30754
30755
30756
30757
30758
30759
30760
30761
30762
30763
30764
30765
30766
30767
30768
30769
30770
30771
30772
30773
30774
30775
30776
30777
30778
30779
30780
30781
30782
30783
30784
30785
30786
30787
30788
30789
30790
30791
30792
30793
30794
30795
30796
30797
30798
30799
30800
30801
30802
30803
30804
30805
30806
30807
30808
30809
30810
30811
30812
30813
30814
30815
30816
30817
30818
30819
30820
30821
30822
30823
30824
30825
30826
30827
30828
30829
30830
30831
30832
30833
30834
30835
30836
30837
30838
30839
30840
30841
30842
30843
30844
30845
30846
30847
30848
30849
30850
30851
30852
30853
30854
30855
30856
30857
30858
30859
30860
30861
30862
30863
30864
30865
30866
30867
30868
30869
30870
30871
30872
30873
30874
30875
30876
30877
30878
30879
30880
30881
30882
30883
30884
30885
30886
30887
30888
30889
30890
30891
30892
30893
30894
30895
30896
30897
30898
30899
30900
30901
30902
30903
30904
30905
30906
30907
30908
30909
30910
30911
30912
30913
30914
30915
30916
30917
30918
30919
30920
30921
30922
30923
30924
30925
30926
30927
30928
30929
30930
30931
30932
30933
30934
30935
30936
30937
30938
30939
30940
30941
30942
30943
30944
30945
30946
30947
30948
30949
30950
30951
30952
30953
30954
30955
30956
30957
30958
30959
30960
30961
30962
30963
30964
30965
30966
30967
30968
30969
30970
30971
30972
30973
30974
30975
30976
30977
30978
30979
30980
30981
30982
30983
30984
30985
30986
30987
30988
30989
30990
30991
30992
30993
30994
30995
30996
30997
30998
30999
31000
31001
31002
31003
31004
31005
31006
31007
31008
31009
31010
31011
31012
31013
31014
31015
31016
31017
31018
31019
31020
31021
31022
31023
31024
31025
31026
31027
31028
31029
31030
31031
31032
31033
31034
31035
31036
31037
31038
31039
31040
31041
31042
31043
31044
31045
31046
31047
31048
31049
31050
31051
31052
31053
31054
31055
31056
31057
31058
31059
31060
31061
31062
31063
31064
31065
31066
31067
31068
31069
31070
31071
31072
31073
31074
31075
31076
31077
31078
31079
31080
31081
31082
31083
31084
31085
31086
31087
31088
31089
31090
31091
31092
31093
31094
31095
31096
31097
31098
31099
31100
31101
31102
31103
31104
31105
31106
31107
31108
31109
31110
31111
31112
31113
31114
31115
31116
31117
31118
31119
31120
31121
31122
31123
31124
31125
31126
31127
31128
31129
31130
31131
31132
31133
31134
31135
31136
31137
31138
31139
31140
31141
31142
31143
31144
31145
31146
31147
31148
31149
31150
31151
31152
31153
31154
31155
31156
31157
31158
31159
31160
31161
31162
31163
31164
31165
31166
31167
31168
31169
31170
31171
31172
31173
31174
31175
31176
31177
31178
31179
31180
31181
31182
31183
31184
31185
31186
31187
31188
31189
31190
31191
31192
31193
31194
31195
31196
31197
31198
31199
31200
31201
31202
31203
31204
31205
31206
31207
31208
31209
31210
31211
31212
31213
31214
31215
31216
31217
31218
31219
31220
31221
31222
31223
31224
31225
31226
31227
31228
31229
31230
31231
31232
31233
31234
31235
31236
31237
31238
31239
31240
31241
31242
31243
31244
31245
31246
31247
31248
31249
31250
31251
31252
31253
31254
31255
31256
31257
31258
31259
31260
31261
31262
31263
31264
31265
31266
31267
31268
31269
31270
31271
31272
31273
31274
31275
31276
31277
31278
31279
31280
31281
31282
31283
31284
31285
31286
31287
31288
31289
31290
31291
31292
31293
31294
31295
31296
31297
31298
31299
31300
31301
31302
31303
31304
31305
31306
31307
31308
31309
31310
31311
31312
31313
31314
31315
31316
31317
31318
31319
31320
31321
31322
31323
31324
31325
31326
31327
31328
31329
31330
31331
31332
31333
31334
31335
31336
31337
31338
31339
31340
31341
31342
31343
31344
31345
31346
31347
31348
31349
31350
31351
31352
31353
31354
31355
31356
31357
31358
31359
31360
31361
31362
31363
31364
31365
31366
31367
31368
31369
31370
31371
31372
31373
31374
31375
31376
31377
31378
31379
31380
31381
31382
31383
31384
31385
31386
31387
31388
31389
31390
31391
31392
31393
31394
31395
31396
31397
31398
31399
31400
31401
31402
31403
31404
31405
31406
31407
31408
31409
31410
31411
31412
31413
31414
31415
31416
31417
31418
31419
31420
31421
31422
31423
31424
31425
31426
31427
31428
31429
31430
31431
31432
31433
31434
31435
31436
31437
31438
31439
31440
31441
31442
31443
31444
31445
31446
31447
31448
31449
31450
31451
31452
31453
31454
31455
31456
31457
31458
31459
31460
31461
31462
31463
31464
31465
31466
31467
31468
31469
31470
31471
31472
31473
31474
31475
31476
31477
31478
31479
31480
31481
31482
31483
31484
31485
31486
31487
31488
31489
31490
31491
31492
31493
31494
31495
31496
31497
31498
31499
31500
31501
31502
31503
31504
31505
31506
31507
31508
31509
31510
31511
31512
31513
31514
31515
31516
31517
31518
31519
31520
31521
31522
31523
31524
31525
31526
31527
31528
31529
31530
31531
31532
31533
31534
31535
31536
31537
31538
31539
31540
31541
31542
31543
31544
31545
31546
31547
31548
31549
31550
31551
31552
31553
31554
31555
31556
31557
31558
31559
31560
31561
31562
31563
31564
31565
31566
31567
31568
31569
31570
31571
31572
31573
31574
31575
31576
31577
31578
31579
31580
31581
31582
31583
31584
31585
31586
31587
31588
31589
31590
31591
31592
31593
31594
31595
31596
31597
31598
31599
31600
31601
31602
31603
31604
31605
31606
31607
31608
31609
31610
31611
31612
31613
31614
31615
31616
31617
31618
31619
31620
31621
31622
31623
31624
31625
31626
31627
31628
31629
31630
31631
31632
31633
31634
31635
31636
31637
31638
31639
31640
31641
31642
31643
31644
31645
31646
31647
31648
31649
31650
31651
31652
31653
31654
31655
31656
31657
31658
31659
31660
31661
31662
31663
31664
31665
31666
31667
31668
31669
31670
31671
31672
31673
31674
31675
31676
31677
31678
31679
31680
31681
31682
31683
31684
31685
31686
31687
31688
31689
31690
31691
31692
31693
31694
31695
31696
31697
31698
31699
31700
31701
31702
31703
31704
31705
31706
31707
31708
31709
31710
31711
31712
31713
31714
31715
31716
31717
31718
31719
31720
31721
31722
31723
31724
31725
31726
31727
31728
31729
31730
31731
31732
31733
31734
31735
31736
31737
31738
31739
31740
31741
31742
31743
31744
31745
31746
31747
31748
31749
31750
31751
31752
31753
31754
31755
31756
31757
31758
31759
31760
31761
31762
31763
31764
31765
31766
31767
31768
31769
31770
31771
31772
31773
31774
31775
31776
31777
31778
31779
31780
31781
31782
31783
31784
31785
31786
31787
31788
31789
31790
31791
31792
31793
31794
31795
31796
31797
31798
31799
31800
31801
31802
31803
31804
31805
31806
31807
31808
31809
31810
31811
31812
31813
31814
31815
31816
31817
31818
31819
31820
31821
31822
31823
31824
31825
31826
31827
31828
31829
31830
31831
31832
31833
31834
31835
31836
31837
31838
31839
31840
31841
31842
31843
31844
31845
31846
31847
31848
31849
31850
31851
31852
31853
31854
31855
31856
31857
31858
31859
31860
31861
31862
31863
31864
31865
31866
31867
31868
31869
31870
31871
31872
31873
31874
31875
31876
31877
31878
31879
31880
31881
31882
31883
31884
31885
31886
31887
31888
31889
31890
31891
31892
31893
31894
31895
31896
31897
31898
31899
31900
31901
31902
31903
31904
31905
31906
31907
31908
31909
31910
31911
31912
31913
31914
31915
31916
31917
31918
31919
31920
31921
31922
31923
31924
31925
31926
31927
31928
31929
31930
31931
31932
31933
31934
31935
31936
31937
31938
31939
31940
31941
31942
31943
31944
31945
31946
31947
31948
31949
31950
31951
31952
31953
31954
31955
31956
31957
31958
31959
31960
31961
31962
31963
31964
31965
31966
31967
31968
31969
31970
31971
31972
31973
31974
31975
31976
31977
31978
31979
31980
31981
31982
31983
31984
31985
31986
31987
31988
31989
31990
31991
31992
31993
31994
31995
31996
31997
31998
31999
32000
32001
32002
32003
32004
32005
32006
32007
32008
32009
32010
32011
32012
32013
32014
32015
32016
32017
32018
32019
32020
32021
32022
32023
32024
32025
32026
32027
32028
32029
32030
32031
32032
32033
32034
32035
32036
32037
32038
32039
32040
32041
32042
32043
32044
32045
32046
32047
32048
32049
32050
32051
32052
32053
32054
32055
32056
32057
32058
32059
32060
32061
32062
32063
32064
32065
32066
32067
32068
32069
32070
32071
32072
32073
32074
32075
32076
32077
32078
32079
32080
32081
32082
32083
32084
32085
32086
32087
32088
32089
32090
32091
32092
32093
32094
32095
32096
32097
32098
32099
32100
32101
32102
32103
32104
32105
32106
32107
32108
32109
32110
32111
32112
32113
32114
32115
32116
32117
32118
32119
32120
32121
32122
32123
32124
32125
32126
32127
32128
32129
32130
32131
32132
32133
32134
32135
32136
32137
32138
32139
32140
32141
32142
32143
32144
32145
32146
32147
32148
32149
32150
32151
32152
32153
32154
32155
32156
32157
32158
32159
32160
32161
32162
32163
32164
32165
32166
32167
32168
32169
32170
32171
32172
32173
32174
32175
32176
32177
32178
32179
32180
32181
32182
32183
32184
32185
32186
32187
32188
32189
32190
32191
32192
32193
32194
32195
32196
32197
32198
32199
32200
32201
32202
32203
32204
32205
32206
32207
32208
32209
32210
32211
32212
32213
32214
32215
32216
32217
32218
32219
32220
32221
32222
32223
32224
32225
32226
32227
32228
32229
32230
32231
32232
32233
32234
32235
32236
32237
32238
32239
32240
32241
32242
32243
32244
32245
32246
32247
32248
32249
32250
32251
32252
32253
32254
32255
32256
32257
32258
32259
32260
32261
32262
32263
32264
32265
32266
32267
32268
32269
32270
32271
32272
32273
32274
32275
32276
32277
32278
32279
32280
32281
32282
32283
32284
32285
32286
32287
32288
32289
32290
32291
32292
32293
32294
32295
32296
32297
32298
32299
32300
32301
32302
32303
32304
32305
32306
32307
32308
32309
32310
32311
32312
32313
32314
32315
32316
32317
32318
32319
32320
32321
32322
32323
32324
32325
32326
32327
32328
32329
32330
32331
32332
32333
32334
32335
32336
32337
32338
32339
32340
32341
32342
32343
32344
32345
32346
32347
32348
32349
32350
32351
32352
32353
32354
32355
32356
32357
32358
32359
32360
32361
32362
32363
32364
32365
32366
32367
32368
32369
32370
32371
32372
32373
32374
32375
32376
32377
32378
32379
32380
32381
32382
32383
32384
32385
32386
32387
32388
32389
32390
32391
32392
32393
32394
32395
32396
32397
32398
32399
32400
32401
32402
32403
32404
32405
32406
32407
32408
32409
32410
32411
32412
32413
32414
32415
32416
32417
32418
32419
32420
32421
32422
32423
32424
32425
32426
32427
32428
32429
32430
32431
32432
32433
32434
32435
32436
32437
32438
32439
32440
32441
32442
32443
32444
32445
32446
32447
32448
32449
32450
32451
32452
32453
32454
32455
32456
32457
32458
32459
32460
32461
32462
32463
32464
32465
32466
32467
32468
32469
32470
32471
32472
32473
32474
32475
32476
32477
32478
32479
32480
32481
32482
32483
32484
32485
32486
32487
32488
32489
32490
32491
32492
32493
32494
32495
32496
32497
32498
32499
32500
32501
32502
32503
32504
32505
32506
32507
32508
32509
32510
32511
32512
32513
32514
32515
32516
32517
32518
32519
32520
32521
32522
32523
32524
32525
32526
32527
32528
32529
32530
32531
32532
32533
32534
32535
32536
32537
32538
32539
32540
32541
32542
32543
32544
32545
32546
32547
32548
32549
32550
32551
32552
32553
32554
32555
32556
32557
32558
32559
32560
32561
32562
32563
32564
32565
32566
32567
32568
32569
32570
32571
32572
32573
32574
32575
32576
32577
32578
32579
32580
32581
32582
32583
32584
32585
32586
32587
32588
32589
32590
32591
32592
32593
32594
32595
32596
32597
32598
32599
32600
32601
32602
32603
32604
32605
32606
32607
32608
32609
32610
32611
32612
32613
32614
32615
32616
32617
32618
32619
32620
32621
32622
32623
32624
32625
32626
32627
32628
32629
32630
32631
32632
32633
32634
32635
32636
32637
32638
32639
32640
32641
32642
32643
32644
32645
32646
32647
32648
32649
32650
32651
32652
32653
32654
32655
32656
32657
32658
32659
32660
32661
32662
32663
32664
32665
32666
32667
32668
32669
32670
32671
32672
32673
32674
32675
32676
32677
32678
32679
32680
32681
32682
32683
32684
32685
32686
32687
32688
32689
32690
32691
32692
32693
32694
32695
32696
32697
32698
32699
32700
32701
32702
32703
32704
32705
32706
32707
32708
32709
32710
32711
32712
32713
32714
32715
32716
32717
32718
32719
32720
32721
32722
32723
32724
32725
32726
32727
32728
32729
32730
32731
32732
32733
32734
32735
32736
32737
32738
32739
32740
32741
32742
32743
32744
32745
32746
32747
32748
32749
32750
32751
32752
32753
32754
32755
32756
32757
32758
32759
32760
32761
32762
32763
32764
32765
32766
32767
32768
32769
32770
32771
32772
32773
32774
32775
32776
32777
32778
32779
32780
32781
32782
32783
32784
32785
32786
32787
32788
32789
32790
32791
32792
32793
32794
32795
32796
32797
32798
32799
32800
32801
32802
32803
32804
32805
32806
32807
32808
32809
32810
32811
32812
32813
32814
32815
32816
32817
32818
32819
32820
32821
32822
32823
32824
32825
32826
32827
32828
32829
32830
32831
32832
32833
32834
32835
32836
32837
32838
32839
32840
32841
32842
32843
32844
32845
32846
32847
32848
32849
32850
32851
32852
32853
32854
32855
32856
32857
32858
32859
32860
32861
32862
32863
32864
32865
32866
32867
32868
32869
32870
32871
32872
32873
32874
32875
32876
32877
32878
32879
32880
32881
32882
32883
32884
32885
32886
32887
32888
32889
32890
32891
32892
32893
32894
32895
32896
32897
32898
32899
32900
32901
32902
32903
32904
32905
32906
32907
32908
32909
32910
32911
32912
32913
32914
32915
32916
32917
32918
32919
32920
32921
32922
32923
32924
32925
32926
32927
32928
32929
32930
32931
32932
32933
32934
32935
32936
32937
32938
32939
32940
32941
32942
32943
32944
32945
32946
32947
32948
32949
32950
32951
32952
32953
32954
32955
32956
32957
32958
32959
32960
32961
32962
32963
32964
32965
32966
32967
32968
32969
32970
32971
32972
32973
32974
32975
32976
32977
32978
32979
32980
32981
32982
32983
32984
32985
32986
32987
32988
32989
32990
32991
32992
32993
32994
32995
32996
32997
32998
32999
33000
33001
33002
33003
33004
33005
33006
33007
33008
33009
33010
33011
33012
33013
33014
33015
33016
33017
33018
33019
33020
33021
33022
33023
33024
33025
33026
33027
33028
33029
33030
33031
33032
33033
33034
33035
33036
33037
33038
33039
33040
33041
33042
33043
33044
33045
33046
33047
33048
33049
33050
33051
33052
33053
33054
33055
33056
33057
33058
33059
33060
33061
33062
33063
33064
33065
33066
33067
33068
33069
33070
33071
33072
33073
33074
33075
33076
33077
33078
33079
33080
33081
33082
33083
33084
33085
33086
33087
33088
33089
33090
33091
33092
33093
33094
33095
33096
33097
33098
33099
33100
33101
33102
33103
33104
33105
33106
33107
33108
33109
33110
33111
33112
33113
33114
33115
33116
33117
33118
33119
33120
33121
33122
33123
33124
33125
33126
33127
33128
33129
33130
33131
33132
33133
33134
33135
33136
33137
33138
33139
33140
33141
33142
33143
33144
33145
33146
33147
33148
33149
33150
33151
33152
33153
33154
33155
33156
33157
33158
33159
33160
33161
33162
33163
33164
33165
33166
33167
33168
33169
33170
33171
33172
33173
33174
33175
33176
33177
33178
33179
33180
33181
33182
33183
33184
33185
33186
33187
33188
33189
33190
33191
33192
33193
33194
33195
33196
33197
33198
33199
33200
33201
33202
33203
33204
33205
33206
33207
33208
33209
33210
33211
33212
33213
33214
33215
33216
33217
33218
33219
33220
33221
33222
33223
33224
33225
33226
33227
33228
33229
33230
33231
33232
33233
33234
33235
33236
33237
33238
33239
33240
33241
33242
33243
33244
33245
33246
33247
33248
33249
33250
33251
33252
33253
33254
33255
33256
33257
33258
33259
33260
33261
33262
33263
33264
33265
33266
33267
33268
33269
33270
33271
33272
33273
33274
33275
33276
33277
33278
33279
33280
33281
33282
33283
33284
33285
33286
33287
33288
33289
33290
33291
33292
33293
33294
33295
33296
33297
33298
33299
33300
33301
33302
33303
33304
33305
33306
33307
33308
33309
33310
33311
33312
33313
33314
33315
33316
33317
33318
33319
33320
33321
33322
33323
33324
33325
33326
33327
33328
33329
33330
33331
33332
33333
33334
33335
33336
33337
33338
33339
33340
33341
33342
33343
33344
33345
33346
33347
33348
33349
33350
33351
33352
33353
33354
33355
33356
33357
33358
33359
33360
33361
33362
33363
33364
33365
33366
33367
33368
33369
33370
33371
33372
33373
33374
33375
33376
33377
33378
33379
33380
33381
33382
33383
33384
33385
33386
33387
33388
33389
33390
33391
33392
33393
33394
33395
33396
33397
33398
33399
33400
33401
33402
33403
33404
33405
33406
33407
33408
33409
33410
33411
33412
33413
33414
33415
33416
33417
33418
33419
33420
33421
33422
33423
33424
33425
33426
33427
33428
33429
33430
33431
33432
33433
33434
33435
33436
33437
33438
33439
33440
33441
33442
33443
33444
33445
33446
33447
33448
33449
33450
33451
33452
33453
33454
33455
33456
33457
33458
33459
33460
33461
33462
33463
33464
33465
33466
33467
33468
33469
33470
33471
33472
33473
33474
33475
33476
33477
33478
33479
33480
33481
33482
33483
33484
33485
33486
33487
33488
33489
33490
33491
33492
33493
33494
33495
33496
33497
33498
33499
33500
33501
33502
33503
33504
33505
33506
33507
33508
33509
33510
33511
33512
33513
33514
33515
33516
33517
33518
33519
33520
33521
33522
33523
33524
33525
33526
33527
33528
33529
33530
33531
33532
33533
33534
33535
33536
33537
33538
33539
33540
33541
33542
33543
33544
33545
33546
33547
33548
33549
33550
33551
33552
33553
33554
33555
33556
33557
33558
33559
33560
33561
33562
33563
33564
33565
33566
33567
33568
33569
33570
33571
33572
33573
33574
33575
33576
33577
33578
33579
33580
33581
33582
33583
33584
33585
33586
33587
33588
33589
33590
33591
33592
33593
33594
33595
33596
33597
33598
33599
33600
33601
33602
33603
33604
33605
33606
33607
33608
33609
33610
33611
33612
33613
33614
33615
33616
33617
33618
33619
33620
33621
33622
33623
33624
33625
33626
33627
33628
33629
33630
33631
33632
33633
33634
33635
33636
33637
33638
33639
33640
33641
33642
33643
33644
33645
33646
33647
33648
33649
33650
33651
33652
33653
33654
33655
33656
33657
33658
33659
33660
33661
33662
33663
33664
33665
33666
33667
33668
33669
33670
33671
33672
33673
33674
33675
33676
33677
33678
33679
33680
33681
33682
33683
33684
33685
33686
33687
33688
33689
33690
33691
33692
33693
33694
33695
33696
33697
33698
33699
33700
33701
33702
33703
33704
33705
33706
33707
33708
33709
33710
33711
33712
33713
33714
33715
33716
33717
33718
33719
33720
33721
33722
33723
33724
33725
33726
33727
33728
33729
33730
33731
33732
33733
33734
33735
33736
33737
33738
33739
33740
33741
33742
33743
33744
33745
33746
33747
33748
33749
33750
33751
33752
33753
33754
33755
33756
33757
33758
33759
33760
33761
33762
33763
33764
33765
33766
33767
33768
33769
33770
33771
33772
33773
33774
33775
33776
33777
33778
33779
33780
33781
33782
33783
33784
33785
33786
33787
33788
33789
33790
33791
33792
33793
33794
33795
33796
33797
33798
33799
33800
33801
33802
33803
33804
33805
33806
33807
33808
33809
33810
33811
33812
33813
33814
33815
33816
33817
33818
33819
33820
33821
33822
33823
33824
33825
33826
33827
33828
33829
33830
33831
33832
33833
33834
33835
33836
33837
33838
33839
33840
33841
33842
33843
33844
33845
33846
33847
33848
33849
33850
33851
33852
33853
33854
33855
33856
33857
33858
33859
33860
33861
33862
33863
33864
33865
33866
33867
33868
33869
33870
33871
33872
33873
33874
33875
33876
33877
33878
33879
33880
33881
33882
33883
33884
33885
33886
33887
33888
33889
33890
33891
33892
33893
33894
33895
33896
33897
33898
33899
33900
33901
33902
33903
33904
33905
33906
33907
33908
33909
33910
33911
33912
33913
33914
33915
33916
33917
33918
33919
33920
33921
33922
33923
33924
33925
33926
33927
33928
33929
33930
33931
33932
33933
33934
33935
33936
33937
33938
33939
33940
33941
33942
33943
33944
33945
33946
33947
33948
33949
33950
33951
33952
33953
33954
33955
33956
33957
33958
33959
33960
33961
33962
33963
33964
33965
33966
33967
33968
33969
33970
33971
33972
33973
33974
33975
33976
33977
33978
33979
33980
33981
33982
33983
33984
33985
33986
33987
33988
33989
33990
33991
33992
33993
33994
33995
33996
33997
33998
33999
34000
34001
34002
34003
34004
34005
34006
34007
34008
34009
34010
34011
34012
34013
34014
34015
34016
34017
34018
34019
34020
34021
34022
34023
34024
34025
34026
34027
34028
34029
34030
34031
34032
34033
34034
34035
34036
34037
34038
34039
34040
34041
34042
34043
34044
34045
34046
34047
34048
34049
34050
34051
34052
34053
34054
34055
34056
34057
34058
34059
34060
34061
34062
34063
34064
34065
34066
34067
34068
34069
34070
34071
34072
34073
34074
34075
34076
34077
34078
34079
34080
34081
34082
34083
34084
34085
34086
34087
34088
34089
34090
34091
34092
34093
34094
34095
34096
34097
34098
34099
34100
34101
34102
34103
34104
34105
34106
34107
34108
34109
34110
34111
34112
34113
34114
34115
34116
34117
34118
34119
34120
34121
34122
34123
34124
34125
34126
34127
34128
34129
34130
34131
34132
34133
34134
34135
34136
34137
34138
34139
34140
34141
34142
34143
34144
34145
34146
34147
34148
34149
34150
34151
34152
34153
34154
34155
34156
34157
34158
34159
34160
34161
34162
34163
34164
34165
34166
34167
34168
34169
34170
34171
34172
34173
34174
34175
34176
34177
34178
34179
34180
34181
34182
34183
34184
34185
34186
34187
34188
34189
34190
34191
34192
34193
34194
34195
34196
34197
34198
34199
34200
34201
34202
34203
34204
34205
34206
34207
34208
34209
34210
34211
34212
34213
34214
34215
34216
34217
34218
34219
34220
34221
34222
34223
34224
34225
34226
34227
34228
34229
34230
34231
34232
34233
34234
34235
34236
34237
34238
34239
34240
34241
34242
34243
34244
34245
34246
34247
34248
34249
34250
34251
34252
34253
34254
34255
34256
34257
34258
34259
34260
34261
34262
34263
34264
34265
34266
34267
34268
34269
34270
34271
34272
34273
34274
34275
34276
34277
34278
34279
34280
34281
34282
34283
34284
34285
34286
34287
34288
34289
34290
34291
34292
34293
34294
34295
34296
34297
34298
34299
34300
34301
34302
34303
34304
34305
34306
34307
34308
34309
34310
34311
34312
34313
34314
34315
34316
34317
34318
34319
34320
34321
34322
34323
34324
34325
34326
34327
34328
34329
34330
34331
34332
34333
34334
34335
34336
34337
34338
34339
34340
34341
34342
34343
34344
34345
34346
34347
34348
34349
34350
34351
34352
34353
34354
34355
34356
34357
34358
34359
34360
34361
34362
34363
34364
34365
34366
34367
34368
34369
34370
34371
34372
34373
34374
34375
34376
34377
34378
34379
34380
34381
34382
34383
34384
34385
34386
34387
34388
34389
34390
34391
34392
34393
34394
34395
34396
34397
34398
34399
34400
34401
34402
34403
34404
34405
34406
34407
34408
34409
34410
34411
34412
34413
34414
34415
34416
34417
34418
34419
34420
34421
34422
34423
34424
34425
34426
34427
34428
34429
34430
34431
34432
34433
34434
34435
34436
34437
34438
34439
34440
34441
34442
34443
34444
34445
34446
34447
34448
34449
34450
34451
34452
34453
34454
34455
34456
34457
34458
34459
34460
34461
34462
34463
34464
34465
34466
34467
34468
34469
34470
34471
34472
34473
34474
34475
34476
34477
34478
34479
34480
34481
34482
34483
34484
34485
34486
34487
34488
34489
34490
34491
34492
34493
34494
34495
34496
34497
34498
34499
34500
34501
34502
34503
34504
34505
34506
34507
34508
34509
34510
34511
34512
34513
34514
34515
34516
34517
34518
34519
34520
34521
34522
34523
34524
34525
34526
34527
34528
34529
34530
34531
34532
34533
34534
34535
34536
34537
34538
34539
34540
34541
34542
34543
34544
34545
34546
34547
34548
34549
34550
34551
34552
34553
34554
34555
34556
34557
34558
34559
34560
34561
34562
34563
34564
34565
34566
34567
34568
34569
34570
34571
34572
34573
34574
34575
34576
34577
34578
34579
34580
34581
34582
34583
34584
34585
34586
34587
34588
34589
34590
34591
34592
34593
34594
34595
34596
34597
34598
34599
34600
34601
34602
34603
34604
34605
34606
34607
34608
34609
34610
34611
34612
34613
34614
34615
34616
34617
34618
34619
34620
34621
34622
34623
34624
34625
34626
34627
34628
34629
34630
34631
34632
34633
34634
34635
34636
34637
34638
34639
34640
34641
34642
34643
34644
34645
34646
34647
34648
34649
34650
34651
34652
34653
34654
34655
34656
34657
34658
34659
34660
34661
34662
34663
34664
34665
34666
34667
34668
34669
34670
34671
34672
34673
34674
34675
34676
34677
34678
34679
34680
34681
34682
34683
34684
34685
34686
34687
34688
34689
34690
34691
34692
34693
34694
34695
34696
34697
34698
34699
34700
34701
34702
34703
34704
34705
34706
34707
34708
34709
34710
34711
34712
34713
34714
34715
34716
34717
34718
34719
34720
34721
34722
34723
34724
34725
34726
34727
34728
34729
34730
34731
34732
34733
34734
34735
34736
34737
34738
34739
34740
34741
34742
34743
34744
34745
34746
34747
34748
34749
34750
34751
34752
34753
34754
34755
34756
34757
34758
34759
34760
34761
34762
34763
34764
34765
34766
34767
34768
34769
34770
34771
34772
34773
34774
34775
34776
34777
34778
34779
34780
34781
34782
34783
34784
34785
34786
34787
34788
34789
34790
34791
34792
34793
34794
34795
34796
34797
34798
34799
34800
34801
34802
34803
34804
34805
34806
34807
34808
34809
34810
34811
34812
34813
34814
34815
34816
34817
34818
34819
34820
34821
34822
34823
34824
34825
34826
34827
34828
34829
34830
34831
34832
34833
34834
34835
34836
34837
34838
34839
34840
34841
34842
34843
34844
34845
34846
34847
34848
34849
34850
34851
34852
34853
34854
34855
34856
34857
34858
34859
34860
34861
34862
34863
34864
34865
34866
34867
34868
34869
34870
34871
34872
34873
34874
34875
34876
34877
34878
34879
34880
34881
34882
34883
34884
34885
34886
34887
34888
34889
34890
34891
34892
34893
34894
34895
34896
34897
34898
34899
34900
34901
34902
34903
34904
34905
34906
34907
34908
34909
34910
34911
34912
34913
34914
34915
34916
34917
34918
34919
34920
34921
34922
34923
34924
34925
34926
34927
34928
34929
34930
34931
34932
34933
34934
34935
34936
34937
34938
34939
34940
34941
34942
34943
34944
34945
34946
34947
34948
34949
34950
34951
34952
34953
34954
34955
34956
34957
34958
34959
34960
34961
34962
34963
34964
34965
34966
34967
34968
34969
34970
34971
34972
34973
34974
34975
34976
34977
34978
34979
34980
34981
34982
34983
34984
34985
34986
34987
34988
34989
34990
34991
34992
34993
34994
34995
34996
34997
34998
34999
35000
35001
35002
35003
35004
35005
35006
35007
35008
35009
35010
35011
35012
35013
35014
35015
35016
35017
35018
35019
35020
35021
35022
35023
35024
35025
35026
35027
35028
35029
35030
35031
35032
35033
35034
35035
35036
35037
35038
35039
35040
35041
35042
35043
35044
35045
35046
35047
35048
35049
35050
35051
35052
35053
35054
35055
35056
35057
35058
35059
35060
35061
35062
35063
35064
35065
35066
35067
35068
35069
35070
35071
35072
35073
35074
35075
35076
35077
35078
35079
35080
35081
35082
35083
35084
35085
35086
35087
35088
35089
35090
35091
35092
35093
35094
35095
35096
35097
35098
35099
35100
35101
35102
35103
35104
35105
35106
35107
35108
35109
35110
35111
35112
35113
35114
35115
35116
35117
35118
35119
35120
35121
35122
35123
35124
35125
35126
35127
35128
35129
35130
35131
35132
35133
35134
35135
35136
35137
35138
35139
35140
35141
35142
35143
35144
35145
35146
35147
35148
35149
35150
35151
35152
35153
35154
35155
35156
35157
35158
35159
35160
35161
35162
35163
35164
35165
35166
35167
35168
35169
35170
35171
35172
35173
35174
35175
35176
35177
35178
35179
35180
35181
35182
35183
35184
35185
35186
35187
35188
35189
35190
35191
35192
35193
35194
35195
35196
35197
35198
35199
35200
35201
35202
35203
35204
35205
35206
35207
35208
35209
35210
35211
35212
35213
35214
35215
35216
35217
35218
35219
35220
35221
35222
35223
35224
35225
35226
35227
35228
35229
35230
35231
35232
35233
35234
35235
35236
35237
35238
35239
35240
35241
35242
35243
35244
35245
35246
35247
35248
35249
35250
35251
35252
35253
35254
35255
35256
35257
35258
35259
35260
35261
35262
35263
35264
35265
35266
35267
35268
35269
35270
35271
35272
35273
35274
35275
35276
35277
35278
35279
35280
35281
35282
35283
35284
35285
35286
35287
35288
35289
35290
35291
35292
35293
35294
35295
35296
35297
35298
35299
35300
35301
35302
35303
35304
35305
35306
35307
35308
35309
35310
35311
35312
35313
35314
35315
35316
35317
35318
35319
35320
35321
35322
35323
35324
35325
35326
35327
35328
35329
35330
35331
35332
35333
35334
35335
35336
35337
35338
35339
35340
35341
35342
35343
35344
35345
35346
35347
35348
35349
35350
35351
35352
35353
35354
35355
35356
35357
35358
35359
35360
35361
35362
35363
35364
35365
35366
35367
35368
35369
35370
35371
35372
35373
35374
35375
35376
35377
35378
35379
35380
35381
35382
35383
35384
35385
35386
35387
35388
35389
35390
35391
35392
35393
35394
35395
35396
35397
35398
35399
35400
35401
35402
35403
35404
35405
35406
35407
35408
35409
35410
35411
35412
35413
35414
35415
35416
35417
35418
35419
35420
35421
35422
35423
35424
35425
35426
35427
35428
35429
35430
35431
35432
35433
35434
35435
35436
35437
35438
35439
35440
35441
35442
35443
35444
35445
35446
35447
35448
35449
35450
35451
35452
35453
35454
35455
35456
35457
35458
35459
35460
35461
35462
35463
35464
35465
35466
35467
35468
35469
35470
35471
35472
35473
35474
35475
35476
35477
35478
35479
35480
35481
35482
35483
35484
35485
35486
35487
35488
35489
35490
35491
35492
35493
35494
35495
35496
35497
35498
35499
35500
35501
35502
35503
35504
35505
35506
35507
35508
35509
35510
35511
35512
35513
35514
35515
35516
35517
35518
35519
35520
35521
35522
35523
35524
35525
35526
35527
35528
35529
35530
35531
35532
35533
35534
35535
35536
35537
35538
35539
35540
35541
35542
35543
35544
35545
35546
35547
35548
35549
35550
35551
35552
35553
35554
35555
35556
35557
35558
35559
35560
35561
35562
35563
35564
35565
35566
35567
35568
35569
35570
35571
35572
35573
35574
35575
35576
35577
35578
35579
35580
35581
35582
35583
35584
35585
35586
35587
35588
35589
35590
35591
35592
35593
35594
35595
35596
35597
35598
35599
35600
35601
35602
35603
35604
35605
35606
35607
35608
35609
35610
35611
35612
35613
35614
35615
35616
35617
35618
35619
35620
35621
35622
35623
35624
35625
35626
35627
35628
35629
35630
35631
35632
35633
35634
35635
35636
35637
35638
35639
35640
35641
35642
35643
35644
35645
35646
35647
35648
35649
35650
35651
35652
35653
35654
35655
35656
35657
35658
35659
35660
35661
35662
35663
35664
35665
35666
35667
35668
35669
35670
35671
35672
35673
35674
35675
35676
35677
35678
35679
35680
35681
35682
35683
35684
35685
35686
35687
35688
35689
35690
35691
35692
35693
35694
35695
35696
35697
35698
35699
35700
35701
35702
35703
35704
35705
35706
35707
35708
35709
35710
35711
35712
35713
35714
35715
35716
35717
35718
35719
35720
35721
35722
35723
35724
35725
35726
35727
35728
35729
35730
35731
35732
35733
35734
35735
35736
35737
35738
35739
35740
35741
35742
35743
35744
35745
35746
35747
35748
35749
35750
35751
35752
35753
35754
35755
35756
35757
35758
35759
35760
35761
35762
35763
35764
35765
35766
35767
35768
35769
35770
35771
35772
35773
35774
35775
35776
35777
35778
35779
35780
35781
35782
35783
35784
35785
35786
35787
35788
35789
35790
35791
35792
35793
35794
35795
35796
35797
35798
35799
35800
35801
35802
35803
35804
35805
35806
35807
35808
35809
35810
35811
35812
35813
35814
35815
35816
35817
35818
35819
35820
35821
35822
35823
35824
35825
35826
35827
35828
35829
35830
35831
35832
35833
35834
35835
35836
35837
35838
35839
35840
35841
35842
35843
35844
35845
35846
35847
35848
35849
35850
35851
35852
35853
35854
35855
35856
35857
35858
35859
35860
35861
35862
35863
35864
35865
35866
35867
35868
35869
35870
35871
35872
35873
35874
35875
35876
35877
35878
35879
35880
35881
35882
35883
35884
35885
35886
35887
35888
35889
35890
35891
35892
35893
35894
35895
35896
35897
35898
35899
35900
35901
35902
35903
35904
35905
35906
35907
35908
35909
35910
35911
35912
35913
35914
35915
35916
35917
35918
35919
35920
35921
35922
35923
35924
35925
35926
35927
35928
35929
35930
35931
35932
35933
35934
35935
35936
35937
35938
35939
35940
35941
35942
35943
35944
35945
35946
35947
35948
35949
35950
35951
35952
35953
35954
35955
35956
35957
35958
35959
35960
35961
35962
35963
35964
35965
35966
35967
35968
35969
35970
35971
35972
35973
35974
35975
35976
35977
35978
35979
35980
35981
35982
35983
35984
35985
35986
35987
35988
35989
35990
35991
35992
35993
35994
35995
35996
35997
35998
35999
36000
36001
36002
36003
36004
36005
36006
36007
36008
36009
36010
36011
36012
36013
36014
36015
36016
36017
36018
36019
36020
36021
36022
36023
36024
36025
36026
36027
36028
36029
36030
36031
36032
36033
36034
36035
36036
36037
36038
36039
36040
36041
36042
36043
36044
36045
36046
36047
36048
36049
36050
36051
36052
36053
36054
36055
36056
36057
36058
36059
36060
36061
36062
36063
36064
36065
36066
36067
36068
36069
36070
36071
36072
36073
36074
36075
36076
36077
36078
36079
36080
36081
36082
36083
36084
36085
36086
36087
36088
36089
36090
36091
36092
36093
36094
36095
36096
36097
36098
36099
36100
36101
36102
36103
36104
36105
36106
36107
36108
36109
36110
36111
36112
36113
36114
36115
36116
36117
36118
36119
36120
36121
36122
36123
36124
36125
36126
36127
36128
36129
36130
36131
36132
36133
36134
36135
36136
36137
36138
36139
36140
36141
36142
36143
36144
36145
36146
36147
36148
36149
36150
36151
36152
36153
36154
36155
36156
36157
36158
36159
36160
36161
36162
36163
36164
36165
36166
36167
36168
36169
36170
36171
36172
36173
36174
36175
36176
36177
36178
36179
36180
36181
36182
36183
36184
36185
36186
36187
36188
36189
36190
36191
36192
36193
36194
36195
36196
36197
36198
36199
36200
36201
36202
36203
36204
36205
36206
36207
36208
36209
36210
36211
36212
36213
36214
36215
36216
36217
36218
36219
36220
36221
36222
36223
36224
36225
36226
36227
36228
36229
36230
36231
36232
36233
36234
36235
36236
36237
36238
36239
36240
36241
36242
36243
36244
36245
36246
36247
36248
36249
36250
36251
36252
36253
36254
36255
36256
36257
36258
36259
36260
36261
36262
36263
36264
36265
36266
36267
36268
36269
36270
36271
36272
36273
36274
36275
36276
36277
36278
36279
36280
36281
36282
36283
36284
36285
36286
36287
36288
36289
36290
36291
36292
36293
36294
36295
36296
36297
36298
36299
36300
36301
36302
36303
36304
36305
36306
36307
36308
36309
36310
36311
36312
36313
36314
36315
36316
36317
36318
36319
36320
36321
36322
36323
36324
36325
36326
36327
36328
36329
36330
36331
36332
36333
36334
36335
36336
36337
36338
36339
36340
36341
36342
36343
36344
36345
36346
36347
36348
36349
36350
36351
36352
36353
36354
36355
36356
36357
36358
36359
36360
36361
36362
36363
36364
36365
36366
36367
36368
36369
36370
36371
36372
36373
36374
36375
36376
36377
36378
36379
36380
36381
36382
36383
36384
36385
36386
36387
36388
36389
36390
36391
36392
36393
36394
36395
36396
36397
36398
36399
36400
36401
36402
36403
36404
36405
36406
36407
36408
36409
36410
36411
36412
36413
36414
36415
36416
36417
36418
36419
36420
36421
36422
36423
36424
36425
36426
36427
36428
36429
36430
36431
36432
36433
36434
36435
36436
36437
36438
36439
36440
36441
36442
36443
36444
36445
36446
36447
36448
36449
36450
36451
36452
36453
36454
36455
36456
36457
36458
36459
36460
36461
36462
36463
36464
36465
36466
36467
36468
36469
36470
36471
36472
36473
36474
36475
36476
36477
36478
36479
36480
36481
36482
36483
36484
36485
36486
36487
36488
36489
36490
36491
36492
36493
36494
36495
36496
36497
36498
36499
36500
36501
36502
36503
36504
36505
36506
36507
36508
36509
36510
36511
36512
36513
36514
36515
36516
36517
36518
36519
36520
36521
36522
36523
36524
36525
36526
36527
36528
36529
36530
36531
36532
36533
36534
36535
36536
36537
36538
36539
36540
36541
36542
36543
36544
36545
36546
36547
36548
36549
36550
36551
36552
36553
36554
36555
36556
36557
36558
36559
36560
36561
36562
36563
36564
36565
36566
36567
36568
36569
36570
36571
36572
36573
36574
36575
36576
36577
36578
36579
36580
36581
36582
36583
36584
36585
36586
36587
36588
36589
36590
36591
36592
36593
36594
36595
36596
36597
36598
36599
36600
36601
36602
36603
36604
36605
36606
36607
36608
36609
36610
36611
36612
36613
36614
36615
36616
36617
36618
36619
36620
36621
36622
36623
36624
36625
36626
36627
36628
36629
36630
36631
36632
36633
36634
36635
36636
36637
36638
36639
36640
36641
36642
36643
36644
36645
36646
36647
36648
36649
36650
36651
36652
36653
36654
36655
36656
36657
36658
36659
36660
36661
36662
36663
36664
36665
36666
36667
36668
36669
36670
36671
36672
36673
36674
36675
36676
36677
36678
36679
36680
36681
36682
36683
36684
36685
36686
36687
36688
36689
36690
36691
36692
36693
36694
36695
36696
36697
36698
36699
36700
36701
36702
36703
36704
36705
36706
36707
36708
36709
36710
36711
36712
36713
36714
36715
36716
36717
36718
36719
36720
36721
36722
36723
36724
36725
36726
36727
36728
36729
36730
36731
36732
36733
36734
36735
36736
36737
36738
36739
36740
36741
36742
36743
36744
36745
36746
36747
36748
36749
36750
36751
36752
36753
36754
36755
36756
36757
36758
36759
36760
36761
36762
36763
36764
36765
36766
36767
36768
36769
36770
36771
36772
36773
36774
36775
36776
36777
36778
36779
36780
36781
36782
36783
36784
36785
36786
36787
36788
36789
36790
36791
36792
36793
36794
36795
36796
36797
36798
36799
36800
36801
36802
36803
36804
36805
36806
36807
36808
36809
36810
36811
36812
36813
36814
36815
36816

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" />
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
    <title>
      The Project Gutenberg eBook of Protestantism and Catholicity Compared in their
     Effects on Civilization in Europe, by Rev. J. Balmes
    </title>
    <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" />
    <style type="text/css">

body {
    margin-left: 10%;
    margin-right: 10%;
}

h1
{
  margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 2em;
  text-align: center;
  font-size: x-large;
  font-weight: normal;
  line-height: 1.6;
}

    h2,h3{
    text-align: center;
    font-weight: normal;
    line-height: 1.5;
}

div.chapter {page-break-before: always;}

p
{
 margin-top: .75em;
 text-align: justify;
 margin-bottom: .75em;
}

.hang {text-align: justify; padding-left: 1.75em; text-indent: -1.75em;}

.hangt {text-align: justify; padding-left: 1.75em; text-indent: -1.75em; margin-top: 1.5em;}

.noteh  {text-align: center; margin-top: 1.25em; margin-bottom: 1.5em;}

.centert {text-align: center; margin-top: 1.25em;}

@media handheld {
   .hang {text-align: justify; padding-left: 5%; text-indent: -5%;}
   .hangt {text-align: justify; padding-left: 5%; text-indent: -5%; margin-top: 1.25em;}
}

hr.tb   {width: 45%; margin-left: 27.5%; margin-right: 27.5%;}
hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;}
hr.fullt {width: 95%; margin-left: 2.5%; margin-right: 2.5%; margin-bottom: 0.5em;}
hr.fullb {width: 95%; margin-left: 2.5%; margin-right: 2.5%; margin-top: 0.5em;}

ul.index { list-style-type: none; }
li.ifrst { margin-top: 1em;}
li.indx { margin-top: .5em;}
li.isub1 {text-indent: 1em;}

table {
    margin-left: auto;
    margin-right: auto;
}

    .tdh      {text-align: justify; padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em;}
    .tdrb     {text-align: right; vertical-align: bottom;}
    .tdrt     {text-align: right; vertical-align: top;}

.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */
    visibility: hidden;
    position: absolute;
    left: 92%;
    font-size: smaller;
    text-align: right;
} /* page numbers */

.center   {text-align: center;}

.right   {text-align: right;}

.smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}

.xs           {font-size: x-small;}

.small      {font-size: small;}

.medium  {font-size: medium;}

.large       {font-size: large;}

.xl            {font-size: x-large;}

/* Footnotes */
.footnotes        {border: dashed 1px;}

.footnote         {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;}

.footnote .label  {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;}

.fnanchor {
    vertical-align: super;
    font-size: .8em;
    text-decoration: none;
    white-space: nowrap
}

/* Poetry */
.poetry-container
  {
  text-align: center;
  margin: -1em 0;
  }

.poetry
  {
  display: inline-block;
  text-align: left;
  }

.poetry .stanza {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em;}

.poetry .verse
  {
  text-indent: -3em;
  padding-left: 3em;
  }

.poetry .indent16 {text-indent: 5em;}
.poetry .indent18 {text-indent: 6em;}


@media handheld
{
  .poetry
  {
    display: block;
    margin-left: 1em;
  }
}

/* Transcriber's notes */
.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA;
    color: black;
     font-size:smaller;
     padding:0.5em;
     margin-bottom:5em;
     font-family:sans-serif, serif; }
    </style>
  </head>
<body>
<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 50436 ***</div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</a></span></p>


<h1>PROTESTANTISM<br />

    <span class="xs">AND</span><br />

    CATHOLICITY<br />

    <span class="xs">COMPARED IN THEIR</span><br />

    <span class="medium">EFFECTS ON THE CIVILIZATION OF EUROPE.</span></h1>

<hr class="small" />
<p class="center"> <span class="xs">  WRITTEN IN SPANISH</span></p>

 <p class="center">BY THE REV. J. BALMES.</p>

<p class="center"> <span class="xs"> TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH.</span></p>
<hr class="small" />
<p class="center"><b><i>Second Edition.</i></b></p>
<hr class="small" />

<p class="center"><small>BALTIMORE:</small><br />
    <small>PUBLISHED BY JOHN MURPHY &amp; CO</small>.<br />
   <span class="xs"> No. 178 MARKET STREET.</span><br />
    <small>PITTSBURG: GEORGE QUIGLEY</small>.<br />
    <span class="xs"><i>Sold by Booksellers generally.</i></span><br />
   <small>1851</small>.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span></p>

<hr class="fullt" />
<p class="center"><span class="small">
<span class="smcap">Entered</span>, according to the Act of Congress, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty,<br />
by <span class="smcap">John Murphy &amp; Co.</span>, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Maryland.<br />
</span></p>
<hr class="fullb" />
<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span></p>
<div class="chapter"></div>



<h2><a name="AUTHORS_PREFACE" id="AUTHORS_PREFACE">AUTHOR'S PREFACE.</a></h2>


<p>Among the many and important evils which have been the necessary
result of the profound revolutions of modern times, there appears a good
extremely valuable to science, and which will probably have a beneficial
influence on the human race,&mdash;I mean the love of studies having for
their object man and society. The shocks have been so rude, that the
earth has, as it were, opened under our feet; and the human mind,
which, full of pride and haughtiness, but lately advanced on a triumphal
car amid acclamations and cries of victory, has been alarmed and
stopped in its career. Absorbed by an important thought, overcome by
a profound reflection, it has asked itself, "What am I? whence do I
come? what is my destination?" Religious questions have regained
their high importance; and when they might have been supposed to
have been scattered by the breath of indifference, or almost annihilated
by the astonishing development of material interests, by the progress of
the natural and exact sciences, by the continually increasing ardour of
political debates,&mdash;we have seen that, so far from having been stifled by
the immense weight which seemed to have overwhelmed them, they have
reappeared on a sudden in all their magnitude, in their gigantic form,
predominant over society, and reaching from the heavens to the abyss.</p>

<p>This disposition of men's minds naturally drew their attention to the
religious revolution of the sixteenth century; it was natural that they
should ask what this revolution had done to promote the interests of humanity.
Unhappily, great mistakes have been made in this inquiry.
Either because they have looked at the facts through the distorted medium
of sectarian prejudice, or because they have only considered them
superficially, men have arrived at the conclusion, that the reformers
of the sixteenth century conferred a signal benefit on the nations of
Europe, by contributing to the development of science, of the arts, of
human liberty, and of every thing which is comprised in the word
<em>civilization</em>.</p>

<p>What do history and philosophy say on this subject? How has man,
either individually or collectively, considered in a religious, social, political,
or literary point of view, been benefited by the reform of the sixteenth
century? Did Europe, under the exclusive influence of Catholicity,
pursue a prosperous career? Did Catholicity impose a single fetter<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span>
on the movements of civilization? This is the examination which I
propose to make in this work. Every age has its peculiar wants; and
it is much to be wished that all Catholic writers were convinced, that the
complete examination of these questions is one of the most urgent necessities
of the times in which we live. Bellarmine and Bossuet have done
what was required for their times; we ought to do the same for ours.
I am fully aware of the immense extent of the questions I have adverted
to, and I do not flatter myself that I shall be able to elucidate them as
they deserve; but, however this may be, I promise to enter on my task
with the courage which is inspired by a love of truth; and when my
strength shall be exhausted, I shall sit down with tranquillity of mind, in
expectation that another, more vigorous than myself, will carry into
effect so important an enterprise.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="PREFACE_TO_THE_AMERICAN_EDITION" id="PREFACE_TO_THE_AMERICAN_EDITION">PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.</a></h2>


<p>The work of Balmes on the comparative influence of Protestantism
and Catholicity on European civilization, which is now presented to the
American public, was written in Spanish, and won for the author among
his own countrymen a very high reputation. A French edition was published
simultaneously with the Spanish, and the work has since been
translated into the Italian and English languages, and been widely circulated
as one of the most learned productions of the age, and most admirably
suited to the exigencies of our times. When Protestantism could
no longer maintain its position in the field of theology, compelling its
votaries by its endless variations to espouse open infidelity, or to fall
back upon the ancient church, it adopted a new mode of defence, in
pointing to its pretended achievements as the liberator of the human
mind, the friend of civil and religious freedom, the patron of science and
the arts; in a word, the active element in all social ameliorations. This
is the cherished idea and boasted argument of those who attempt to uphold
Protestantism as a system. They claim for it the merit of having
freed the intellect of man from a degrading bondage, given a nobler impulse
to enterprise and industry, and sown in every direction the seed
of national and individual prosperity. Looking at facts superficially, or
through the distorted medium of prejudice, they tell us that the reformers
of the 16th century contributed much to the development of science and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span>
the arts, of human liberty, and of every thing which is comprised in the
word <em>civilization</em>. To combat this delusion, so well calculated to ensnare
the minds of men in this materialistic and utilitarian age, the
author undertook the work, a translation of which is here presented to the
public. "What do history and philosophy say on this subject? How has
man, either individually or collectively, considered in a religious, social,
political, or literary point of view, been benefited by the reform of the 16th
century? Did Europe, under the exclusive influence of Catholicity, pursue
a prosperous career? Did Catholicity impose a single fetter on the movements
of civilization?" Such is the important investigation which the author
proposed to himself, and it must be admitted that he has accomplished
his task with the most brilliant success? Possessed of a penetrating
mind, cultivated by profound study and adorned with the most varied
erudition, and guided by a fearless love of truth, he traverses the whole
Christian era, comparing the gigantic achievements of Catholicity, in
curing the evils of mankind, elevating human nature, and diffusing light
and happiness, with the results of which Protestantism may boast; and
he proves, with the torch of history and philosophy in his hand, that the
latter, far from having exerted any beneficial influence upon society, has
retarded the great work of civilization which Catholicity commenced, and
which was advancing so prosperously under her auspicious guidance.
He does not say that nothing has been done for civilization by <em>Protestants</em>;
but he asserts and proves that <em>Protestantism</em> has been greatly unfavorable,
and even injurious to it.</p>

<p>By thus exposing the short-comings, or rather evils of Protestantism,
in a social and political point of view, as Bossuet and others had exhibited
them under the theological aspect, Balmes has rendered a most important
service to Catholic literature. He has supplied the age with a
work, which is peculiarly adapted to its wants, and which must command
a general attention in the United States. The Catholic, in perusing its
pages, will learn to admire still more the glorious character of the faith
which he professes: the Protestant, if sincere, will open his eyes to the
incompatibility of his principles with the happiness of mankind: while
the scholar in general will find in it a vast amount of information, on the
most vital and interesting topics, and presented in a style of eloquence
seldom equalled.</p>

<p>"The reader is requested to bear in mind that the author was a native
of Spain, and therefore he must not be surprised to find much that relates
more particularly to that country. In fact, the fear that Protestant<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span>ism
might be introduced there seems to have been the motive which induced
him to undertake the work. He was evidently a man of strong
national as well as religious feeling, and he dreaded its introduction both
politically and religiously, as he considered that it would be injurious to
his country in both points of view. He thought that it would destroy
the national unity, as it certainly did in other countries.</p>

<p>"A very interesting part of the work is that where he states the relations
of religion and political freedom; shows that Catholicity is by no
means adverse to the latter, but, on the contrary, highly favorable to it;
and proves by extracts from St. Thomas Aquinas and other great Catholic
divines, that they entertained the most enlightened political views.
On the other hand, he shows that Protestantism was unfavorable to civil
liberty, as is evidenced by the fact, that arbitrary power made great progress
in various countries of Europe soon after its appearance. The
reason of this was, that the moral control of religion being taken away,
physical restraint became the more necessary." The author, on this subject,
naturally expresses a preference for monarchy, it being a cherished
inheritance from his forefathers; but, it will be noticed that the principles
which he lays down as essential to a right administration of civil
affairs, regard the substance and not the form of government; are as necessary
under a republican as under the monarchical system; and, if
duly observed, they cannot fail to ensure the happiness of the people.
This portion of the volume will be read with peculiar interest in this
country, and ought to command an attentive consideration.</p>

<p>In preparing this edition of the work from the English translation by
Messrs. Hanford and Kershaw, care has been taken to revise the whole
of it, to compare it with the original French, and to correct the various
errors, particularly the mistakes in translation. A biographical notice of
the illustrious writer has also been prefixed to the volume, to give the
reader an insight into his eminent character, and the valuable services
he has rendered to his country and to society at large.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Baltimore</span>, November 1, 1850.</p>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span></p>


<div class="chapter"></div>

<h2><a name="NOTICE_OF_THE_AUTHOR" id="NOTICE_OF_THE_AUTHOR">NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR.</a></h2>


<p>James Balmes was born at Vich, a small city in Catalonia, in Spain,
on the 28th of August, 1810. His parents were poor, but noted for their
industry and religion, and they took care to train him from his childhood
to habits of rigid piety. Every morning, after the holy sacrifice of mass,
his mother prostrate before an altar dedicated to St. Thomas of Aquin,
implored this illustrious doctor to obtain for her son the gifts of sanctity
and knowledge. Her prayers were not disappointed.</p>

<p>From seven to ten years of age, Balmes applied himself with great
ardor to the study of Latin. The two following years were devoted to
a course of rhetoric, and three years more were allotted to philosophy;
a ninth year was occupied with the prolegomena of theology. Such
was the order of studies in the seminary of Vich. While thus laboring
to store his mind with knowledge, Balmes preserved an irreproachable
line of conduct. Called to the ecclesiastical state, he submitted readily
to the strict discipline which this vocation required, and he was seen
nowhere but under the parental roof, at the church, in some religious
community, or in the episcopal library. At the age of fourteen he was
admitted to a benefice, the revenue of which, though small, enabled him
to complete his education. In 1826, he went to the University of Cervera,
which at that time was the centre of public instruction in that part
of Spain. It numbered four colleges, in all of which an enlightened
piety prevailed, affording the young Balmes a most favorable opportunity
of developing his rare qualities. Here, the frame and habit of his mind
were observable to all, in his deep and animated look, in his grave and
modest demeanor, and in his method of study. He would read a few
pages over a table, his head resting upon his hands; then, wrapt in his
mantle, he would spend a long time in reflection. "The true method of
study," he used to say, "is to read little, to select good authors, and to
think much. If we confined ourselves to a knowledge of what is contained
in books, the sciences would never advance a step. We must
learn what others have not known. During my meditations in the dark,
my thoughts ferment, and my brain burns like a boiling cauldron."</p>

<p>Devoted to the acquisition of knowledge, he cultivated retirement as a
means of facilitating the attainment of his object. His thirst for learn<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span>ing
was so intense, that it held him under absolute sway, and he found
it necessary at a later period to offer a systematic resistance to its exclusive
demands. Pursuing his favorite method of study, Balmes remained
four years at the University of Cervera, reading no other works
than the Sum of St. Thomas, and the commentaries upon it by Bellarmine,
Suarez and Cajetan. If he made any exception from this rule,
it was in favor of Chateaubriand's <cite>Génie du Christanisme</cite>. "Every
thing," said he, "is to be found in St. Thomas; philosophy, religion,
politics: his writings are an inexhaustible mine." Having thus strengthened
his mind by a due application to philosophical and theological studies,
he proceeded to enlarge his sphere of knowledge by reading a
greater variety of authors. In taking up a work, he first looked at the
table of contents, and when it suggested an idea or fact which seemed
to open before him a new path, he read that part of the volume which
developed this idea or fact; the rest was overlooked. In this way, he
accumulated a rich store of varied erudition. At the age of twenty-two
he knew by memory the tabular contents of an extraordinary number of
volumes; he had learned the French language; he spoke and wrote
Latin better than his native tongue, and had been admitted successively
to the degrees of bachelor and licentiate in theology. The virtues of
his youth, far from having been weakened by these studies, had acquired
greater strength and maturity. As he approached the solemn period of
his ordination, he became still more remarkable for the gravity and modesty
of his deportment. He prepared himself for his elevation to the
priesthood by a retreat of one hundred days. After his promotion to the
sacerdotal dignity, which took place in his native city, he returned to
the University of Cervera, where he continued his studies, and performed
the duties of assistant professor. Here also he began to manifest his
political views; but, always with that discretion and moderation for
which the Spanish clergy have been with few exceptions distinguished
during the last twenty years. At that period Spain was agitated by two
conflicting parties, that of Maria Christina and the other of Don Carlos.
Balmes avoided all questions which were rather calculated to encourage
the spirit of faction than promote the general interest of the country.
In 1835 he evinced this circumspection in a remarkable degree, when
the doctorate which had been conferred upon him, required him to deliver
an address in honor of the reigning monarch. Maria Christina was
then the queen regent, and civil war was about to commence in the
mountains of Catalonia; but Balmes performed his task without allusion
to politics, and without offending the adherents of either party.</p>

<p>After two years of study at Cervera, where he applied himself to
theology and law, our author returned to Vich, where he determined to
spend four years more in retirement, for the purpose of maturing his
character and knowledge. In this solitude, he devoted himself to his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span>tory,
poetry and politics, but principally to mathematics, of which he obtained
a professorship in 1837. During all these literary labors, Balmes
was actuated by a lively faith, and a sincere, unassuming piety. Religious
meditation, intermingled with scientific reflections, was the constant occupation
of his mind; he did not neglect, however, the exterior practices
of devotion. Besides the celebration of the holy sacrifice, he frequently
visited the blessed sacrament, and paid his homage to the B.
Virgin in some solitary chapel. The <em>Following of Christ</em>, the <em>Sum</em> of
the angelic doctor, and the Holy Scriptures, were always in his hands,
and he took pleasure in reading the ascetic writers of his own country.
In this way did he prepare himself, until the age of thirty, to become
one of the most solid and gifted minds of our time, and to act the important
part to which he was called by Divine Providence.</p>

<p>The first literary effort of Balmes before the public, was a prize essay
which he wrote on clerical celibacy. This was soon followed by another
production of his pen, entitled "Observations on the Property of the
Clergy, in a social, political, and commercial point of view," which was
elicited by the clamoring of the revolutionary army under Espartero for
the spoliation of the clergy. The learning, philosophy and eloquence
of the writer in this work, excited the wonder and admiration of the
most distinguished statesmen in the country. Some months after, he
published his "Political Considerations on the Condition of Spain," in
which he had the courage to defend the rights of both parties in the
country, and to suggest means of a conciliatory nature for restoring public
order and tranquillity.</p>

<p>Amidst these political efforts, Balmes did not lay aside his peculiar
functions as a minister of God. The edification of the faithful, the religious
instruction of youth, and the defence of the faith against the
assaults of heresy and rationalism, were constant objects of his attention.
During the same year, 1840, he translated and published the
"Maxims of St. Francis of Sales for every day in the year;" he also
composed a species of catechism for the instruction of young persons,
which was very extensively circulated. At the same time he undertook
the preparation of the present work, in order to counteract the pernicious
influence exerted among his countrymen by Guizot's lectures on European
civilization, and to neutralize the facilities offered under the regime
of Espartero for the success of a Protestant Propagandism in Spain.
The occasion and object of this work rendered it expedient that it should
be published simultaneously in Spanish and in French, and with this
view our author visited France, and afterwards, to extend his observations,
passed into England.</p>

<p>On his return to Barcelona, towards the close of 1842, Balmes became
a collaborator in the editing of the <cite>Civilizacion</cite>, a monthly periodical
of great merit, devoted to literary reviews, and to solid instruction on<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span>
the current topics of the day. His connection with this work lasted
only eighteen months. He then commenced a review of his own, entitled
the <cite>Sociedad</cite>, a philosophical, political, and religious journal, which
acquired a great reputation during the one year of its existence. Driven
soon after into retirement by the disturbances of the times, Balmes composed
another philosophical work, <cite>El Criterio</cite>, which is a course of
logic adapted to every capacity.</p>

<p>From the national uprising that overthrew the government of Espartero,
there arose a general feeling of patriotic independence, which called for
the cessation of civil strife, and the harmonizing of the two parties that
divided the nation. Many of the adherents of Maria Christina, who
were the nobility and the bourgeoisie, recognized the excesses of the
revolutionary faction which they had called to their aid, while the Carlists
were not all in favor of absolute monarchy, and numbered an imposing
majority among the lower classes. All these men of wise and moderate
views longed to see a remedy applied to the wounds of their afflicted
country; and with one accord they turned their eyes upon Balmes, as the
only individual capable of conducting this important affair. He had
already, in his <cite>Political Considerations</cite>, indicated the principal idea of
his policy for putting an end to the national evils; it was a matrimonial
alliance between the Queen and the son of Don Carlos. Under these
circumstances he commenced in February, 1844, a new journal, entitled
<cite>Pensamiento de la Nacion</cite>, the object of which was to denounce the
revolutionary spirit as the enemy of all just and peaceful government,
and to inspire the Spanish people with a proper reverence for the religious,
social and political inheritance received from their ancestors, and
with a due respect for the reasonable ameliorations of the age. In this
spirit the different questions of the day were discussed with energy and
calmness, and especially the project of an alliance between the Queen
and the son of Don Carlos, which Balmes considered of the utmost importance.
This measure, such as he proposed it, was, to use the language
of his biographer, "the reconciliation of the past and the future,
of authority and liberty, of monarchy and representative government."
Such was the patriotism, dignity and force, with which our author conducted
his hebdomadal, that it won the esteem of a large portion of the
most distinguished men among the Carlists, while it also acquired favor
among an immense number in the opposite party. To support its views,
a daily journal, the <cite>Conciliador</cite>, was started by a body of young but
fervid and brilliant writers, and nothing it would seem was wanting to
insure a triumph for the friends of Spain. Prudence, energy, moderation,
reason and eloquence, with a majority of the people on their side,
deserved and should have commanded success; but they could not prevail
against diplomatic influence and court intrigue. Balmes learned
with equal surprise and affliction, in the retirement of his native moun<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span>tains,
that the government had resolved to offer the Queen in marriage to
the infant Don Francisco, and the infanta to the Duke of Montpensier.
This was a severe stroke to the sincere and ardent patriotism of Balmes.
He might have resisted this policy with the power and eloquence of his
pen, but he preferred a silent resignation to the heat of political strife,
and the <cite>Pensamiento de la Nacion</cite>, although a lucrative publication, was
discontinued on the 31st of December, 1846.</p>

<p>During that same year, our author collected into one volume his various
essays on politics, as well for his own vindication as for the diffusion
of sound instruction on the condition of Spain. The following
year he completed his "Elementary course of Philosophy." But his
physical strength was not equal to these arduous labors. To re-establish
in some degree his declining health, he travelled in Spain and France,
and remained several weeks in Paris. The intellectual and moral corruption
which was gnawing at the very vitals of the French nation, and
threatened all Europe with its infection, filled him with increased anxiety.
He predicted the dissolution of society, and a return to barbarism, unless
things would take some unexpected turn through the special interposition
of Providence. This last hope was the only resource left, in his opinion,
for the salvation of society and civilization, and he exulted when he beheld
Pius IX opening a new career for Italy, and consecrating the aspirations
and movements of all who advocated legitimate reform and rational
liberty. The political ameliorations, however, of the sovereign
Pontiff appeared to the opponents of liberalism in Spain, at variance
with the great opposition which Balmes had always exhibited to the revolutionary
spirit. Hence, it became necessary for him to pay the just
tribute of his admiration to the illustrious individual who sat in the chair
of Peter, and to proclaim the eminent virtues of the prince and the
pontiff. This he did with surpassing eloquence, in a brochure entitled
<cite>Pius IX</cite>, the brilliant style of which is only equalled by its wisdom of
thought. In this work, he sketches with graphic pen, the acts of the
papal policy, showing that the holy see is the best guide of men in the
path of liberty and progress, that Pius IX shows a profound knowledge
of the evils that afflict society, and possesses all the energy and firmness
necessary to apply their proper remedy. Balmes was full of hope for the
future, in contemplating the course of the great head of the church, and
he cherished this hope to the last moment of his life. His essay on the
policy of Pius IX was the last production of his pen. His career in literature
was brief, but brilliant and effective. Eight years only had elapsed
since his appearance as a writer, and he had labored with eminent success
in every department of knowledge. The learned divine, the profound
philosopher, the enlightened publicist, he has stamped upon his
age the impress of his genius, and bequeathed to posterity a rich legacy
in his immortal works. In the moral as well as in the intellectual point<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span>
of view, his merit may be summed up in those words of <em>Wisdom</em>:
"Being made perfect in a short space, he fulfilled a long time." chap. iv.</p>

<p>This distinguished ecclesiastic, the boast of the Spanish clergy and
the Catalan people, died at Vich, his native city, on the 9th of July,
1848, in the same spirit of lively faith and fervent piety which had always
marked his life. His funeral took place on the 11th, with all the
pomp that could be furnished by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities.
The municipality decreed that one of the public places should be named
after him.</p>

<p>Balmes was little below the middle height, and of weak and slender
frame. But the appearance of feeble health which he exhibited, was
combatted by the animation of his looks. His forehead and lips bore the
impress of energy, which was to be seen also in his eyes, black, deep-set,
and of unusual brightness. The expression of his countenance was
a mixture of vivacity, openness, melancholy and strength of mind. A
careful observer of all his sacerdotal duties, he found in the practices of
piety, the vigor which he displayed in his intellectual labors. The distribution
of his time was extremely methodical, and his pleasures consisted
only in the society of his friends. To the prospect of temporal
honors and the favor of the great, he was insensible; neither did he seek
after ecclesiastical dignities or literary distinctions. His aim was the
diffusion of truth, not the acquisition of a great reputation. These qualities,
however, with his eminent talents, varied erudition, and invaluable
writings, have won for him a universal fame.</p>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span></p>



<div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="TABLE_OF_CONTENTS" id="TABLE_OF_CONTENTS">TABLE OF CONTENTS.</a></h2>



<div class="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
<tr><td align="center"> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="#CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I</a>.</td><td align="right"><span class="xs"><i>Page</i></span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="center"><small>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; THE NAME AND NATURE OF PROTESTANTISM,</small></td><td align="right">25</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II</a>.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>THE CAUSES OF PROTESTANTISM.</small></td></tr>


<tr><td class="tdh">What ought to be attributed to the genius of its founders&mdash;Different causes assigned for
it&mdash;Errors on this subject&mdash;Opinions of Guizot&mdash;Of Bossuet&mdash;True cause of Protestantism
to be found in the social condition of European nations,</td><td class="tdrb">28</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III</a>.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>EXTRAORDINARY PHENOMENON IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Divinity of the Catholic Church proved by its relations with the human mind&mdash;Remarkable
acknowledgment of M. Guizot&mdash;Consequences of that acknowledgment, </td><td class="tdrb"> 38</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV</a>.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>PROTESTANTISM AND THE HUMAN MIND.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Protestantism contains a principle of dissolution&mdash;It tends naturally to destroy all faith&mdash;Dangerous
direction given to the human mind&mdash;Description of the human mind,</td><td class="tdrb">42</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V</a>.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>INSTINCT OF FAITH IN THE SCIENCES.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Instinct of faith&mdash;This instinct extends to all the sciences&mdash;Newton, Descartes&mdash;Observations
on the history of philosophy&mdash;Proselytism&mdash;Present condition of the human
mind,</td><td class="tdrb"> 46</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI</a>.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS WANTS OF NATIONS&mdash;MATHEMATICS&mdash;MORAL SCIENCES.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Important error committed by Protestantism, with regard to the religious government of
the human mind,</td><td class="tdrb">50</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII">CHAPTER VII</a>.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>INDIFFERENCE AND FANATICISM.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Two opposite evils, fruits of Protestantism&mdash;Origin of fanaticism&mdash;The Church has prepared
the history of the human mind&mdash;Private interpretation of the Bible&mdash;Passage from
O'Callaghan&mdash;Description of the Bible,     </td><td class="tdrb">53</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_VIII">CHAPTER VIII</a>.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>FANATICISM&mdash;ITS DEFINITION&mdash;FANATICISM IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Connexion between fanaticism and religious feeling&mdash;Impossibility of destroying it&mdash;Means
of diminishing it&mdash;The Church has used these means, and with what result?&mdash;Observations
on the pretended Catholic fanatics&mdash;Description of the religious excitement of the
founders of orders in the Church,     </td><td class="tdrb">57</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_IX">CHAPTER IX</a>.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>INCREDULITY AND RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENCE IN EUROPE THE FRUITS OF PROTESTANTISM.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Lamentable symptoms of these from the beginning of Protestantism&mdash;Remarkable religious
crisis in the latter part of the seventeenth century&mdash;Bossuet and Leibnitz&mdash;The
Jansenists&mdash;Their influence&mdash;Dictionary of Bayle&mdash;The epoch when that work appeared&mdash;State
of opinions among the Protestants,     </td><td class="tdrb">60</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_X">CHAPTER X</a>.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>CAUSES OF THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF PROTESTANTISM.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Important question with regard to the continuance of Protestantism&mdash;Religious indifference
with respect to man collectively and individually&mdash;European societies with relation
to Mahometanism and idolatry&mdash;How Catholicity and Protestantism are capable of defending
the truth&mdash;Intimate connexion between Christianity and European civilization,     </td><td class="tdrb">64<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span></td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XI">CHAPTER XI</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>THE POSITIVE DOCTRINES OF PROTESTANTISM ARE REPUGNANT TO THE INSTINCT OF
CIVILIZATION</small>.</td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Doctrines of Protestantism divided into positive and negative&mdash;Singular phenomenon: one
of the principal dogmas of the founders of Protestantism repugnant to European civilization&mdash;Eminent
service which Catholicity has done to civilization by defending free
will&mdash;Nature of error&mdash;Nature of truth,     </td><td class="tdrb">68</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XII">CHAPTER XII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>EFFECTS WHICH THE INTRODUCTION OF PROTESTANTISM INTO SPAIN WOULD HAVE PRODUCED.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Present state of religious ideas in Europe&mdash;Victories of religion&mdash;State of science and literature&mdash;Condition
of modern society&mdash;Conjectures on the future influence of Catholicity&mdash;Is
it probable that Protestantism will be introduced into Spain?&mdash;England&mdash;Her
connexion with Spain&mdash;Pitt&mdash;Nature of religious ideas in Spain&mdash;Situation of Spain&mdash;How
she may be regenerated,     </td><td class="tdrb">70</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XIII">CHAPTER XIII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>PROTESTANTISM AND CATHOLICITY IN THEIR RELATION TO SOCIAL PROGRESS&mdash;PRELIMINARY
COUP D'ŒIL.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Commencement of the parallel&mdash;Liberty&mdash;Vague meaning of the word&mdash;European civilization
chiefly due to Catholicity&mdash;East and West&mdash;Conjectures on the destinies of Catholicity
amid the catastrophies that may threaten in Europe&mdash;Observations on philosophical
studies&mdash;Fatalism of a certain modern historical school,     </td><td class="tdrb">79</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XIV">CHAPTER XIV</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>DID THERE EXIST, AT THE TIME WHEN CHRISTIANITY APPEARED, ANOTHER PRINCIPLE OF
REGENERATION?</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Condition, religious, social, and scientific, of the world at the appearance of Christianity&mdash;Roman
law&mdash;The influence of Christian ideas thereon&mdash;Evils of the political organization
of the empire&mdash;System adopted by Christianity; her first care was to change ideas&mdash;Christianity
and Paganism with regard to the teaching of moral doctrines&mdash;Protestant
preaching,     </td><td class="tdrb">84</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XV">CHAPTER XV</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>DIFFICULTIES WHICH CHRISTIANITY HAD TO OVERCOME IN THE WORK OF SOCIAL REGENERATION&mdash;SLAVERY&mdash;COULD
IT HAVE BEEN DESTROYED MORE SPEEDILY THAN IT WAS BY
CHRISTIANITY?</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">The Church was not only a great and productive school, but she was also a regenerating
association&mdash;What she had to do&mdash;Difficulties which she had to overcome&mdash;Slavery&mdash;By
whom was it abolished?&mdash;Opinion of M. Guizot&mdash;Immense number of the slaves&mdash;Caution
necessary in the abolition of slavery&mdash;Was immediate abolition possible?&mdash;Refutation
of the opinion of M. Guizot,     </td><td class="tdrb">90</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XVI">CHAPTER XVI</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>IDEAS AND MANNERS OF ANTIQUITY RESPECTING SLAVERY&mdash;THE CHURCH BEGINS BY IMPROVING
THE CONDITION OF SLAVES.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">The Catholic Church not only employs her doctrines, her maxims, and her spirit of charity,
but also makes use of practical means in the abolition of slavery&mdash;Point of view in
which this historical fact ought to be considered&mdash;False ideas of the ancients on the subject&mdash;Homer,
Plato, Aristotle&mdash;Christianity began forthwith to combat these errors&mdash;Christian
doctrines on the connexion between master and slave&mdash;The Church employs
herself in improving the condition of slaves,     </td><td class="tdrb">94</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XVII">CHAPTER XVII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>MEANS USED BY THE CHURCH TO ENFRANCHISE SLAVES.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">1st. She zealously defends the liberty of the enfranchised&mdash;Manumission in the churches&mdash;Effects
of this practice&mdash;2d. Redemption of captives&mdash;Zeal of the Church in practising
and extending the redemption of captives&mdash;Prejudices of the Romans on this point&mdash;The
zeal of the Church for this object contributes, in an extraordinary degree, to the
abolition of slavery&mdash;The Church protects the liberty of the free,     </td><td class="tdrb">102</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XVIII">CHAPTER XVIII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>CONTINUATION OF THE SAME SUBJECT.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">3d. System of the Church with regard to slaves belonging to Jews&mdash;Motives which actuated
the Church in the enfranchisement of her own slaves&mdash;Her indulgence to them&mdash;Her
generosity towards the freed&mdash;The slaves of the Church considered as consecrated
to God&mdash;Salutary effects of this way of viewing them&mdash;4th. Liberty is granted to those<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span>
who wish to embrace the monastic state&mdash;Effects of this practice&mdash;Conduct of the Church
with regard to the ordination of slaves&mdash;Abuses introduced in this respect checked&mdash;Discipline
of the Spanish Church on this point,     </td><td class="tdrb">106</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XIX">CHAPTER XIX</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>DOCTRINES OF ST. AUGUSTIN AND ST. THOMAS OF AQUIN ON THE SUBJECT OF SLAVERY&mdash;RECAPITULATION.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Doctrine of St. Augustin on this subject&mdash;Importance of this doctrine with respect to the
abolition of slavery&mdash;Refutation of M. Guizot&mdash;Doctrine of St. Thomas on the same
subject&mdash;Marriage of slaves&mdash;Regulation of canon law on that subject&mdash;Résumé of the
means employed by the Church in the abolition of slavery&mdash;Refutation of M. Guizot&mdash;The
abolition of slavery exclusively due to Catholicity&mdash;Protestantism had no share
therein,     </td><td class="tdrb">111</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XX">CHAPTER XX</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TWO KINDS OF CIVILIZATION.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Picture of modern civilization&mdash;Civilizations not Christian&mdash;Civilization is composed of
three elements: the individual, the family, and the society&mdash;The perfectness of these
three elements depends on the perfectness of doctrines,     </td><td class="tdrb">115</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXI">CHAPTER XXI</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>OF THE INDIVIDUAL&mdash;OF THE FEELING OF INDIVIDUALITY OUT OF CHRISTIANITY.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Distinction between the individual and the citizen&mdash;Of the individuality of barbarians according
to M. Guizot&mdash;Whether in antiquity individuality belonged exclusively to the
barbarians&mdash;Twofold principle of the feeling of personal independence&mdash;This feeling infinitely
modified&mdash;Picture of barbarian life&mdash;True character of individuality among the
barbarians&mdash;Avowal of M. Guizot&mdash;The feeling of individuality, according to the definition
of M. Guizot, belongs in a certain way to all the ancient nations,     </td><td class="tdrb">118</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXII">CHAPTER XXII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>HOW THE INDIVIDUAL BECAME ABSORBED BY THE ANCIENT SOCIETY.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Respect for <em>man</em> unknown to the ancients&mdash;What has been seen in modern revolutions&mdash;Tyranny
of public power over private interests&mdash;Explanation of a twofold phenomenon,
which presents itself to us in antiquity and in modern societies not Christian&mdash;Opinion of
Aristotle&mdash;Remarkable characteristic of modern democracy,     </td><td class="tdrb">126</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXIII">CHAPTER XXIII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>OF THE PROGRESS OF INDIVIDUALITY UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">The feeling of true independence was possessed by the faithful of the primitive Church&mdash;Error
of M. Guizot on this point: 1st, dignity of conscience sustained by the Christian
society; 2d, feeling of duty; language of St. Cyprian; 3d, development of the interior
life; 4th, defence of free will by the Catholic Church&mdash;Conclusion,     </td><td class="tdrb">131</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXIV">CHAPTER XXIV</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>OF THE FAMILY&mdash;MONOGAMY&mdash;MARRIAGE-TIE INDISSOLUBLE.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Woman ennobled by Catholicity alone&mdash;Practical means employed by the Church to raise
woman&mdash;Christian doctrine on the dignity of woman&mdash;Monogamy&mdash;Different conduct of
Catholicity and Protestantism on this point&mdash;Firmness of Rome with respect to marriage&mdash;Effects
of that firmness&mdash;Doctrine of Luther&mdash;Indissolubility of marriage&mdash;Of
divorce among Protestants&mdash;Effects of Catholic doctrine with regard to this sacrament,     </td><td class="tdrb">135</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXV">CHAPTER XXV</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>THE PASSION OF LOVE.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Pretended rigor of Catholicity with respect to unhappy marriages&mdash;Two systems of governing
the passions&mdash;Protestant system&mdash;Catholic system&mdash;Examples&mdash;Passion of gambling&mdash;Explosion
of the passions in time of public troubles&mdash;Of the passion of love&mdash;Its
inconstancy&mdash;Marriage alone is not a sufficient control&mdash;What is wanted to make it a
control&mdash;Of the unity and fixity of Catholic doctrine&mdash;Conclusion,     </td><td class="tdrb">140</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXVI">CHAPTER XXVI</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>OF VIRGINITY IN ITS SOCIAL ASPECT.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Of the ennoblement of woman by virginity&mdash;Conduct of Protestantism on this point&mdash;Close
analysis of the heart of woman&mdash;Of virginity with respect to population&mdash;England&mdash;Serious
thoughts required for the mind of woman&mdash;Salutary influence of monastic
customs&mdash;General method of appreciation,     </td><td class="tdrb">146<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span></td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXVII">CHAPTER XXVII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>OF CHIVALRY, AND THE MANNERS OF THE BARBARIANS IN THEIR INFLUENCE ON THE CONDITION
OF WOMAN.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">The life of feudal lords according to M. Guizot&mdash;The passions and faith in chivalry&mdash;Chivalry
did not ennoble woman, it supposed her to be ennobled&mdash;Of the respect of the Germans
for woman&mdash;Analysis of a passage of Tacitus&mdash;Reflections on that historian&mdash;It is
difficult thoroughly to understand the manners of the Germans&mdash;Action of Catholicity&mdash;Important
distinction between Christianity and Catholicity&mdash;That the Germans of themselves
were incapable of giving dignity to woman,     </td><td class="tdrb">150</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXVIII">CHAPTER XXVIII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>OF THE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE IN GENERAL.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">What the public conscience is&mdash;Influence of the feelings on the public conscience in general&mdash;Education
contributes to form the conscience&mdash;State of the public conscience in modern
times&mdash;What has been able to form the public conscience in Europe&mdash;Successive contests
maintained by Christian morality,     </td><td class="tdrb">157</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXIX">CHAPTER XXIX</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE ACCORDING TO MONTESQUIEU&mdash;HONOR&mdash;VIRTUE.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Institution of censors according to Montesquieu&mdash;Two kinds of prejudice in the author of
the <cite>Esprit des Lois</cite>&mdash;He assigns honor as the principle of monarchies, and virtue as that
of republics&mdash;Explanation of the feeling of honor&mdash;What is required to strengthen this
feeling&mdash;The censorial power replaced by the religious&mdash;Examples&mdash;Contrasts,     </td><td class="tdrb">161</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXX">CHAPTER XXX</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>ON THE DIFFERENT INFLUENCE OF PROTESTANTISM AND CATHOLICITY ON THE PUBLIC
CONSCIENCE.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Catholicity considered as a creed&mdash;As an institution&mdash;Ideas, in order to be efficacious, must
be realized in an institution&mdash;What Protestantism has done to destroy Christian morality&mdash;What
it has done to preserve it&mdash;What is the real power of preaching among Protestants&mdash;Of
the sacrament of penance with relation to the public conscience&mdash;Of the degree
to which the Catholic religion raises morality&mdash;Of unity in the soul&mdash;Unity simplifies&mdash;Of
the great number of moralists within the bosom of the Catholic Church&mdash;Of the peculiar
force of ideas&mdash;Distinction between ideas with respect to their peculiar force&mdash;Whether
the human race is a faithful depositary of the truth&mdash;How the truth has been preserved
among the Jews&mdash;The native power of Schools&mdash;Institutions are required, not
only to teach, but also to apply doctrines&mdash;Of the press with relation to the preservation
of ideas&mdash;Of intuition&mdash;Of discourses,     </td><td class="tdrb">165</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXI">CHAPTER XXXI</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>OF GENTLENESS OF MANNERS IN GENERAL.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Wherein gentleness of manners consists&mdash;Difference between gentle and effeminate manners&mdash;Influence
of the Catholic Church in softening manners&mdash;Pagan and Christian
societies&mdash;Slavery&mdash;Paternal authority&mdash;Public games&mdash;Reflections on Spanish bull-fights,     </td><td class="tdrb">172</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXII">CHAPTER XXXII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>OF THE AMELIORATION OF MANNERS BY THE ACTION OF THE CHURCH.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Elements adapted to perpetuate harshness of manners in the bosom of modern society&mdash;Conduct
of the Church in this respect&mdash;Remarkable canons and facts&mdash;St. Ambrose and
the Emperor Theodosius&mdash;The Truce of God&mdash;Very remarkable regulations of the ecclesiastical
authority on this subject,     </td><td class="tdrb">175</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXIII">CHAPTER XXXIII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC BENEFICENCE IN EUROPE.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Difference between Protestantism and Catholicity with respect to public beneficence&mdash;Paradox
of Montesquieu&mdash;Remarkable canons of the Church&mdash;Injury done by Protestantism
to the development of public beneficence&mdash;The value of philanthropy,     </td><td class="tdrb">184</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXIV">CHAPTER XXXIV</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>OF TOLERANCE IN MATTERS OF RELIGION.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">The question of intolerance has been examined with bad faith&mdash;What tolerance is&mdash;Tolerance
of opinions&mdash;Of error&mdash;Tolerance in the individual&mdash;With religious men&mdash;With unbelievers&mdash;Two
kinds of religious men&mdash;Two kinds of unbelievers&mdash;Tolerance in society&mdash;What
is its origin?&mdash;Source of the tolerance which prevails in society at present,     </td><td class="tdrb">189<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span></td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXV">CHAPTER XXXV</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>OF THE RIGHT OF COERCION IN GENERAL.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Intolerance is a general fact in history&mdash;Dialogues with the partisans of universal tolerance&mdash;Does
there exist a right of punishing doctrines?&mdash;Researches into the origin of that
right&mdash;Disastrous influence of Protestantism and infidelity in this matter&mdash;Of the importance
which Catholicity attaches to the sin of heresy&mdash;Inconsistency of certain timid Voltairians&mdash;Another
reflection on the right of punishing doctrines&mdash;Résumé,     </td><td class="tdrb">196</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXVI">CHAPTER XXXVI</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>OF THE INQUISITION IN SPAIN.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Institutions and legislation founded on intolerance&mdash;Causes of the rigor displayed in the
early times of the Inquisition&mdash;Three epochs in the history of the Inquisition in Spain:
against the Jews and Moors; against the Protestants; against the unbelievers&mdash;Severities
of the Inquisition&mdash;Causes of those severities&mdash;Conduct of the Popes in that matter&mdash;Mildness
of the Roman Inquisition&mdash;The intolerance of Luther with respect to the
Jews&mdash;The Moors and Moriscoes,     </td><td class="tdrb">203</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXVII">CHAPTER XXXVII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>SECOND PERIOD OF THE INQUISITION IN SPAIN.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">New Inquisition attributed to Philip II.&mdash;Opinion of M. Lacordaire&mdash;Prejudice against Philip
II.&mdash;Observations on the work called <cite>Inquisition Dévoilée</cite>&mdash;Rapid <i lang="fr">coup d'œil</i> at the second
epoch of the Inquisition&mdash;Trial of Carranza&mdash;Observation on this trial, and on the
personal qualities of the illustrious accused&mdash;Why there is so much partiality against
Philip II.&mdash;Reflections on the policy of that monarch&mdash;Singular anecdote of a preacher
who was compelled to retract&mdash;Reflections on the influence of the spirit of the age,     </td><td class="tdrb">210</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXVIII">CHAPTER XXXVIII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THEMSELVES.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Conduct of Protestantism with respect to religious institutions&mdash;Whether these institutions
have been of importance in history&mdash;Sophism on the subject of the real origin of religious
institutions&mdash;Their correct definition&mdash;Of association among the early faithful&mdash;The
faithful dispersed in the deserts&mdash;Relations between the Papacy and religious institutions&mdash;Of
an essential want of the human heart&mdash;Of Christian pensiveness&mdash;Of the need of
associations for the practice of perfection&mdash;Of vows&mdash;A vow is the most perfect act of
liberty&mdash;True notion of liberty,     </td><td class="tdrb">219</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXIX">CHAPTER XXXIX</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN HISTORY&mdash;THE EARLY SOLITARIES.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Character of religious institutions in a historical point of view&mdash;The Roman empire&mdash;The
barbarians&mdash;The early Christians&mdash;Condition of the Church when Christianity ascended
the throne of the Cæsars&mdash;Life of the fathers of the desert&mdash;Influence of the solitaries on
philosophy and manners&mdash;The heroism of penance saves morality&mdash;The most corrupting
climate chosen for the triumph of the most austere virtues,     </td><td class="tdrb">229</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XL">CHAPTER XL</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE EAST.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Influence of monasteries in the East&mdash;Why civilization triumphed in the West and perished
in the East&mdash;Influence of the Eastern monasteries on Arabian civilization,     </td><td class="tdrb">234</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XLI">CHAPTER XLI</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE HISTORY OF THE WEST.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Peculiar character of religious institutions in the West&mdash;St. Benedict&mdash;Struggle of the
monks against the decline of things&mdash;Origin of monastic property&mdash;The possessions of
the monks serve to create respect for property&mdash;Population becomes spread over the
country&mdash;Science and letters in cloisters Gratian&mdash;arouses the study of law,     </td><td class="tdrb">238</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XLII">CHAPTER XLII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS DURING THE SECOND HALF OF THE MIDDLE AGES IN THE WEST&mdash;THE
MILITARY ORDERS.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Character of the military orders&mdash;Opinion of the Crusades&mdash;The foundation of the military
orders is a continuation of the Crusades,     </td><td class="tdrb">242</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XLIII">CHAPTER XLIII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>CONTINUATION OF THE SAME SUBJECT&mdash;EUROPE IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Transformation of the monastic spirit in the thirteenth century&mdash;Religious institutions arise
every where&mdash;Character of European opposed to that of other civilizations&mdash;Mixture of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span>
various elements in the spirit of the thirteenth century&mdash;Semi-barbarous society&mdash;Christianity
and barbarism&mdash;A delusion common in the study of history&mdash;Condition of Europe
at the beginning of the thirteenth century&mdash;Wars become more popular&mdash;Why the
intellectual movement began in Spain sooner than in the rest of Europe&mdash;Ebullition of
evil during the course of the twelfth century&mdash;Tanchème&mdash;Eon&mdash;The Manichees&mdash;Vaudois&mdash;Religious
movement at the beginning of the thirteenth century&mdash;The mendicant
and preaching orders&mdash;The character of these orders&mdash;Their influence&mdash;Their relations
with the Papacy,     </td><td class="tdrb">244</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XLIV">CHAPTER XLIV</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>RELIGIOUS ORDERS FOR THE REDEMPTION OF CAPTIVES.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Multitude of Christians reduced to slavery&mdash;Religious orders for the redemption of captives
were necessary&mdash;The Order of the Trinity and that of Mercy&mdash;St. Peter Armengol,      </td><td class="tdrb">256</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XLV">CHAPTER XLV</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>UNIVERSAL ADVANCE OF CIVILIZATION IMPEDED BY PROTESTANTISM.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Effects of Protestantism on the progress of civilization in the world, beginning with the
sixteenth century&mdash;What enabled civilization, during the middle ages, to triumph over
barbarism&mdash;Picture of Europe at the beginning of the sixteenth century&mdash;The civilizing
missions of the 16th century interrupted by the schism of Luther&mdash;Why the action of
the Church on barbarous nations has lost power during three centuries&mdash;Whether the
Christianity of our days is less adapted to propagate the faith than that of the early ages
of the Church&mdash;Christian missions in the early times of the Church&mdash;What the real
mission of Luther has been,     </td><td class="tdrb">260</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XLVI">CHAPTER XLVI</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>THE JESUITS.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Their importance in the history of European civilization&mdash;Causes of the hatred which has
been excited against them&mdash;Character of the Jesuits&mdash;Contradiction of M. Guizot on this
subject&mdash;Whether it be true, as M. Guizot says, that the Jesuits have destroyed nations
in Spain&mdash;Facts and dates&mdash;Unjust accusations against the Company of Jesus,     </td><td class="tdrb">268</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XLVII">CHAPTER XLVII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>THE FUTURE OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS&mdash;THEIR PRESENT NECESSITY.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Present state of religious institutions&mdash;Picture of society&mdash;Inability of industry and commerce
to satisfy the heart of man&mdash;Condition of minds with respect to religion&mdash;Religious
institutions will be necessary to save existing society&mdash;Nothing fixed in that society&mdash;Means
are wanting for social organization&mdash;The march of European nations has
been perverted&mdash;Physical means of restraining the masses&mdash;Moral means are required&mdash;Religious
institutions reconcilable with the advancement of modern times,     </td><td class="tdrb">274</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XLVIII">CHAPTER XLVIII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>RELIGION AND LIBERTY.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Rousseau&mdash;The Protestants Divine law&mdash;Origin of power&mdash;False interpretation of the
divine law&mdash;St. John Chrysostom&mdash;On paternal authority&mdash;Relations between paternal
authority and civil power,     </td><td class="tdrb">281</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_XLIX">CHAPTER XLIX</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>THE ORIGIN OF SOCIETY, ACCORDING TO CATHOLIC THEOLOGIANS.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Doctrines of theologians on the origin of society&mdash;The character of Catholic theologians
compared to that of modern writers&mdash;St. Thomas&mdash;Bellarmin&mdash;Suarez&mdash;St. Alphonsus
de Liguori&mdash;Father Concina&mdash;Billuart&mdash;The <cite>Compendium</cite> of Salamanca,     </td><td class="tdrb">288</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_L">CHAPTER L</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>OF DIVINE LAW, ACCORDING TO CATHOLIC DOCTORS.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">On the divine law&mdash;Divine origin of civil power&mdash;In what manner God communicates this
power&mdash;Rousseau&mdash;On pacts&mdash;The right of life and death&mdash;The right of war&mdash;Power
must necessarily emanate from God&mdash;Puffendorf&mdash;Hobbes,     </td><td class="tdrb">298</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LI">CHAPTER LI</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>THE TRANSMISSION OF POWER, ACCORDING TO CATHOLIC DOCTORS.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh"><em>Direct</em> or <em>indirect</em> communication of civil power&mdash;The distinction between the two opinions
important in some respects; in others, not so&mdash;Why Catholic theologians have so zealously
maintained the doctrine of mediate communication,      </td><td class="tdrb">305</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LII">CHAPTER LII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>ON THE FREEDOM OF LANGUAGE UNDER THE SPANISH MONARCHY.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Influence of doctrines on society&mdash;Flattery lavished on power&mdash;Danger of this flattery&mdash;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span>
Liberty of speech on this point in Spain during the last three centuries&mdash;Mariana&mdash;Saavedra&mdash;In
the absence of religion and morality, the most rigorous political doctrines
are incapable of saving society&mdash;Why the conservative schools of our days are powerless&mdash;Seneca&mdash;Cicero&mdash;Hobbes&mdash;Bellarmin,     </td><td class="tdrb">311</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LIII">CHAPTER LIII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>OF THE FACULTIES OF THE CIVIL POWER.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Of the faculties of civil power&mdash;Calumnies of the enemies of the Church&mdash;Definition of <em>law</em>
according to St. Thomas&mdash;General reason and general will&mdash;The venerable Palafox&mdash;Hobbes&mdash;Grotius&mdash;The
doctrines of certain Protestants favorable to despotism&mdash;Justification
of the Catholic Church,     </td><td class="tdrb">317</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LIV">CHAPTER LIV</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>ON RESISTANCE TO THE CIVIL POWER.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Of resistance to the civil power&mdash;Parallel between Protestantism and Catholicity on this
point&mdash;Unfounded apprehensions of certain minds&mdash;Attitude of revolutions in this age&mdash;The
principle inculcated by Catholicity on the obligation of obeying the lawful authorities&mdash;Preliminary
questions&mdash;Difference between the two powers&mdash;Conduct of Catholicity
and Protestantism with regard to the separation of the two powers&mdash;The independence
of the spiritual power a guarantee of liberty to the people&mdash;Extremes which meet&mdash;The
doctrine of St. Thomas on obedience,     </td><td class="tdrb">324</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LV">CHAPTER LV</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>ON RESISTANCE TO DE FACTO GOVERNMENTS.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Governments existing merely <i lang="la">de facto</i>&mdash;Right of resistance to these governments&mdash;Napoleon
and the Spanish nation&mdash;Fallacy of the doctrine establishing the obligation of obedience
to mere <i lang="la">de facto</i> governments&mdash;Investigation of certain difficulties&mdash;Accomplished facts&mdash;How
we are to understand the respect due to accomplished facts,    </td><td class="tdrb">330</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LVI">CHAPTER LVI</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>HOW IT IS ALLOWED TO RESIST THE CIVIL POWER.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">On resistance to lawful authority&mdash;The doctrines of the Council of Constance on the assassination
of a king&mdash;A reflection on the inviolability of kings&mdash;Extreme cases&mdash;Doctrine
of St. Thomas of Aquin, Cardinal Bellarmin, Suarez, and other theologians&mdash;The Abbé
de Lamennais' errors&mdash;He is wrong in imagining that his doctrine, condemned by the
Pope, is the same as St. Thomas of Aquin's&mdash;A parallel between the doctrines of St.
Thomas and those of the Abbé de Lamennais&mdash;A word on the temporal power of the
Popes&mdash;Ancient doctrines on resistance to power&mdash;Language of the Counsellors of Barcelona&mdash;The
doctrine of certain theologians on the case of the Sovereign Pontiff's falling
into heresy in his private capacity&mdash;Why the Church has been calumniously accused of
being sometimes favorable to despotism, and sometimes to anarchy,     </td><td class="tdrb">336</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LVII">CHAPTER LVII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>ON POLITICAL SOCIETY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">The Church and political forms&mdash;Protestantism and liberty&mdash;Language of M. Guizot&mdash;The
state of the question better defined&mdash;Europe at the end of the fifteenth century&mdash;Social
aristocracy, and democracy,     </td><td class="tdrb">343</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LVIII">CHAPTER LVIII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>ON MONARCHY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">The idea entertained of monarchy at this period&mdash;The application of this idea&mdash;Difference
between monarchy and despotism&mdash;The nature of monarchy at the commencement of the
sixteenth century&mdash;Its relations with the Church,     </td><td class="tdrb">346</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LIX">CHAPTER LIX</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>ON ARISTOCRACY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">The nobility and the clergy&mdash;The differences between these two aristocracies&mdash;The nobility
and monarchy&mdash;Differences between them&mdash;An intermediate class between the throne
and the people&mdash;The causes of the fall of the nobility,     </td><td class="tdrb">348</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LX">CHAPTER LX</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>ON DEMOCRACY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">The opinion entertained of democracy&mdash;The prevailing doctrines of that epoch&mdash;The doctrines
of Aristotle neutralised by the teaching of Christianity&mdash;On castes&mdash;A passage from
M. Guizot on castes&mdash;Influence of the celibacy of the clergy in preventing an hereditary
succession&mdash;The consequences resulting from a married clergy&mdash;Catholicity and the peo<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span>ple&mdash;Development
of the industrial classes in Europe&mdash;The Hanseatic Confederation&mdash;<em>Establishment
of the trades-corporations of Paris</em>&mdash;Industrial movement in Italy and
Spain&mdash;Calvinism and the democratic element&mdash;Protestantism and the democrats of the
sixteenth century,     </td><td class="tdrb">350</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LXI">CHAPTER LXI</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>VALUE OF DIFFERENT POLITICAL FORMS&mdash;CHARACTER OF MONARCHY IN EUROPE.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Value of political forms&mdash;Catholicity and liberty&mdash;Monarchy was essential&mdash;Character of
European monarchy&mdash;Difference between Europe and Asia&mdash;Quotation from Count de
Maistre&mdash;An institution for the limiting of power&mdash;Political liberty not indebted to Protestantism&mdash;Influence
of Councils&mdash;The aristocracy of talent encouraged by the
Church,     </td><td class="tdrb">356</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LXII">CHAPTER LXII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>HOW MONARCHY WAS STRENGTHENED IN EUROPE.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Monarchy in the sixteenth century is strengthened in Europe&mdash;Its preponderance over free
institutions&mdash;Why the word <em>liberty</em> is a scandal to some people&mdash;Protestantism contributed
to the destruction of popular institutions,    </td><td class="tdrb">361</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LXIII">CHAPTER LXIII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>TWO SORTS OF DEMOCRACY.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Two sorts of democracy&mdash;Their parallel march in the history of Europe&mdash;Their characters&mdash;Their
causes and effects&mdash;Why absolutism became necessary in Europe&mdash;Historical
facts&mdash;France&mdash;England&mdash;Sweden&mdash;Denmark&mdash;Germany,     </td><td class="tdrb">364</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LXIV">CHAPTER LXIV</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>CONTEST BETWEEN THE THREE SOCIAL ELEMENTS.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Contest between monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy&mdash;How monarchy came to prevail&mdash;Fatal
effects of the weakening of the political influence of the clergy&mdash;Advantages
which might have arisen from this influence to popular institutions&mdash;Relations of the
clergy with all powers and classes of society,     </td><td class="tdrb">370</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LXV">CHAPTER LXV</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>POLITICAL DOCTRINES BEFORE THE APPEARANCE OF PROTESTANTISM.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Parallel between the political doctrines of the eighteenth century, those of modern publicists,
and those which prevailed in Europe before the appearance of Protestantism&mdash;Protestantism
has prevented the homogeneity of European civilization&mdash;Historical
proofs,     </td><td class="tdrb">374</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LXVI">CHAPTER LXVI</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>OF POLITICAL DOCTRINES IN SPAIN.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Catholicity and politics in Spain&mdash;Real state of the question&mdash;Five causes contributed to
the overthrow of popular institutions in Spain&mdash;Difference between ancient and modern
liberty&mdash;The <i lang="es">Communeros</i> of Castille&mdash;The policy of her kings&mdash;Ferdinand the Catholic
and Ximenes&mdash;Charles V.&mdash;Philip II.,     </td><td class="tdrb">377</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LXVII">CHAPTER LXVII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>POLITICAL LIBERTY AND RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Political liberty and religious intolerance&mdash;Europe was developed under the exclusive influence
of Catholicity&mdash;Picture of Europe from the eleventh to the fourteenth century&mdash;Condition
of the social problem at the end of the fifteenth century&mdash;Temporal power of the
Popes&mdash;Its character, origin, and effects,     </td><td class="tdrb">382</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LXVIII">CHAPTER LXVIII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>UNITY IN FAITH RECONCILED WITH POLITICAL LIBERTY.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">It is false that unity of faith is opposed to political liberty&mdash;Impiety is allied with liberty or
despotism, according to circumstances&mdash;Modern revolutions&mdash;Difference between the revolution
of the United States and that of France&mdash;Pernicious effects of the French revolution&mdash;Liberty
impossible without morality&mdash;Remarkable passage from St. Augustin on
forms of government,     </td><td class="tdrb">388</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LXIX">CHAPTER LXIX</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Catholicity in its relations with intellectual development&mdash;What is the influence of the principle
of submission to authority&mdash;What are the effects of this principle with respect to
all the sciences&mdash;Parallel between ancients and moderns&mdash;God&mdash;Man&mdash;Society&mdash;Nature,     </td><td class="tdrb">392<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span></td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LXX">CHAPTER LXX</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Historical investigation of the influence of Catholicity on the development of the human
mind&mdash;Refutation of one of M. Guizot's opinions&mdash;John Erigena&mdash;Roscelin and Abelard&mdash;St.
Anselm,     </td><td class="tdrb">398</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LXXI">CHAPTER LXXI</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>RELIGION AND THE HUMAN INTELLECT IN EUROPE.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Religion and the human intellect in Europe&mdash;Difference between the intellectual development
of the nations of antiquity and those of Europeans&mdash;Causes that have accelerated
this development in Europe&mdash;Origin of the spirit of subtilty&mdash;Service which the Church
rendered to the human mind by her opposition to the subtilties of the innovators&mdash;Parallel
between Roscelin and St. Anselm&mdash;Reflections on St. Bernard&mdash;St. Thomas of Aquin&mdash;Advantage
of his dictatorship in the schools&mdash;Advent of St. Thomas in the middle
ages of immense advantage to me human mind,     </td><td class="tdrb">404</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LXXII">CHAPTER LXXII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>PROGRESS OF THE HUMAN MIND FROM THE ELEVENTH CENTURY TO THE PRESENT TIME.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Progress of the human mind from the eleventh century to our own times&mdash;Different phases&mdash;Protestantism
and Catholicity in their relations to learning, to criticism, to the learned
languages, to the foundation of universities, to the progress of literature and the arts, to
mysticism, to high philosophy, to metaphysics, to ethics, to religious philosophy, and to
the philosophy of history,     </td><td class="tdrb">412</td></tr>


<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#CHAPTER_LXXIII">CHAPTER LXXIII</a>.</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><small>SUMMARY OF THE WORK&mdash;DECLARATION OF THE AUTHOR.</small></td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdh">Summary of the work&mdash;The author submits it to the judgment of the Roman Church,     </td><td class="tdrb">419</td></tr>

<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#NOTES">NOTES</a>.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#APPENDIX">APPENDIX</a>.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="#INDEX">INDEX</a>.</td></tr>

</table></div>

<hr class="chap" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a><br /><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span></p>

<div class="chapter"></div>

<h2>TABLE OF NOTES.</h2>




<div class="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
<tr><td class="tdrt"><span class="xs">NOTE</span></td><td class="tdh"><span class="xs">PAGE</span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_1">1</a></td><td class="tdrt">421.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Gibbon and Bossuet's History of the Variations.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_2">2</a></td><td class="tdrt">421.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Intolerance of Luther and the other Coryphæi of Protestantism.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_3">3</a></td><td class="tdrt">421.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Origin of the name Protestantism.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_4">4</a></td><td class="tdrt">422.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Observations on names.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_5">5</a></td><td class="tdrt">422.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Of abuses in the Church.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_6">6</a></td><td class="tdrt">423.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Of the unity and harmonious action of Catholicism&mdash;Happy idea
of St. Francis of Sales.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_7">7</a></td><td class="tdrt">423.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Acknowledgments of the most distinguished Protestants with regard to
its weakness&mdash;Luther, Melancthon,
Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Papin, Puffendorf and Leibnitz&mdash;Of a posthumous work by Leibnitz on religion.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_8">8</a></td><td class="tdrt">424.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">On human knowledge&mdash;Louis Vives.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_9">9</a></td><td class="tdrt">425.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">On mathematics&mdash;Eximeno, a Spanish Jesuit.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_10">10</a></td><td class="tdrt">425.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Heresies of the early ages&mdash;their character.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_11">11</a></td><td class="tdrt">425.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Superstition and fanaticism of Protestantism&mdash;Luther's devil,
Zwinglius's phantom, Melancthon's prognostics, Mathias Harlem, the Tailor of Leyden, King of Sion; Hermann, Nicholas Hacket, and others, visionaries
and fanatics.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_12">12</a></td><td class="tdrt">427.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Visions of Catholics&mdash;St. Theresa, her visions.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_13">13</a></td><td class="tdrt">428.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Bad faith of the founders of Protestantism&mdash;Passages proving
this&mdash;Ravages committed by incredulity after that time&mdash;Gruet&mdash;Remarkable passages from Montaigne.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_14">14</a></td><td class="tdrt">429.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Extravagance of the early heresies, a proof of the state of knowledge
in those times.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_15">15</a></td><td class="tdrt">430.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Canons and other documents which shew the solicitude of the Church to
improve the lot of slaves, and the various means which she used to complete the abolition of slavery.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"></td><td class="tdrt"></td><td class="tdrt"><a href="#SI">§&nbsp;1.</a></td><td class="tdh">Canons intended to improve the lot of slaves.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"></td><td class="tdrt"></td><td class="tdrt"><a href="#SII">§&nbsp;2.</a></td><td class="tdh">Canons intended to defend the freed, and to protect those who were recommended to the Church.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"></td><td class="tdrt"></td><td class="tdrt"><a href="#SIII">§&nbsp;3.</a></td><td class="tdh">Canons and other documents relating to the redemption of captives.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"></td><td class="tdrt"></td><td class="tdrt"><a href="#SIV">§&nbsp;4.</a></td><td class="tdh">Canons relating to the protection of the freed.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"></td><td class="tdrt">436.</td><td class="tdrt"><a href="#SV">§&nbsp;5.</a></td><td class="tdh">Canons concerning the slaves of Jews.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"></td><td class="tdrt"></td><td class="tdrt"><a href="#SVI">§&nbsp;6.</a></td><td class="tdh">Canons concerning the enfranchisement of the slaves of the Church.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"></td><td class="tdrt"></td><td class="tdrt"><a href="#SVII">§&nbsp;7.</a></td><td class="tdh">Conduct of the Church with regard to modern slavery&mdash;Apostolic letters of St. Gregory XVI.&mdash;Slave trade&mdash;Doctrine, conduct, and influence of the Church with regard to the abolition of the trade, and of slavery in the Colonies&mdash;Passage from Robertson.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_16">16</a></td><td class="tdrt">442.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Doctrines of Plato and Aristotle touching infanticide&mdash;Their doctrine on the rights of society.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_17">17</a></td><td class="tdrt">444.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Degradation of woman in ancient times, especially in Rome.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_18">18</a></td><td class="tdrt">444.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">The Germans of Tacitus judged according to subsequent events.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_19">19</a></td><td class="tdrt">445.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Corruption of ancient manners.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_20">20</a></td><td class="tdrt">445.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Different opinions of religion and philosophy on the power of ideas&mdash;How far it is true that every idea requires an institution.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_21">21</a></td><td class="tdrt">446.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Christianity is still in our days the source of mildness of manners.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_22">22</a></td><td class="tdrt">447.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Influence of the Church on barbarian legislation&mdash;Councils of Toledo&mdash;What the indulgence of the criminal code among the barbarians proves.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_23">23</a></td><td class="tdrt">449.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Constant intervention of the Church in the administration of public beneficence&mdash;Regulations of the Council of Trent on this subject&mdash;Property of hospitals considered as that of the Church.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_24">24</a></td><td class="tdrt">450.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Reference to the following note.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_25">25</a></td><td class="tdrt">450.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Distinction between civil and religious intolerance&mdash;Error of Rousseau on this point&mdash;False doctrine of the <cite>Contrat Social</cite>.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_26">26</a></td><td class="tdrt">452.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Passages from old laws relative to the Inquisition&mdash;Pragmatic sanction of Ferdinand and Isabella&mdash;Laws of Philip II. and III.&mdash;Pragmatic sanction of Ferdinand and Isabella concerning the relations of the Spanish Inquisition with Rome&mdash;Passage from Don Antonio Perez, which mentions the anecdote of the preacher at Madrid&mdash;Letter from Phillip II to Arias Montano, on the subject of the library of the Escurial<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span>.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"></td><td class="tdrt">456.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">(<i>Appendix</i>.) A few words on Puigblanch, Villeneuve, and Llorente.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_27">27</a></td><td class="tdrt">458.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Religious institutions in an historical point of view&mdash;Last <i lang="fr">coup-d'œil</i> at their origin and development&mdash;Details with respect to the vow of chastity which virgins and widows made in the early ages of the Church.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_28">28</a></td><td class="tdrt">459.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Remarkable texts explaining the passage of St. Paul in the 13th chapter of his Epistle to the Romans&mdash;Cicero&mdash;Horace.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_29">29</a></td><td class="tdrt">462.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">A remarkable fact.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_30">30</a></td><td class="tdrt">463.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Quotations from P. Fr. John de Ste.-Marie, and from P. Zeballos.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_31">31</a></td><td class="tdrt">470.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">St. Thomas reminds princes of their duties.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_32">32</a></td><td class="tdrt">471.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">The opinion of D. Felix d'Amat, bishop of Palmyra, on the obedience due to <i lang="la">de facto</i> governments.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_33">33</a></td><td class="tdrt">471.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Remarkable passages from St. Thomas and Suarez, on the disputes which may arise between governors and the governed&mdash;Father Marquez on the same subject.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_34">34</a></td><td class="tdrt">475.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Charter of <em>Hermandad</em> between the kingdoms of Leon and Galicia and that of Castille, for the preservation and defence of their <i lang="es">fueros</i> and liberties.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_35">35</a></td><td class="tdrt">476.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">A remarkable passage from Capmany on the organization of the industrial classes&mdash;The origin and salutary effects of the institution of trades-corporation.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_36">36</a></td><td class="tdrt">480.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Reflections of Count de Maistre on the causes which render the celebration of General Councils less frequent.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_37">37</a></td><td class="tdrt">480.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Indication of historical sources for the confirmation of certain facts.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_38">38</a></td><td class="tdrt">480.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Texts of St. Thomas on political forms&mdash;Other texts of St. Thomas to prove that the law, and not the will of man, should govern&mdash;Opinions of P. Mariana&mdash;Opinions of the venerable Palafox on the subject of imposts, taken from his Memoir to the King&mdash;Severe language of the same author against tyranny and those who advise or excuse it&mdash;Passage from P. Marquez on the right of levying tributes in general; its particular application to Castile&mdash;The opinion of the same author relative to the right of the supreme authority to the property of its subjects&mdash;A case in which, according to him, that authority may dispose of this property.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_39">39</a></td><td class="tdrt">484.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Reference to historical sources to ascertain the march of the development of monarchical power in the different provinces of Spain.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_40">40</a></td><td class="tdrt">484.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">A just observation of Count de Maistre on the conduct of the Popes compared to that of other sovereigns.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdrt"><a href="#Note_41">41</a></td><td class="tdrt">485.</td><td class="tdh" colspan="2">Passages in which St. Anselm expounds his views on religious subjects&mdash;Intellectual movement arising in the bosom of the Church without transgressing the bounds of faith&mdash;Another passage proving that the demonstration applied by Descartes to the existence of God had been discovered by St. Anselm&mdash;Corroborative Documents in support of a refutation of M. Guizot's errors on the doctrines of Abelard.</td></tr>
</table></div>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span></p>

<div class="chapter"></div>


<p class="center"><span class="xl">PROTESTANTISM</span></p>
<p class="center"><span class="xs">COMPARED WITH</span></p>
<p class="center"><span class="xl">CATHOLICITY.</span></p>



<hr  />
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_I" id="CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I.</a><br />

<small>NAME AND NATURE OF PROTESTANTISM</small>.</h2>


<p>There is a fact in existence among civilized nations, very important on
account of the nature of the things which it affects&mdash;a fact of transcendent importance,
on account of the number, variety, and consequence of its influences&mdash;a
fact extremely interesting, because it is connected with the principal events
of modern history. This fact is Protestantism.</p>

<p>Like a clap of thunder, it attracted at once the attention of all Europe; on
one side it spread alarm, and on the other excited the most lively sympathy: it
grew so rapidly, that its adversaries had not time to strangle it in its cradle.
Scarcely had it begun to exist, and already all hope of stopping, or even restraining
it, was gone; when, emboldened by being treated with respect and
consideration, it became every day more daring; if exasperated by rigour, it
openly resisted measures of coercion, or redoubled and concentrated its forces,
to make more vigorous attacks. Discussions, the profound investigations and
scientific methods which were used in combating it, contributed to develop the
spirit of inquiry, and served as vehicles to propagate its ideas.</p>

<p>By creating new and prevailing interests, it made itself powerful protectors;
by throwing all the passions into a state of fury, it aroused them in its favor.
It availed itself, by turns, of stratagem, force, seduction, or violence, according
to the exigencies of times and circumstances. It attempted to make its way in
all directions; either destroying impediments, or taking advantage of them, if
they were capable of being turned to account.</p>

<p>When introduced into a country, it never rested until it had obtained guarantees
for its continued existence; and it succeeded in doing so everywhere. After
having obtained vast establishments in Europe&mdash;which it still retains&mdash;it was
transported into other parts of the world, and infused into the veins of simple
and unsuspecting nations.</p>

<p>In order to appreciate a fact at its just value, to embrace it in all its relations,
and to distinguish properly between them, it is necessary to examine
whether the constituting principle of the fact can be ascertained, or at least
whether we can observe in its appearance any characteristic trait capable of
revealing its inward nature. This examination is very difficult when we have
to do with a fact of the kind and importance of that which now occupies our
attention. In matters of this sort, numbers of opinions accumulate in the
course of time, in favor of all which arguments have been sought. The inquirer,
in the midst of so many and such various objects, is perplexed, disconcerted,
and confounded; and if he wish to place himself in a more advantageous
point of view, he finds the ground so covered with fragments, that he cannot
make his way without risk of losing himself at every step.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span></p>

<p>The first glance which we give to Protestantism, whether we consider its
actual condition, or whether we regard the various phases of its history, shows
us that it is very difficult to find any thing constant in it, any thing which can
be assigned as its constituent character. Uncertain in its opinions, it modifies
them continually, and changes them in a thousand ways. Vague in its tendencies,
and fluctuating in its desires, it attempts every form, and essays every
road. It can never attain to a well-defined existence; and we see it every
moment enter new paths, to lose itself in new labyrinths.</p>

<p>Catholic controversialists have pursued and assailed it in every way; ask them
what has been the result? They will tell you that they had to contend with a
new Proteus, which always escaped the fatal blow by changing its form. If
you wish to assail the doctrines of Protestantism, you do not know where to
direct your attacks, for they are unknown to you, and even to itself. On this
side it is invulnerable, because it has no tangible body. Thus, no more powerful
argument has ever been urged, than that of the immortal Bishop of Meaux&mdash;viz.
"You change; and that which changes is not the truth." An argument
much feared by Protestantism, and with justice; because all the various forms
which are assumed to evade its force, only serve to strengthen it. How just
is the expression of that great man! At the very title of his book, Protestantism
must tremble: The History of the Variations! A history of variations
must be a history of error. (See <a href="#Note_1">note</a> [1] at the end of the vol.)</p>

<p>These unceasing changes, which we ought not to be surprised at finding in
Protestantism, because they essentially belong to it, show us that it is not in
possession of the truth; they show us also, that its moving principle is not a
principle of life, but an element of dissolution. It has been called upon, and
up to this time in vain, to fix itself, and to present a compact and uniform
body. How can that be fixed, which is, by its nature, kept floating about in
the air? How can a solid body be formed of an element, the essential tendency
of which is towards an incessant division of particles, by diminishing
their reciprocal affinity, and increasing their repellent force?</p>

<p>It will easily be seen that I speak of the right of private judgment in matters
of faith, whether it be looked upon as a matter of human reason alone, or
as an individual inspiration from heaven.</p>

<p>If there be any thing constant in Protestantism, it is undoubtedly the substitution
of private judgment for public and lawful authority. This is always
found in union with it, and is, properly speaking, its fundamental principle: it
is the only point of contact among the various Protestant sects,&mdash;the basis of
their mutual resemblance. It is very remarkable that this exists, for the most
part, unintentionally, and sometimes against their express wishes.</p>

<p>However lamentable and disastrous this principle may be, if the coryphæi of
Protestantism had made it their rallying point, and had constantly acted up to
it in theory and practice, they would have been consistent in error. When
men saw them cast into one abyss after another, they would have recognised a
system,&mdash;false undoubtedly; but, at any rate, a system. As it is, it has not
been even that: if you examine the words and the acts of the first Reformers,
you will find that they made use of this principle as a means of resisting the
authority which controlled them, but that they never dreamed of establishing
it permanently; that if they labored to upset lawful authority, it was for the
purpose of usurping the command themselves; that is to say, that they followed,
in this respect, the example of revolutionists of all kinds, of all ages,
and of all countries. Everybody knows how far Luther carried his fanatical
intolerance; he who could not bear the slightest contradiction, either from his
own disciples or anybody else, without giving way to the most senseless fits of
passion, and the most unworthy outrages. Henry VIII. of England, who
founded there what is called the liberty of thinking, sent to the scaffold those<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span>
who did not think as he did; and it was at the instigation of Calvin that Servetus
was burnt alive at Geneva.</p>

<p>I insist upon this point, because it seems to me to be of great importance.
Men are but too much inclined to pride; and if they heard it constantly
repeated, without contradiction, that the innovators of the sixteenth century
proclaimed the freedom of thought, a secret interest might be excited in their
favor; their violent declamations might be regarded as the expressions of a
generous movement, and their efforts as a noble attempt to assert the rights of
intellectual freedom. Let it be known, never to be forgotten, that if these men
proclaimed the principle of free examination, it was for the purpose of making
use of it against legitimate authority; but that they attempted, as soon as they
could, to impose upon others the yoke of their own opinions. Their constant
endeavour was, to destroy the authority which came from God, in order to establish
their own upon its ruins. It is a painful necessity to be obliged to give
proofs of this assertion; not because they are difficult to find, but because one
cannot adduce the most incontestable of them without calling to mind words
and deeds which not only cover with disgrace the founders of Protestantism,
but are of such a nature, that they cannot be mentioned without a blush on the
cheek, or written without a stain upon the paper.<a href="#Note_2" class="fnanchor">2</a></p>

<p>Protestantism, when viewed in a mass, appears only a shapeless collection of
innumerable sects, all opposed to each other, and agreeing only in one point,
viz. in protesting against the authority of the Church. We only find among
them particular and exclusive names, commonly taken from the names of their
founders; in vain have they made a thousand efforts to give themselves a general
name expressive of a positive idea; they are still called after the manner
of philosophical sects. Lutherans, Calvinists, Zuinglians, Anglicans, Socinians,
Arminians, Anabaptists, all these names, of which I could furnish an endless
host, only serve to exhibit the narrowness of the circle in which these sects are
enclosed; and it is only necessary to pronounce them, to show that they contain
nothing universal, nothing great.</p>

<p>Everybody who knows any thing of the Christian religion must be convinced
by this fact alone, that these sects are not truly Christian. But what occurred
when Protestantism attempted to take a general name, is singularly remarkable.
If you examine its history, you will see that all the names which it attempted
to give itself failed, if they contained any positive idea, or any mark of Christianity;
but that it adopted a name taken by chance at the Diet of Spires; a
name which carries with it its own condemnation, because it is repugnant to the
origin, to the spirit, to the maxims, to the entire history of the Christian religion;
a name which does not express that unity&mdash;that union which is inseparably
connected with the Christian name; a name which is peculiarly becoming
to it, which all the world gives to it by acclamation, which is truly its own&mdash;viz.
<em>Protestantism</em>.<a href="#Note_3" class="fnanchor">3</a></p>

<p>Within the vast limits marked out by this name, there is room for every
error and for every sect. You may deny with the Lutherans the liberty of
man, or renew with the Arminians the errors of Pelagius. You may admit
with some that real presence, which you are free to reject with the Calvinists
and Zuinglians; you may join with the Socinians in denying the divinity of
Jesus Christ; you may attach yourself to Episcopalians, to Puritans, or, if you
please, to the extravagances of the Quakers; it is of no consequence, for you
always remain a Protestant, for you protest against the authority of the
Church; your field is so extensive, that you can hardly escape from it, however
great may be your wanderings; it contains all the vast extent that we behold on
coming forth from the gates of the Holy City.<a href="#Note_4" class="fnanchor">4</a></p>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span></p>


<div class="chapter"></div>

<h2><a name="CHAPTER_II" id="CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II.</a><br />

<small>CAUSES OF PROTESTANTISM</small>.</h2>


<p>What, then, were the causes of the appearance of Protestantism in Europe,
of its development, and of its success? This is a question well worthy of
being examined to the bottom, because it will lead us to inquire into the origin
of this great evil, and will put us in a condition to form the best idea of this
phenomenon, so often but so imperfectly described.</p>

<p>It would be unreasonable to look for the causes of an event of this nature
and importance, in circumstances either trivial in themselves, or circumscribed
by places and events of a limited kind. It is a mistake to suppose that vast
results can be produced by trifling causes; and if it be true that great events
sometimes have their commencement in little ones, it is no less certain that the
commencing point is not the cause; and that to be the commencement of a
thing, and to be its real cause, are expressions of a widely different meaning. A
spark produces a dreadful conflagration, but it is because it falls upon a heap of
inflammable materials. That which is general must have general causes; and
that which is lasting and deeply rooted must have lasting and profound causes.</p>

<p>This law is true alike in the moral as in the physical order; but its applications
cannot be perceived without great difficulty, especially in the moral order,
where things of great importance are sometimes clothed in a mean exterior;
where each effect is found allied with so many causes at once, connected with
them by ties so delicate, that, possibly, the most attentive and piercing eye may
miss altogether, or regard as a trifle, that which perhaps has produced very
great results: trifling things, on the other hand, are frequently so covered with
glitter, tinsel, and parade, that it is very easy to be deceived by them. We are
always too much inclined to judge by appearances.</p>

<p>It will appear from these principles, that I am not disposed to give great
importance to the rivalry excited by the preaching of indulgences, or to the
excesses which may have been committed by some inferiors in this matter;
these things may have been an occasion, a pretext, a signal to commence the
contest, but they were of too little importance in themselves to put the world
in flames. There would be, perhaps, more apparent plausibility in seeking for
the causes of Protestantism in the characters and positions of the first reformers;
but this also would be unsatisfactory.</p>

<p>People lay great stress on the violence and fury of the writings and speeches
of Luther, and show how apt this savage eloquence was to inflame men's minds,
and drag them into the new errors by the deadly hatred against Rome with
which it inspired them. Too much stress also is laid on the sophistical art, the
order and elegance of the style of Calvin; qualities which served to give an
appearance of regularity to the shapeless mass of new errors, and make them
more acceptable to men of good taste. The talents and other qualities of the
various innovators are described in the same way with more or less truth.</p>

<p>I will not deny to Luther, Calvin, and the other founders of Protestantism,
the titles on which their sad celebrity is founded; but I venture to assert that
we cannot attribute to their personal qualities the principal influence upon the
development of this evil, without palpably mistaking and underrating the importance
of the evil itself, and forgetting the instructions of universal history.</p>

<p>If we examine these men with impartiality, we shall find that their qualities
were not greater than those of other sectarian leaders, if so great. Their
talents, their learning, and their knowledge, have passed through the crucible
of criticism, and there is, even among Protestants, no well-instructed and impartial
person who does not now consider the extravagant eulogiums which have
been lavished upon them, as the exaggerations of party. They are classed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span>
among the number of those turbulent men who are well fitted to excite revolutions;
but the history of all times and countries, and the experience of every
day, teach that men of this kind are not uncommon, and that they arise everywhere
when a sad combination of events affords them a fit opportunity.</p>

<p>When causes more in proportion to Protestantism, by their extent and importance,
are sought for, two are commonly pointed out: the necessity of reform,
and the spirit of liberty. "There were numerous abuses," says one party;
"legitimate reform was neglected: this negligence produced revolution." "The
human intellect was in fetters," says another; "the mind longed to break its
chains; Protestantism was only a grand effort for the freedom of human thought,
a great movement towards liberating the human mind." It is true, that these
two opinions point out causes of great importance and of wide extent: both are
well adapted to make partisans. The one, by establishing the necessity of
reform, opens a wide field for the censure of neglected laws and relaxed morals;
this theme always finds sympathy in the heart of man,&mdash;indulgent towards its
own defects, but stern and inexorable towards the faults of others. With
respect to the other opinion, which raises the cry of the movement of religious
liberty and the freedom of the human mind, it is sure to be widely adopted:
there are always a thousand echoes to a cry which flatters our pride.</p>

<p>I do not deny that a reform was necessary; to be convinced of this, I need
only glance at history, and listen to the complaints of several great men, justly
regarded by the Church as among the most cherished of her sons. I read in
the first decree of the Council of Trent, that one of the objects of the Council
was the reform of the Christian clergy and people; I learn from the mouth of
Pius IV., when confirming the said Council, that one of the objects for which
it was assembled, was the correction of morals, and the re-establishment of discipline.
Notwithstanding all this, I am not inclined to give to abuses so much
influence as has been attributed to them. I must also say, that it appears to
me that we give a very bad solution of the question, when, to show the real
cause of the evil, we insist on the fatal results produced by these abuses. These
words also, "a new movement of liberty," appear to me altogether insufficient.
I shall say, then, with freedom, in spite of my respect for those who entertain
the first opinion, and my esteem for the talents of those who refer all to the
spirit of liberty, that I cannot find in either that analysis, at once philosophical
and historical, which, without wandering from the ground of history, examines
facts, clears them up, shows their inward nature, their relations and connections.</p>

<p>If men have wandered so much in the definition and explanation of Protestantism,
it is because they have not sufficiently observed that it is not only a fact
common to all ages of the history of the Church, but that its importance and
its particular characteristics are owing to the epoch when it arose. This simple
consideration, founded on the constant testimony of history, clears up every
thing; we have no longer to seek in the doctrines of Protestantism for any
thing singular or extraordinary; all its characteristics prove that it was born in
Europe, and in the sixteenth century. I shall develop these ideas, not by
fanciful reasonings or gratuitous suppositions, but by adducing facts which
nobody can deny.</p>

<p>It is indisputable that the principle of submission to authority in matters of
faith has always encountered a vigorous resistance in the human mind. I shall
not point out here the causes of this resistance; I propose to do so in the course
of this work; I shall content myself at present with stating this fact, and
reminding those who may be inclined to call it in question, that the history of
the Church has always been accompanied by the history of heresies. This
fact has presented different phases according to the changes of time and place.
Sometimes making a rude mixture of Judaism and Christianity, sometimes
combining the doctrines of Jesus Christ with the dreams of the East, or cor<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span>rupting
the purity of faith by the subtilties and chicaneries of Grecian sophistry;
this fact presents us with as many different aspects as there are conditions of
the mind of man. But we always find in it two general characteristics, which
clearly show that it has always had the same origin, notwithstanding the variation
in its object and in the nature of its results: these two characteristics
are, hatred of the authority of the Church, and the spirit of sect.</p>

<p>In all ages sects have arisen, opposing the authority of the Church, and establishing
as dogmas the errors of their founders: it was natural for the same
thing to happen in the sixteenth century. Now, if that age had been an exception
to the general rule, it seems to me, looking at the nature of the human
mind, that we should have had to answer this very difficult question, How is it
possible that no sect appeared in that age? I say, then, error having once
arisen in the sixteenth century, no matter what may have been its origin, occasion,
and pretext&mdash;a certain number of followers having assembled around its
banner&mdash;Protestantism forthwith presents itself before me in all its extent, with
its transcendent importance, its divisions, and subdivisions; I see it, with boldness
and energy, making a general attack on all the doctrines and discipline
taught and observed by the Church. In place of Luther, Zuinglius, and Calvin,
let us suppose Arius, Nestorius, and Pelagius; in place of the errors of the
former, let them teach the errors of the latter; it will all lead to the same
result. The errors will excite sympathy; they will find defenders; they will
animate enthusiasts; they will spread, they will be propagated with the rapidity
of fire, they will be diffused, they will throw sparks in all directions; they
will all be defended with a show of knowledge and erudition; creeds will change
unceasingly; a thousand professions of faith will be drawn up; the liturgy will
be altered,&mdash;will be destroyed; the bonds of discipline will be broken; we shall
have to sum up all in one word, Protestantism.</p>

<p>How did it happen that the evil in the sixteenth century was necessarily so
extensive, so great, and so important? It was because the society of that time
was different from any other that had preceded it; that which at other times
would only have produced a partial fire, necessarily caused in the sixteenth century
a frightful conflagration. Europe was then composed of a number of immense
states, cast, so to speak, in the same mould, resembling each other in
ideas, manners, laws and institutions, drawn together incessantly by an active
communication which was kept up alternately by rival and common interests;
knowledge found in the Latin language an easy means of diffusion; in fine,
most important of all, there had become general over all Europe a rapid means
of disseminating ideas and feelings, a creation which had flashed from the
human mind like a miraculous illumination, a presage of colossal destinies,
viz. the press.</p>

<p>Such is the activity of the mind of man, and the ardour with which it embraces
all sorts of innovation, that when once the standard of error was planted,
a multitude of partisans were sure to rally round it. The yoke of authority
once thrown off, in countries where investigation was so active, where so many
discussions were carried on, where ideas were in such a state of effervescence,
and where all the sciences began to germinate, it was impossible for the restless
mind of man to remain fixed on any point, and a swarm of sects was necessarily
produced. There is no middle path; either civilized nations must remain
Catholic, or run through all the forms of error. If they do not attach themselves
firmly to the anchor of truth, we shall see them make a general attack
upon it, we shall see them assail it in itself, in all that it teaches, in all that it
prescribes. A man of free and active mind will remain tranquil in the peaceful
regions of truth, or he will seek for it with restlessness and disquietude. If he
find only false principles to rest on,&mdash;if he feel the ground move under his
feet, he will change his position every moment, he will leap from error to error,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span>
and precipitate himself from one abyss to another. To live amid errors, and
be contented with them, to transmit error from generation to generation, without
modification or change, is peculiar to those who vegetate in debasement and
ignorance; there the mind of man is not active, because it is asleep.</p>

<p>From the point of view where we have now placed ourselves, we can see
Protestantism such as it is. From this commanding position we see every thing
in its place, and it is possible for us to appreciate its dimensions, to perceive its
relations, calculate its influence, and explain its anomalies. Men there assume
their true position; as they are seen in close proximity with the great mass of
events, they appear in the picture as very small figures, for which others may
be substituted without inconvenience; which may be placed nearer or farther
off, and the features and complexion of which are not of any consequence. Of
what importance, then, are the energy of character, the passion, and boldness
of Luther, the literary polish of Melancthon, and the sophistical talents of
Calvin? We are convinced, that to lay stress upon all this, is to lose our time,
and explain nothing.</p>

<p>What were these men, and the other coryphæi of Protestantism? Was there
any thing really extraordinary about them? We shall find men like them
everywhere. There are some among them who did not surpass mediocrity; and
it may be said of almost all, that if they had not obtained an unhappy celebrity,
they would hardly have been celebrated at all. Why, then, did they
effect such great things? They found a mass of combustibles, and they
set them on fire. Certainly this was not difficult, and yet it was all they did.
When I see Luther, mad with pride, commit those extravagances which were
the subject of so many lamentations on the part of his friends&mdash;when I see
him grossly insult all who oppose him, put himself in a passion, and vomit
forth a torrent of impure words against all those who do not humble themselves
in his presence, I am scarcely moved by any other feeling than pity. This
man, who had the extraordinary mania of calling himself the <i lang="la">Notharius Dei</i>,
became delirious; but he breathed, and his breath was followed by a terrible
conflagration: it was because a powder-magazine was at hand on which he
threw a spark. Nevertheless, like a man blinded by insanity, he cried out,
"Behold my power! I breathe, and my breath puts the world in flames!"</p>

<p>But, you will ask me, what was the real influence of abuses? If we take
care not to leave the point of view where we now are, we shall see that they
were an occasion, and that they sometimes afforded food, but that they did not
exercise all the influence which has been attributed to them. Do I wish, then,
to deny, or to excuse them? Not at all. I can appreciate the complaints of
some men, who are worthy of the most profound respect; but while lamenting
the evil, these men never pretended to detail the consequences. The just man
when he raises his voice against vice, the minister of the sanctuary when he is
burning with zeal for the house of the Lord, express themselves in accents so
loud and vehement, that they must not always be taken literally. Their whole
hearts are opened, and, inflamed as they are with a zealous love of justice, they
make use of burning words. Men without faith interpret their expressions
maliciously, exaggerating and misrepresenting them.</p>

<p>It appears to me to be clear, from what I have just shown, that the principal
cause of Protestantism is not to be found in the abuses of the middle ages.
All that can be said is, that they afforded opportunities and pretexts for it.
To assert the contrary would be to maintain that there were always numerous
abuses in the Church from the beginning, even in the time of her primitive
fervor, and of that proverbial purity of which our opponents have said so much;
for even then there were swarms of sects who protested against her doctrines,
denied her divine authority, and called themselves the true Church. The case
is the same, and the inference cannot be denied. If you allege the extent and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span>
rapid propagation of Protestantism, I will remind you that such was also the
case with other sects; I will repeat to you the words of St. Jerome, with regard
to the ravages of Arianism: "All the world groans, and is full of astonishment
at finding itself Arian." I will repeat, again, that if you observe any thing
remarkable and peculiar belonging to Protestantism, it ought not to be attributed
to abuses, but to the epoch when it appeared.</p>

<p>I believe I have said enough to give an idea of the influence which abuses
could exert; yet, as it is a subject which has occupied much attention, and on
which many mistakes have been made, it will be well to revert to it once more,
to make our ideas on the subject still clearer. That lamentable abuses had
crept in during the course of the middle ages, that the corruption of manners
had been great, and that, consequently, reform was required, is a fact which
cannot be denied. This fact is proved to us, with respect to the eleventh and
twelfth centuries, by irreproachable witnesses, such as St. Peter Damien, St.
Gregory VII., and St. Bernard. Some centuries later, even after many abuses
had been corrected, they were still but too considerable, as is witnessed by the
complaints of men who were inflamed with a desire of reform. We cannot
forget the alarming words addressed by Cardinal Julian to Pope Eugenius IV.,
on the subject of the disorders of the clergy, especially those of Germany.</p>

<p>Having fully avowed the truth on this point, and my opinion that the cause
of Catholicity does not require dissimulation or falsehood to defend it, I shall
devote a few words to examining some important questions. Are we to blame
the court of Rome or the bishops for these great abuses? I venture to think
that they were to be attributed to the evils of the time alone. Let us call to
mind the events which had taken place in the midst of Europe; the dissolution
of the decrepit and corrupt empire of Rome; the irruption and inundation of
northern barbarians; their fluctuations, their wars, sometimes with each other,
and sometimes with the conquered nations, and that for so many ages; the
establishment and absolute reign of feudalism, with all its inconveniences, its
evils, its troubles, and disasters; the invasion of the Saracens, and their
dominion over a large portion of Europe; now, let any reflecting man ask himself
whether such revolutions must not of necessity produce ignorance, corruption
of morals, and the relaxation of all discipline. How could the ecclesiastical
society escape being deeply affected by this dissolution, this destruction of the
civil society? Could she help participating in the evils of the horrible state
of chaos into which Europe was then plunged?</p>

<p>But were the spirit and ardent desire of reforming abuses ever wanting in the
Church? It can be shown that they were not. I will not mention the saints
whom she did not cease to produce during these unhappy periods; history
proves their number and their virtues, which, so vividly contrasting with the
corruption of the age, show that the divine flames which descended on the
Apostles had not been extinguished in the bosom of the Catholic Church.
This fact proves much; but there is another still more remarkable, a fact less
subject to dispute, and which we cannot be accused of exaggerating; a fact
which is not limited to individuals, but which is, on the contrary, the most complete
expression of the spirit by which the whole body of the Church was animated;
I mean, the constant meeting of councils, in which abuses were reproved
and condemned, and in which sanctity of morals and the observance of discipline
were continually inculcated. Happily this consoling fact is indisputable;
it is open to every eye; and to be aware of it, one only needs to consult a
volume of ecclesiastical history, or the proceedings of councils. There is no
fact more worth our attention; and I will add, that perhaps all its importance
has not been observed.</p>

<p>Let us remark what passes in other societies: we see that in proportion to the
change of ideas and manners, laws everywhere undergo a rapid modification;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span>
and if manners and ideas come to be directly opposed to laws, the latter, reduced
to silence, are soon either abolished or trodden under foot. Nothing of this
sort has happened in the Church. Corruption has extended itself everywhere
to a lamentable degree; the ministers of religion have allowed themselves to be
carried away by the stream, and have forgotten the sanctity of their vocation;
but the sacred fire did not cease to burn in the sanctuary; the law was there
constantly proclaimed and inculcated; and, wonderful spectacle! the men who
themselves violated it frequently assembled to condemn themselves, to censure
their own conduct, and thus to render more public and more palpable the contrast
which existed between their instructions and their actions. Simony and
incontinence were the prevailing vices; if you open the canons of councils,
you will find them everywhere anathematized. Nowhere do you find a struggle
so prolonged, so constant, so persevering, of right against wrong; you always
see, throughout so many ages, the law, opposed face to face to the irregular
passions, maintain itself firm and immovable, without yielding a single step,
without allowing them a moment of repose or peace until they were subjugated.
And this constancy and tenacity of the Church were not useless. At the commencement
of the sixteenth century, at the time when Protestantism appeared,
we find abuses comparatively less numerous, morals perceptibly improved, discipline
become more strict, and observed with sufficient regularity. The time
when Luther declaimed was not like that when St. Peter Damien and St. Bernard
deplored the evils of the Church. The chaos was reduced to form; order,
light, and regularity had made rapid progress; and an incontestable proof that
the Church was not then plunged in such ignorance and corruption as is
alleged, is, that she produced the great assemblage of saints who shed so much
lustre on the age, and the men who displayed their eminent wisdom at the
Council of Trent. Let us remember that great reforms require much time;
that they met with much resistance both from the clergy and laity; that for
having undertaken them with firmness, and urged them with vigour, Gregory
VII. has been charged with rashness. Let us not judge of men without regard
to times and places; and let us not pretend to measure every thing according
to our own limited ideas; ages move in an immense orbit, and the variety of
circumstances produces situations so strange and complicated that we can hardly
form an idea of them.</p>

<p>Bossuet, in his History of the Variations, after having differently classed the
spirit which guided certain men, before the thirteenth century, in their attempts
at reform, and having cited the threatening words of Cardinal Julian on the
subject of abuses, adds: "It is thus that, in the fifteenth century, this cardinal,
the greatest man of his times, deplored these evils, and foresaw their fatal
effects; by which he seems to have predicted those that Luther was about to
bring on all Christianity, and in the first place on Germany; and he was not
deceived when he thought that the neglect of reformation, and the increased
hatred against the clergy, was about to produce a sect more dangerous to the
Church than the Bohemians." (<cite>Hist. des Variat.</cite> liv. i.) It is inferred from
these words that the illustrious Bishop of Meaux found one of the principal
causes of Protestantism in the omission of a legitimate reform made in time.
Nevertheless, we must not suppose from this that Bossuet meant, in any degree,
to excuse the promoters of it, or that he had any idea of sanctioning their
intentions; on the contrary, he ranked them as turbulent innovators, who, far
from promoting the real reform which was desired by wise and prudent men,
only served to render it more difficult, by introducing, by the means of their
erroneous doctrines, the spirit of disobedience, schism, and heresy.</p>

<p>In spite of the authority of Bossuet, I cannot persuade myself to look upon
abuses as one of the principal causes of Protestantism; but it is not necessary
to repeat what I have said in support of this opinion. It may not, however,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span>
be useless to repeat, that the authority of Bossuet is misapplied when used to
justify the intentions of the reformers, since the illustrious prelate is the first
to declare them highly culpable, and to observe, that if abuses were in existence,
their intention was not to correct them, but rather to make them a pretext
for abandoning the faith of the Church, throwing off the yoke of lawful
authority, breaking the bands of discipline, and introducing thereby disorder
and licentiousness.</p>

<p>How, indeed, can we attribute to the reformers the real spirit of reform,
when almost all of them proved the contrary by the ignominy of their own
conduct? If they had condemned, by the austerity of their morals, or by
devoting themselves to a severe asceticism, the relaxations of which they complained,
there might be a question whether their extravagances were not the
effects of exaggerated zeal, and if some excess in the love of virtue had not
drawn them into error. But they did nothing of the kind. Let us hear on
this point an eye-witness, a man who certainly cannot be accused of fanaticism,
since the connection which he had with the leaders of Protestantism has rendered
him culpable in the eyes of many. Behold what Erasmus said, with his
usual wit and bitterness: "The reform, as far as it has gone, has been limited
to the secularization of a few nuns and the marriage of a few priests; and this
great tragedy finishes with an event altogether comic, since every thing is wound
up, as in comedies, by a marriage."</p>

<p>This shows to conviction the true spirit of the innovators of the sixteenth
century. It is clear that, far from wishing the reformation of abuses, they
wished rather to increase them. This bare consideration of facts has led
M. Guizot, on this point, into the path of truth, when he rejects the opinion of
those who pretend, that the Reformation was "an attempt conceived and executed
simply with the intention of reconstructing a pure and primitive Church.
The Reformation," he said, "was not a mere attempt at religious amelioration,
or the fruit of a Utopian humanity and virtue." (<cite>Histoire Générale de la Civilisation
en Europe</cite>, douzième leçon.)</p>

<p>We shall have now no difficulty in appreciating at its just value the explanation
which the same writer gives of this phenomenon. "The Reformation,"
says M. Guizot, "was a great attempt at the liberation of human thought&mdash;an
uprising of the mind of man." This attempt, according to M. Guizot, arose
out of the energetic movement given to the human mind, and the state of inaction
into which the Roman Church had fallen; it arose from this, that the
human mind advanced rapidly and impetuously, while the Church remained
stationary. Explanations of this kind, and this one in particular, are very apt
to draw admirers and proselytes; these ideas are high, and placed on a level
so lofty and extended, that they cannot be looked at closely by the generality
of readers; and, moreover, they appear in brilliant imagery, which blinds the
sight and prejudices the judgment.</p>

<p>That which restrains freedom of thought, as understood by M. Guizot and
other Protestants is, authority in matters of faith: it was, then, against this
authority that the uprising of the mind declared itself; or, in other words, the
mind rebelled, because it advanced, while the Church, immovable in her doctrines,
was, according to the expression of M. Guizot, "in a stationary state."</p>

<p>Whatever may be the disposition of mind of M. Guizot towards the dogmas
of the Catholic Church, he ought, as a philosopher, to have seen that it was a
great mistake to point out as the distinctive characteristic of one period, that
which had been at every time a glorious title for the Church. For more than
eighteen hundred years the Church has been stationary in her dogmas, and it
is no equivocal proof that she possesses the truth: the truth is unchangeable,
because it is one.</p>

<p>What the Church was in the sixteenth century, she had been before, and she<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span>
has been since. She had nothing particular, she adopted no new characteristic.
The reason, then, by which it is attempted to explain this phenomenon, viz. the
uprising of the mind, cannot advance the explanation a single step; and if this
be the reason why M. Guizot compares the Church to governments grown old,
we will tell him that she has had this old age from her cradle. M. Guizot, as if
he had himself felt the weakness of his reasoning, presents his thoughts in
groups, and as it were <i lang="fr">pêle-mêle</i>; he parades before his readers ideas of different
kinds, without taking pains to classify or distinguish them; one would be
inclined to think that he meant to distract them by variety, and confound them
by mixture. Judging, indeed, from the context of his discourse, the epithets
<em>inert and stationary</em>, which he applies to the Church, do not appear, according
to his intention, to relate to matters of faith; and he gives us to understand
that he speaks rather of the pretensions of the Church with regard to politics
and state economy. He has taken pains, elsewhere, to repel as calumnies, the
charges of tyranny and intolerance which have been so often made against the
court of Rome.</p>

<p>We find here an incoherence of ideas which was not to be expected in so
clear a mind; and as many persons may scarcely be inclined to believe how far
this incoherence extends, it is necessary to give his words literally: they will
show us into what inconsistencies great minds can fall when they are placed in
a false position.</p>

<p>"The government of the human mind, the spiritual power," says M. Guizot,
"had fallen into an inert and stationary condition. The political influence of
the Church, of the court of Rome, was much diminished; European society no
longer was ruled by it; it had passed under the control of lay governments.
Nevertheless, the spiritual power preserved all its pretensions, all its <i lang="fr">éclat</i>, all
its external importance. There happened in this respect, what has more than
once happened to old governments. The greater part of the complaints made
against it were hardly better founded."</p>

<p>It is evident that M. Guizot, in this passage, does not point out any thing
which is at all connected with liberty, any thing which is not quite of another
kind: why does he not do so? The court of Rome, he tells us, had seen its
political influence diminished, and yet it preserved its pretensions; the direction
of European society no longer belonged to it, but Rome kept its pomp and its
external importance. Is any thing here meant besides the rivalries of which
political affairs had been the subject? Did M. Guizot forget what he himself
said some pages before, viz. that it did not appear to him to be reasonable to
assign the rivalry of kings with the ecclesiastical power as the cause of Protestantism,
and that such a cause was not adequate to the extent and importance
of the event?</p>

<p>Although all this has no direct connection with freedom of thought, still, if
any one be inclined to attribute the uprising of the mind to the intolerance of
the court of Rome, let him listen to M. Guizot: "It is not true," says he,
"that in the sixteenth century the court of Rome was very tyrannical; that
abuses, properly so called, were then more numerous, more crying, than they
had been at other times; never, perhaps, on the contrary, had the ecclesiastical
power been more easy, more tolerant, more disposed to let things go their own
way. Provided that it was not itself called in question, provided that the
rights which it had formerly enjoyed were allowed in theory, that the same
existence was secured, and the same tributes were paid to it, it would willingly
have allowed the human mind to remain at peace, if the human mind had done
the same in respect to it."</p>

<p>Thus M. Guizot seems to have forgotten what he had urged with the view
of showing that the Protestant Reformation was a great attempt at the liberation
of human thought&mdash;a rebellion of the mind of man. He does not allege<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span>
any thing which was an obstacle to the freedom of man's thoughts; and he
himself acknowledges that there was nothing to provoke this rebellion, as, for
example, intolerance or cruelty; he has himself just told us that the ecclesiastical
government of the sixteenth century, far from being tyrannical, was easy
and tolerant, and that, if left to itself, it would willingly have allowed the
human mind to remain tranquil.</p>

<p>It is, then, evident, that the great attempt at the liberation of the human
mind is, in M. Guizot's mouth, only a vague, undefined expression,&mdash;a brilliant
veil with which he seems to have wished to cover the cradle of Protestantism,
even at the risk of being inconsistent with his own opinions. He reverts to
the political rivalries which he before rejected. Abuses have no importance in
his eyes; he cannot find in them the real cause; and he forgets what he had
just asserted in the preceding lecture, viz. that if necessary reform had been
made in time, the religious revolution might have been avoided.</p>

<p>He tries to give a picture of the obstacles to the liberty of thought, and
endeavours to rise to the general considerations which embrace all the importance
and influences of the human mind; but he stops at <i lang="fr">éclat</i>, at <em>external importance</em>,
and <em>political rivalries</em>; he lowers his flight to the level of tributes
and services.</p>

<p>This incoherence of ideas, this weakness of reasoning, and forgetfulness of
assertions previously made, will appear strange only to those who are accustomed
rather to admire the high flights of talented men than to study their
aberrations. It is true that M. Guizot was in a position in which it was very
difficult to avoid being dazzled and deceived. If it be true that we cannot
observe attentively what passes on the ground around us without narrowing our
view of the horizon,&mdash;if this method leads the observer to form a collection of
isolated facts rather than compare general maxims, it is not less certain that, by
extending our observations over a larger space, we run the risk of many illusions.
Too great generalization borders on hypothesis and fancy. The mind,
when taking an immoderate flight in order to get a general view of things, no
longer sees them as they really are; perhaps sometimes even loses sight of them
altogether. Therefore it is that the loftiest minds should frequently remember
the words of Bacon: "We do not want wings, but lead." Too impartial not
to confess that abuses had been exaggerated,&mdash;too good a philosopher not to see
that they could not have had so great an effect,&mdash;M. Guizot, who was prevented
by his sense of dignity and decency from joining the crowd who incessantly
raise the cry of cruelty and intolerance, has made an effort to do justice
to the Church of Rome; but, unfortunately, his prejudices against the Church
would not allow him to see things in their true light. He was aware that the
origin of Protestantism must be sought in the human mind itself; but, knowing
the age and epoch when he was speaking, he thought it was necessary to propitiate
his audience by frequent appeals to liberty, in order that his discourse might
be well received. This is the reason why, after having tempered the bitterness
of his reproaches against the Church by a few soft words, he reserves all that
is noble, grand, and generous for the ideas which produced the Reformation,
and throws on the Church all the shadows of the picture.</p>

<p>While acknowledging that the principal cause of Protestantism is to be found
in the human mind, it is easy to abstain from these unjust comparisons; and
M. Guizot might have avoided the inconsistency to which we have alluded.
He might have discovered the origin of the fact in the character of the human
mind; he might, at the same time, have shown the greatness and importance
of it, while simply explaining the nature and position of the societies in which
it appeared. In fine, he might have observed that it was no <em>extraordinary
effort</em>, but a mere repetition of what has happened in every age; and a pheno<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span>menon,
the character of which depended on the particular state of the atmosphere
in which it was produced.</p>

<p>This way of considering Protestantism as an ordinary event, increased and
developed by the circumstances in which it arose, appears to me to be as philosophical
as it is little attended to. I shall support it by another observation,
which will supply us with reasons and examples at the same time.</p>

<p>The state of modern society for three hundred years has been such, that all
the events that have occurred have acquired a character of generalization, and
consequently an importance, which distinguishes them from all the events of a
similar kind which occurred at other times and in a different social state. If
we examine the history of antiquity, we shall see that all the events therein
occurring were isolated in some sort from each other; this was what rendered
them less beneficial when they were good, and less injurious when they were
bad. Carthage, Rome, Sparta, Athens, all these nations more or less advanced
in the career of civilization, each followed its own path, and progressed in a
different way. Ideas, manners, political constitutions, succeeded each other,
without our being able to perceive any influence of the ideas of one nation on
those of another, or of the manners of one nation on those of another; we do
not find any evidence of a tendency to bring nations to one common centre.</p>

<p>We also remark that, except when forced to intermix, ancient nations could
be a long time in close proximity without losing their peculiarities, or suffering
any important change by the contact.</p>

<p>Observe how different is the state of things in Europe in modern times. A
revolution in one country affects all others; an idea sent forth from the schools
agitates nations and alarms governments. Nothing is isolated, every thing is
general, and acquires by expansion a terrible force. It is impossible to study
the history of one nation without seeing all the others make their appearance
on the stage; and we cannot study the history of a science or an art without
discovering a thousand connections with objects which do not belong to science
or to art.</p>

<p>All nations are connected, objects are assimilated, relations increase. The
affairs of one nation are interesting to all the others, and they wish to take part
in them. This is the reason why the idea of <em>non-intervention</em> in politics is, and
always will be, impracticable; it is, indeed, natural for us to interfere in that
in which we are interested.</p>

<p>These examples, although taken from things of a different kind, appear to
me very well calculated to illustrate my idea of the religious events of that
period. Protestantism, it is true, is thereby stripped of the philosophic mantle
by which it has been covered from its infancy; it loses all right to be considered
as full of foresight, magnificent projects, and high destinies, from its
cradle, but I do not see that its importance and extent are thereby diminished;
the fact itself, in a word, is unimpaired, but the real cause of the imposing
aspect in which it has presented itself to the world is explained.</p>

<p>Every thing, in this point of view, is seen in its just dimensions; individuals
are scarcely perceived, and abuses appear only what they really are&mdash;opportunities
and pretexts; vast plans, lofty and generous ideas, and efforts at
independence of mind, are only gratuitous suppositions. Thence ambition, war,
the rivalry of kings, take their position as causes more or less influential, but
always in the second rank. All the causes are estimated at their real value;
in fine, the principal causes being once pointed out, it is acknowledged that the
fact was sure to be accompanied in its development by a multitude of subordinate
agents. There remains still an important question in this matter, viz.
what was the cause of the hatred, or rather the feeling of exasperation, on the
part of sectarians against Rome? Was it owing to some great abuse, some
great wrong on the part of Rome? There is but one answer to make, viz. that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span>
in a storm, the waves always dash with fury against the immovable rock which
resists them.</p>

<p>So far from attributing to abuses all the influence which has been assigned
to them on the birth and development of Protestantism, I am convinced, on
the contrary, that all imaginable legitimate reforms, and the greatest degree of
willingness on the part of the Church authorities to comply with every exigence,
would not have been able to prevent that unhappy event.</p>

<p>He has paid little attention to the extreme inconstancy and fickleness of the
human mind, and studied its history to little purpose, who does not recognise
in the event of the sixteenth century one of those great calamities which God
alone can avert by a special intervention of his providence.<a href="#Note_5" class="fnanchor">5</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_III" id="CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III.</a><br />

<small>EXTRAORDINARY PHENOMENON IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH</small>.</h2>


<p>The proposition contained in the concluding lines of the last chapter suggests
a corollary, which, if I am not mistaken, offers a new demonstration of
the divine origin of the Catholic Church. Her existence for eighteen centuries,
in spite of so many powerful adversaries, has always been regarded as a most
extraordinary thing. Another prodigy, too little attended to, and of not less
importance when the nature of the human mind is taken into account, is, <em>the
unity of the Church's doctrines, pervading, as it does, all her various instructions,
and the number of great minds which this unity has always enclosed within
her bosom</em>.</p>

<p>I particularly call the attention of all thinking men to this point; and
although I cannot hope to develop this idea in a suitable manner, I am sure
they will find in it matter for very serious reflection. This method of considering
the Church may perhaps recommend itself to the taste of some readers
on another account, viz. because I shall lay aside Revelation, in order to consider
Catholicity, not as a Divine religion, but as a school of philosophy.</p>

<p>No one who has studied the history of letters can deny that the Church has,
in all ages, possessed men illustrious for science. The history of the Fathers
of the first ages of the Church is nothing but the history of the most learned
men in Europe, in Africa, and in Asia; the list of learned men who preserved,
after the irruption of the Barbarians, some remains of ancient knowledge, is
composed of churchmen. In modern times you cannot point out a branch of
human knowledge, in which a considerable number of Catholics have not
figured in the first rank. Thus there has been, for eighteen hundred years, an
uninterrupted chain of learned men, who were Catholics, that is, men united in
the profession of the doctrines taught by the Catholic Church. Let us lay
aside for a moment the divine characteristics of Catholicity, to consider it only
as a school or sect; I say, that in the fact which I have pointed out, we find a
phenomenon so extraordinary, that its equal cannot be found elsewhere, and
that no effort of reason can explain it, according to the natural order of human
things.</p>

<p>It is certainly not new in the history of the human mind for a doctrine, more
or less reasonable, to be professed for a time by a certain number of learned and
enlightened men; this has been shown in schools of philosophy both ancient
and modern. But for a creed to maintain itself for many ages, by preserving
the adhesion of men of learning of all times and of all countries&mdash;of minds
differing among themselves on other points&mdash;of men opposed in interests and
divided by rivalries, is a phenomenon new, unique, and not to be found anywhere
but in the Catholic Church. It always has been, and still is, the practice<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span>
of the Church, while one in faith and doctrine, to teach unceasingly&mdash;to excite
discussion on all subjects&mdash;to promote the study and examination of the foundations
on which faith itself reposes&mdash;to scrutinize for this purpose the ancient
languages, the monuments of the remotest times, the documents of history, the
discoveries of scientific observation, the lessons of the highest and most analytic
sciences, and to present herself with a generous confidence in the great lyceums,
where men replete with talents and knowledge concentrate, as in a focus, all
that they have learned from their predecessors, and all that they themselves
have collected: and nevertheless we see her always persevere with firmness in
her faith and in the unity of her doctrines; we see her always surrounded by
illustrious men, who, with their brows crowned with the laurels of a hundred
literary contests, humble themselves, tranquil and serene, before her, without
fear of dimming the brightness of the glory which surrounds their heads.</p>

<p>We ask those who see in Catholicity only one of the innumerable sects by
which the earth has been covered, to point out elsewhere a similar fact; to
explain to us how the Church has been able to show us a phenomenon, constantly
existing, so opposed to the ever-varying spirit of the human mind; let
them tell us by what secret talisman the Sovereign Pontiffs have been able to
do what other men have found impossible. Those men, who bowed their heads
at the command of the Vatican, who have laid aside their own opinions to
adopt those of a man called the Pope, were not simple and ignorant men.
Look at them attentively; you will see in the boldness of their mien their
knowledge of their own intellectual power; you will read in their bright and
penetrating eyes the flame of genius which burns in their breasts. They are
the same men who have filled the highest places in the academies of Europe;
who have spread their fame over the world, and whose names have been handed
down to future generations. Examine the history of all ages, search all the
countries of the world, and if you find anywhere such an extraordinary combination
of knowledge in union with faith, of genius in submission to authority,
and of discussion without breach of unity, you will have made an important
discovery, and science will have to explain a new phenomenon. But you know
well that you cannot do so. This is the reason why you have recourse to new
stratagems in order to cast a shade on the brightness of this fact; for you feel
that impartial reason and common sense must draw from it the conclusion that
there is in the Catholic Church something which is not to be found elsewhere.</p>

<p>These facts, say our adversaries, are certain; the reflections which they suggest
are dazzling at first sight; but if we examine the subject thoroughly, we
shall see the difficulties they raise disappear. This phenomenon, which we
have seen realized in the Catholic Church, and which is not found elsewhere,
only proves that there has always been in the Church a fixed system, which has
been developed with uniform regularity. The Church knew that union is the
source of strength; that union cannot exist without unity of doctrine; and
that unity cannot be preserved without submission to authority. This simple
observation established, and constantly maintained, the principle of submission.
Such is the explanation of the phenomenon. The idea, we grant, is profoundly
wise, the scheme is grand, the system is extraordinary; but they do not prove
any thing in favor of the Divine origin of Catholicism.</p>

<p>This is the best reply which they can make; it is easy to show that the difficulty
remains entire. Indeed, if it be true that there has existed a society on
earth which has been for eighteen centuries guided by one fixed and constant
principle&mdash;a society which has known how to bind to this principle eminent
men of all ages and countries, the following questions must be asked of our
adversaries:&mdash;Why has the Church alone possessed this principle, and monopolized
this idea? If other sects have been in possession of it, why have they
not acted on it? All the philosophic sects have disappeared, one after another;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span>
the Church alone remains. Other religions, in order to preserve some sort of
unity, have been compelled to shun the light, to avoid discussion, to hide themselves
in the thickest shades. Why has the Church preserved her unity while
seeking the light, while publishing her books in open day, while lavishing all
sorts of instruction, and founding everywhere colleges, universities, and establishments
of every description, where all the splendor of knowledge and
erudition has been concentrated?</p>

<p>It is not enough to say that there was a plan&mdash;a system; the difficulty lies
in the existence of this plan and this system; it consists in explaining how
they were conceived and executed. If we had to do with a small number of
men, in limited circumstances, times, and countries, for the execution of a
limited project, there would be nothing extraordinary; but we have to do with
a period of eighteen hundred years, with all the countries of the world, with
circumstances the most varied, the most different, and the most opposed to each
other; we have to do with a multitude of men who did not meet together, or
act in concert. How is all this to be explained? If it were a plan and a
system devised by man, we should ask, What was the mysterious power of
Rome which enabled her to unite around her so many illustrious men of all
times and of all countries? How did the Roman Pontiff, if he be only the
chief of a sect, manage to fascinate the world to this extent? What magician
ever did such wonders? Men have long declaimed against his religious despotism;
why has no one been found to wrest the sceptre from his grasp? why has
not a pontifical throne been raised capable of disputing the pre-eminence with
his, and of maintaining itself with equal splendor and power? Shall we
attribute it to his temporal power? This power is very limited. Rome was
not able to contend in arms with any of the other European powers. Shall we
attribute it to the peculiar character, to the knowledge or the virtues of the
men who have occupied the Papal throne? There has been, during these
eighteen hundred years, an infinite variety in the characters and in the talents
and virtues of the Popes. For those who are not Catholics, who do not see in
the Roman Pontiff the vicar of Jesus Christ,&mdash;the rock on which He has built
His Church,&mdash;the duration of this authority must be the most extraordinary
phenomenon; and it is certainly one of the questions most worthy of being
examined by the science which devotes itself to the history of the human
mind; how there existed for many centuries an uninterrupted series of learned
men, always faithful to the doctrines of the Roman See?</p>

<p>M. Guizot himself, in comparing Protestantism with the Roman Church,
seems to have felt the force of this truth; and its light appears to have made
him confused in his remarks. Let us listen again to this writer, whose talents
and renown have dazzled, on this point, so many readers, who do not examine
the solidity of proofs when they are clothed in brilliant images, and who
applaud all kinds of ideas when they are conveyed to them in a torrent of enchanting
eloquence; men who, pretending to intellectual independence, subscribe,
without inquiry, to the decisions of the leaders of their school; who
receive their doctrines with submission, and dare not even raise their heads to
ask for the titles of their authority. M. Guizot, like all the great men among
Protestants, was aware of the immense void which exists amid its various sects,
and of the force and vigour which is contained in Catholicity; he has not been
able to free himself from the rule of great minds,&mdash;a rule which is explicitly
confirmed by the writings of the greatest men of the Reformation. After
pointing out the inconstant progress of Protestantism, and the error which it
has introduced into the organization of intellectual society, M. Guizot proceeds
thus: "People have not known how to reconcile the rights and necessities of
tradition with those of liberty; and the cause of it undoubtedly has been, that
the Reformation did not fully understand and accept either its principles or its<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span>
effects." What sort of a religion must that be which does not fully understand
and accept its principles or its effects?</p>

<p>Did a more formal condemnation of the Reformation ever issue out of the
mouth of man? could any thing of the kind ever be said of the sects of philosophers,
ancient or modern? Can the Reformation, then, after this, pretend
to direct men or society? "Thence arises," continues M. Guizot, "a certain
air of inconsistency and narrowness of spirit, which has often given advantages
over it to its opponents. The latter knew very well what they did and what
they wished; they ascended to the principles of their conduct, and avowed all
their consequences. There never was a government more consistent, more systematic
than that of the Church of Rome." But whence was the origin of a
system so consistent? When we consider the fickleness and inconstancy of the
human mind, do not this system, this consistency, and these fixed principles,
speak volumes to the philosopher and man of good sense?</p>

<p>We have observed those terrible elements of dissolution which have their
source in the mind of man, and which have acquired so much force in modern
society; we have seen with what fatal power they destroy and annihilate all
institutions, social, political, and religious, without ever succeeding in making a
breach in the doctrines of Catholicity,&mdash;without altering that system, so fixed
and so consistent. Is there no conclusion to be drawn from all this in favour
of Catholicity? To say that the Church has done that which no schools, or
governments, or societies, or religions could do, is it not to confess that she is
wiser than every thing human? And does it not clearly prove that she does
not owe her origin to human thought, and that she is derived from the bosom
of the Creator? This society&mdash;formed, you say, by men&mdash;this government,
directed by men, has endured for eighteen hundred years; it extends to all
countries, it addresses the savage in the forest, the barbarian in his tent, the
civilized man in the most populous cities; it reckons among its children the
shepherd clothed in skins, the laborer, the powerful nobleman; it makes its
laws heard alike by the simple mechanic at his work, and the man of learning
in his closet absorbed in the profoundest speculations. This government has
always had, according to M. Guizot, a full knowledge of its actions and its
wishes; it has always been consistent in its conduct. Is not this avowal its
most convincing apology, its most eloquent panegyric; and shall it not be considered
a proof that it contains within itself something more than human?</p>

<p>A thousand times have I beheld this prodigy with astonishment; a thousand
times have my eyes been fixed upon that immense tree which extends its
branches from east to west, from north to south; I see beneath its shade a multitude
of different nations, and the restless genius of man reposing in tranquillity
at its feet.</p>

<p>In the East, at the period when this divine religion first appeared, I see,
amidst the dissolutions of all sects, the most illustrious philosophers crowd to
hear her words. In Greece, in Asia, on the banks of the Nile, in all the countries
where, a short time before, swarmed innumerable sects, I see appear on a
sudden a generation of great men, abounding in learning, in knowledge, in
eloquence, and all agreeing in the unity of Catholic doctrine.</p>

<p>In the West, a multitude of barbarians throw themselves on an empire falling
to decay; a dark cloud descends upon an horizon charged with calamities
and disasters; there, in the midst of a people submerged in the corruption of
morals, and having lost even the remembrance of their ancient grandeur, I see
the only men who can be called worthy heirs of the Roman name, seek, in the
retirement of their temples, an asylum for the austerity of their morals; it is
there that they preserve, increase, and enrich the treasure of ancient knowledge.
But my admiration reaches its height, when I observe that sublime intellect,
worthy heir of the genius of Plato, which, after having sought the truth in all<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span>
the schools, in all the sects, and with indomitable boldness run through all
human errors, feels itself subjugated by the authority of the Church, and transforms
the freethinker into the great Bishop of Hippo. In modern times the
series of great men who shone in the times of Leo X. and Louis XIV. passes
before my eyes. I see the illustrious race still continue throughout the calamities
of the eighteenth century; and in the nineteenth I see fresh heroes, who,
after having followed error in all directions, come to hang their trophies at
the gates of the Catholic Church. What, then, is this prodigy? Has a sect
or religion like it ever before been seen? These men study every thing, dispute
on every thing, reply to every thing, know every thing; but always agreeing
in unity of doctrine, they bend their noble and intellectual brows in
respectful obedience to faith. Do we not seem to behold another planetary
system, where globes of fire revolve in their vast orbits in the midst of immensity,
always drawn to their centre by a mysterious attraction? That central
force, which allows no aberration, takes from them nothing of their extent, or
of the grandeur of their movement; but it inundates them with light, while
giving to their motion a more majestic regularity.<a href="#Note_6" class="fnanchor">6</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_IV" id="CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV.</a><br />

<small>PROTESTANTISM AND THE MIND</small>.</h2>


<p>This fixedness of idea, this unanimity of will, this wisdom and constancy of
plan, this progress with a firm step towards a definite object and end; and, in
fine, this admirable unity, acknowledged in favor of Catholicism by M. Guizot
himself, have not been imitated by Protestantism, either in good or evil. Protestantism,
indeed, has not a single idea, of which it can say: "This is my
own." It has attempted to appropriate to itself the principle of private judgment
in matters of faith; and if several of its opponents have been too willing
to accord it, it was because they were unable to find therein any other constitutive
element; it was also because they felt that Protestantism, in boasting of
having given birth to such a principle, labored to throw disgrace on itself, like
a father who boasts of having unworthy and depraved sons. It is false, however,
that Protestantism produced this principle of private judgment, since it
was itself the offspring of that principle. That principle, before the Reformation,
was formed in the bosom of all sects; it is the real germ of all errors; in
proclaiming it, Protestants only yielded to a necessity which is common to all
the sects separated from the Church.</p>

<p>There was therein no plan, no foresight, no system. The mere resistance to
the authority of the Church included the necessity of unlimited private judgment,
and the establishment of the understanding as supreme judge; even had
the coryphæi of Protestantism wished from the first to oppose the consequences
and applications of this right, the barrier was broken, and the torrent could
not have been confined.</p>

<p>"The right of examining what we ought to believe," says a celebrated Protestant,
(<cite>Germany</cite>, by Mad. de Staël, part iv. chap. 2), "is the foundation of
Protestantism. The first Reformers did not think thus; they thought themselves
able to place the pillars of Hercules of the mind according to their own lights;
but they were mistaken in hoping to make those who had rejected all authority
of this kind in the Catholic religion submit to their decisions as infallible."
This resistance on their part proves, that they were not led by any of those
ideas, which, although erroneous, show, in some measure, nobleness and generosity
of heart; and that it is not of them that the human mind can say:
"They have erred, but it was in order to give me more liberty of action."<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span>
"The religious revolution of the sixteenth century," says M. Guizot, "did not
understand the true principles of intellectual liberty; it liberated the human
mind, and yet pretended to govern it by law."</p>

<p>But it is in vain for man to struggle against the nature of things: Protestantism
endeavored, without success, to limit the right of private judgment. It
raised its voice against it, and sometimes appeared to attempt its total destruction;
but the right of private judgment, which was in its own bosom, remained
there, developed itself, and acted there in spite of it. There was no middle
course for Protestantism to adopt: it was compelled either to throw itself into
the arms of authority, and thus acknowledge itself in the wrong, or else allow
the dissolving principle to exert so much influence on its various sects, as to
destroy even the shadow of the religion of Jesus Christ, and debase Christianity
to the rank of a school of philosophy.</p>

<p>The cry of resistance to the authority of the Church once raised, the fatal
results might be easily imagined; it was thus easy to foresee that that poisoned
germ, in its development, must cause the ruin of all the Christian truths; and
what could prevent its rapid development in a soil where fermentation was so
active? Catholics were not wanting to proclaim loudly the greatness and imminence
of the danger; and it must be allowed that many Protestants foresaw
it clearly. No one is ignorant that the most distinguished men of the sect
gave their opinions on this point, even from the beginning. Men of the greatest
talent never found themselves at ease in Protestantism. They always felt that
there was an immense void in it; this is the reason why they have constantly
inclined either towards irreligion or towards Catholic unity.</p>

<p>Time, the best judge of opinions, has confirmed these melancholy prognostics.
Things have now reached such a pass, that those only who are very ill
instructed, or who have a very limited grasp of mind, can fail to see that the
Christian religion, as explained by Protestants, is nothing more than an opinion&mdash;a
system made up of a thousand incoherent parts, and which is degraded to
the level of the schools of philosophy. If Christianity still seems to surpass
these schools in some respects, and preserves some features which cannot be
found in what is the pure invention of the mind of man, it ought not to be a
matter of astonishment. It is owing to that sublimity of doctrine and that
sanctity of morality which, more or less disfigured, always shines while a trace
is preserved of the words of Jesus Christ. But the feeble light which struggles
with darkness after the sun has sunk below the horizon, cannot be compared
to that of day: darkness advances and spreads; it extinguishes the expiring
reflection, and night comes on. Such is the doctrine of Christianity among
Protestants. A glance at these sects shows us that they are not purely philosophical,
but it shows us at the same time that they have not the characters of
true religion. Christianity has no authority therein; and is there like a being
out of its proper element,&mdash;a tree deprived of its roots: its face is pale and
disfigured like that of a corpse. Protestantism talks of faith, and its fundamental
principle destroys it; it endeavors to exalt the gospel, and its own principle,
by subjecting that gospel to private judgment, weakens its authority. If
it speak of the sanctity and purity of Christian morality, it is reminded that
some of its dissenting sects deny the divinity of Jesus Christ; and that they
all may do so according to the principle on which it rests. The Divinity of
Jesus Christ once doubted, the God-made man is reduced to the rank of a great
philosopher and legislator; He has no longer the authority necessary to give to
His laws the august sanction which renders them so holy in the eyes of men;
He can no longer imprint upon them the seal which raises them above all human
thoughts, and His sublime instructions cease to be lessons flowing from
the lips of uncreated Wisdom.</p>

<p>If you deprive the human mind of the support of authority of some kind or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span>
other, on what can it depend? Abandoned to its own delirious dreams, it is
forced again into the gloomy paths which led the philosophers of the ancient
schools to chaos. Reason and experience are here agreed. If you substitute
the private judgment of Protestants for the authority of the Church, all the
great questions respecting God and man remain without solution. All the difficulties
are left; the mind is in darkness, and seeks in vain for a light to guide
it in safety: stunned by the voices of a hundred schools, who dispute without
being able to throw any light on the subject, it relapses into that state of discouragement
and prostration in which Christianity found it, and from which,
with so much exertion, she had withdrawn it. Doubt, pyrrhonism, and indifference
become the lot of the greatest minds; vain theories, hypothetical systems,
and dreams take possession of men of more moderate abilities; the ignorant
are reduced to superstitions and absurdities.</p>

<p>Of what use, then, would Christianity have been on the earth, and what
would have been the progress of humanity? Happily for the human race, the
Christian religion was not abandoned to the whirlwind of Protestant sects. In
Catholic authority she has found ample means of resisting the attacks of sophistry
and error. What would have become of her without it? Would the sublimity
of her doctrines, the wisdom of her precepts, the unction of her counsels,
have been now any thing more than a beautiful dream, related in enchanting
language by a great philosopher? Yes, I must repeat, without the authority
of the Church there is no security for faith; the divinity of Jesus Christ becomes
a matter of doubt; His mission is disputed; in fact, the Christian religion
disappears. If she cannot show us her heavenly titles, give us full certainty
that she has come from the bosom of the Eternal, that her words are
those of God Himself, and that He has condescended to appear on earth for the
salvation of men, she has then lost her right to demand our veneration. Reduced
to the level of human ideas, she must, then, submit to our judgment like
other mere opinions; at the tribunal of philosophy she may endeavor to maintain
her doctrines as more or less reasonable; but she will always be liable to
the reproach of having wished to deceive us, by passing herself off as divine
when she was only human; and in all discussions on the truth of her doctrines,
she will have this fatal presumption against her, viz. that the account of her
origin was an imposture.</p>

<p>Protestants boast of their independence of mind, and reproach the Catholic
religion with violating the most sacred rights, by demanding a submission which
outrages the dignity of man. Here extravagant declamation about the strength
of our understanding is introduced with good effect; and a few seductive images
and expressions, such as "<em>bold flights</em>" and "<em>glittering wings</em>," &amp;c., are enough
to delude many readers.</p>

<p>Let the human mind enjoy all its rights; let it boast of possessing that spark
of divinity called the intellect; let it pass over all nature in triumph, observing
all the beings by which it is surrounded, and congratulate itself on its own immense
superiority, in the midst of the wonders with which it has known how to
embellish its abode; let it point out, as proofs of its strength and grandeur, the
changes which are everywhere worked by its presence; by its intellectual force
and boldness it has acquired the complete mastery over nature. Let us acknowledge
the dignity and elevation of our minds to show our gratitude to our Creator,
but let us not forget our weakness and defects. Why should we deceive
ourselves by fancying that we know what we are really ignorant of? Why forget
the inconstancy and variableness of our minds, and conceal the fact, that
with respect to many things, even of those with which we are supposed to be
acquainted, we have but confused ideas? How delusive is our knowledge, and
what exaggerated notions we have of our progress in information? Does not
one day contradict what another had affirmed? Time runs its course, laughs<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span>
at our predictions, destroys our plans, and clearly shows how vain are our
projects.</p>

<p>What have those geniuses who have descended to the foundations of science,
and risen by the boldest flights to the loftiest speculations, told us? After
having reached the utmost limits of the space which it is permitted to the human
mind to range over,&mdash;after having trodden the most secret paths of science,
and sailed on the vast ocean of moral and physical nature, the greatest minds
of all ages have returned dissatisfied with the results. They have seen a beautiful
illusion appear before their eyes,&mdash;the brilliant image which enchanted
them has vanished; when they thought they were about to enter a region of
light, they have found themselves surrounded with darkness, and they have
viewed with affright the extent of their ignorance. It is for this reason that
the greatest minds have so little confidence in the strength of the human intellect,
although they cannot but be fully aware that they are superior to other
men. The sciences, in the profound observation of Pascal, have two extremes
which meet each other: the first is, the pure natural state of ignorance in which
men are at their birth; the other extreme is, that at which great minds arrive
when, having reached the utmost extent of human knowledge, they find that
they know nothing, and that they are still in the same state of ignorance as at
first. (<cite>Pensées</cite>, 1 partie, art. 6.)</p>

<p>Catholicism says to man, "Thy intellect is weak, thou hast need of a guide
in many things." Protestantism says to him, "Thou art surrounded by light,
walk as thou wilt; thou canst not have a better guide than thyself." Which
of the two religions is most in accordance with the lessons of the highest philosophy?</p>

<p>It is not, therefore, surprising that the greatest minds among Protestants have
all felt a certain tendency towards Catholicism, and have seen the wisdom of
subjecting the human mind, in some things, to the decision of an infallible authority.
Indeed, if an authority can be found uniting in its origin, its duration,
its doctrines, and its conduct, all the characteristics of divinity, why should
the mind refuse to submit to her; and what has it to gain by wandering, at the
mercy of its illusions, on the most serious subjects, in paths where it only meets
with recollections of errors, with warnings and delusions?</p>

<p>If the human mind has conceived too great an esteem for itself, let it study
its own history, in order to see and understand how little security is to be found
in its own strength. Abounding in systems, inexhaustible in subtilties; as
ready in conceiving a project as incapable of maintaining it; full of ideas which
arise, agitate, and destroy each other, like the insects which abound in lakes;
now raising itself on the wings of sublime inspiration, and now creeping like a
reptile on the face of the earth; as able and willing to destroy the works of
others, as it is impotent to construct any durable ones of its own; urged on
by the violence of passion, swollen with pride, confounded by the infinite
variety of objects which present themselves to it; confused by so many false
lights and so many deceptive appearances, the human mind, when left entirely
to itself, resembles those brilliant meteors which dart at random through the
immensity of the heavens, assume a thousand eccentric forms, send forth a
thousand sparks, dazzle for a moment by their fantastic splendour, and disappear
without leaving even a reflected light to illuminate the darkness.</p>

<p>Behold the history of man's knowledge! In that immense and confused
heap of truth, error, sublimity, absurdity, wisdom, and folly, are collected the
proofs of my assertions, and to that do I refer any one who may be inclined to
accuse me of having overcharged the picture.<a href="#Note_7" class="fnanchor">7</a></p>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span></p>


<div class="chapter"></div>

<h2><a name="CHAPTER_V" id="CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V.</a><br />

<small>INSTINCT OF FAITH IN THE SCIENCES</small>.</h2>


<p>The truth of what I have just advanced with respect to the weakness of our
intellect, is proved by the fact that the hand of God has placed at the bottom
of our souls a preservative against the excessive changeability of our minds,
even in things which do not regard religion. Without this preservative all
social institutions would be destroyed, or rather never would have had existence;
without it the sciences would not have advanced a step, and when it had
disappeared from the human heart, individuals and society would have been
swallowed up by chaos. I allude to a certain tendency to defer to authority&mdash;to
the <em>instinct of faith</em>, if I may so call it&mdash;an instinct which we ought to examine
with great attention, if we wish to know any thing of the human mind,
and the history of its development.</p>

<p>It has often been observed that it is impossible to comply with the most
urgent necessities, or perform the most ordinary acts of life, without respecting
the authority of the statement of others; it is easy to understand that, without
this faith, all the treasures of history and experience would soon be dissipated,
and that even the foundation of all knowledge would disappear.</p>

<p>These important observations are calculated to show how vain is the charge
against the Catholic religion, of requiring nothing but faith; but this is not my
only object here; I wish to present the matter under another aspect, and place
the question in such a position as to make this truth gain in extent and interest,
without losing any thing of its immovable firmness. In looking over the history
of human knowledge, and glancing at the opinions of our contemporaries,
we constantly observe that the men who boast the most of their spirit of inquiry
and freedom of thought, only echo the opinions of others. If we examine
with attention that great study which, under the name of science, has made so
much noise in the world, we shall observe that it contains at bottom a large
portion of authority; and that if a perfectly free spirit of inquiry were to be
introduced into it, even with respect to points of pure reason, the greatest part
of the edifice of science would be destroyed, and very few men would remain
in possession of its secrets.</p>

<p>No branch of knowledge, whatever may be the clearness and exactitude of
which it boasts, is an exception to this rule. Do not the natural and exact
sciences, rich as they are in evident principles, rigorous in their deductions,
abounding in observation and experience, depend, nevertheless, for a great many
of their truths, upon other truths of a higher nature; the knowledge of which
necessarily requires a delicacy of observation, a power of calculation, a clear
and penetrating <i lang="fr">coup d'œil</i>, which belongs to few?</p>

<p>When Newton proclaimed to the scientific world the fruit of his profound
calculations, how many of his disciples could flatter themselves that they were
able to confirm them by their own convictions? I do not except from this
question many of those who, by laborious efforts, had been able to comprehend
something of this great man; they had followed the mathematician in his calculations,
they had a full knowledge of the mass of facts and experience which
the naturalist exposed to their view; they had listened to the reasons on which
the philosopher rested his conjectures; in this way they thought that they were
<em>fully convinced</em>, and that they did not owe their assent to any thing but the
force of reason and evidence. Well, take away the name of Newton, efface
from the mind the profound impression made by the authority of the man who
made so extraordinary a discovery, and has employed so much genius in supporting
it,&mdash;take away, I repeat it, the shade of Newton, and you will directly
see, in the minds of his disciples, their principles vacillate, their reasonings be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span>come
less convincing and exact, and their observations appear less in accordance
with the facts. Then, he who thought himself a perfectly impartial observer,
a perfectly independent thinker, will see and understand to how great an extent
he was enthralled by the force of authority, by the ascendency of genius; he
will find that, on a variety of points, he <em>assented</em> without being <em>convinced</em>; and
that, instead of being a perfectly independent philosopher, he was only an obedient
and accomplished pupil.</p>

<p>I appeal with confidence to the testimony, not of the ignorant, not of those
who have only a smattering of scientific knowledge, but of real men of learning,
of those who have devoted much time to the various branches of study.
Let them look into their own minds, let them examine anew what they call their
scientific convictions, let them ask themselves, with perfect calmness and impartiality,
whether, even on those subjects in which they consider themselves the
most advanced, their minds are not frequently controlled by the ascendency of
some author of the first rank. I believe they will be compelled to acknowledge
that, if they strictly applied the method of Descartes even to some of the questions
which they have studied the most, they would find that they believe rather
than are convinced. Such always has been, and such always will be, the case.
It is a thing deeply rooted in the nature of our minds, and it cannot be prevented.
Perhaps the regulation is a matter of absolute necessity; perhaps it
contains much of that instinct of preservation which God, with so much wisdom,
has diffused throughout society; perhaps it is intended to counteract the
many elements of dissolution which society contains within its bosom. Undoubtedly,
it is often very much to be regretted that men servilely follow in the
footsteps of others, and injurious consequences not unfrequently are the result.
But it would be still worse, if men constantly held themselves in an attitude of
resistance to all others, for fear of deception. Woe to man and to society, if
the philosophic mania of wishing to submit all matters to a rigorous examination
were to become general in the world; and woe to science, if this rigorous,
scrupulous, and independent scrutiny were extended to every thing.</p>

<p>I admire the genius of Descartes, and acknowledge the signal services which
he has rendered to science; but I have more than once thought that, if his
method of doubting became general for any time, society would be destroyed.
And it seems to me that, among learned men themselves, among impartial
philosophers, this method would do great harm; at least, it may be supposed
that the number of men devoid of sense in the scientific world would be considerably
increased.</p>

<p>Happily there is no danger of this being the case. If it be true that there
is always in man a certain tendency towards folly, there is also always to be found
there a fund of good sense which cannot be destroyed. When certain individuals
of heated imaginations attempt to involve society in their delirium, society
answers with a smile of derision; or if it allows itself to be seduced for a
moment, it soon returns to its senses, and repels with indignation those who
have endeavored to lead it astray. Passionate declamation against vulgar prejudice,
against docility in following others and willingness to believe all without
examination, is only considered as worthy of contempt by those who are intimately
acquainted with human nature. Are not these feelings participated in
by many who belong not to the vulgar? Are not the sciences full of gratuitous
suppositions, and have they not their weak points, with which, however,
we are satisfied, as if they afforded a firm basis to rest upon?</p>

<p>The right of possession and prescription is also one of the peculiarities which
the sciences present to us; and it is well worthy of remark that, without ever
having borne the name, this right has been acknowledged by a tacit but unanimous
consent. How can this be? Study the history of the sciences, and you
will find at every step this right acknowledged and established. How is it,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span>
amid the continual disputes which have divided philosophers, that we see an old
opinion make a long resistance to a new one, and sometimes succeed in preventing
its establishment? It is because the old opinion was in possession, and
was strengthened by the right of prescription. It is of no importance that the
words were not used, the result was the same; this is the reason why discoverers
have so often been despised, opposed, and even persecuted.</p>

<p>It is necessary to make this avowal, although it may be repugnant to our
pride, and may scandalize some sincere admirers of the progress of knowledge.
These advances have been numerous; the field over which the human mind has
exercised itself, and its sphere of action, are immense; the works by which it
has proved its power are admirable; but there is always in all this a large portion
of exaggeration, and it is necessary to make a considerable allowance,
especially in the moral sciences. It cannot justly be inferred, from these
exaggerated statements, that our intellect is capable of advancing in every path
with perfect ease and activity; no deduction can be drawn from it to contradict
the fact which we have just established, viz. the mind of man is almost always
in subjection, even imperceptibly, to the authority of other men.</p>

<p>In every age there appear a small number of privileged spirits, who, by
nature superior to all the rest, serve as guides in the various careers; a numerous
crowd, who think themselves learned, follow them with precipitation, and,
fixing their eyes on the standard which has been raised, rush breathlessly after
it; and yet, strange as it is, they all boast of their independence, and flatter
themselves that they are distinguishing themselves by pursuing the new path;
one would imagine that they had discovered it, and that they were walking in
it guided by their own light and inspirations. Necessity, taste, or a thousand
other circumstances, lead us to cultivate this or that branch of knowledge; our
own weakness constantly tells us that we have no creative power; that we cannot
produce any thing of our own, and that we are incapable of striking out a
new path; but we flatter ourselves that we share some part of the glory belonging
to the illustrious chief whose banner we follow; we sometimes will succeed
in persuading ourselves, in the midst of these reveries, that we do not fight
under anybody's standard, and that we are only rendering homage to our own
convictions, when, in reality, we are the proselytes of others.</p>

<p>Herein common sense shows itself to be wiser than our weak reason; and
thus language, which gives such deep expression to things, where we find, without
knowing whence they come, so much truth and exactitude, gives us a severe
admonition on the subject of these vain pretensions. In spite of us, language
calls things by their right names, and knows how to class us and our opinions
according to the leader that we follow. What is the history of science but the
history of the contests of a small number of illustrious men? If we glance
over ancient and modern times, and bring into view the various branches of
knowledge, we shall see a number of schools founded by a philosopher of the
first rank, and then falling under the direction of another whose talents have
made him worthy to succeed the founder. Thus the thing goes on, until circumstances
having changed, or the spirit of vitality being gone, the school dies a
natural death, unless a man of bold and independent mind appears, who takes
the old school and destroys it, in order to establish his own doctrines on the ruins.</p>

<p>When Descartes dethroned Aristotle, did he not immediately take his place?
Then philosophers pretended to independence&mdash;an independence which was contradicted
by the very name they bore, that of Cartesians. Like nations who,
in times of rebellion, cry out for liberty, dethrone their old king, and afterwards
submit to the first man who has the boldness to seize the vacant throne.</p>

<p>It is thought in our age, as it has been in times gone by, that the human mind
acts with perfect independence, owing to declamation against authority in scientific
matters, and the exaltation of the freedom of thought. The opinion has<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span>
become general that, in these times, the authority of any one man is worth
nothing; it has been thought that every man of learning acts according to his
own convictions alone. Moreover, systems and hypotheses have lost all credit,
and a great desire for examination and analysis has become prevalent. This has
made people believe not only that authority in scientific matters is completely
gone, but that it is henceforth impossible.</p>

<p>At first sight there appears to be some truth in this; but if we look attentively
around us, we shall observe that the number of leaders is only somewhat
increased, and the time of their command somewhat shortened. Our age is
truly one of commotions, literary and scientific revolutions, like those in politics,
where nations imagine that they possess more liberty because the government
is placed in the hands of a greater number of persons, and because they
find more facility in getting rid of their rulers. They destroy those men to
whom but a short time before they have given the names of fathers and liberators;
then, the first transport being passed, they allow other men to impose upon
them a yoke in reality not less heavy. Besides the examples afforded us by the
history of the past century, at the present day we see only great names succeed
each other, and the leaders of the human mind take each other's places.</p>

<p>In the field of politics, where one would imagine the spirit of freedom ought
to have full scope, do we not see men who take the lead; and are they not
looked upon as the generals of an army during a campaign? In the parliamentary
arena, do we see any thing but two or three bodies of combatants, performing
their evolutions under their respective chiefs with perfect regularity and
discipline? These truths are well understood by those who occupy these high
positions! They are acquainted with our weakness, and they know that men
are commonly deceived by mere words. A thousand times must they have been
tempted to smile, when, contemplating the field of their triumphs, and seeing
themselves surrounded by followers who, proud of their own intelligence, admire
and applaud them, they have heard one of the most ardent of their disciples
boast of his unlimited freedom of thought, and of the complete independence
of his opinions and his votes.</p>

<p>Such is man, as shown to us by history and the experience of every day. The
inspiration of genius, that sublime force which raises the minds of some privileged
men, will always exercise, not only over the ignorant, but even over the
generality of men who devote themselves to science, a real fascination. Where,
then, is the insult which the Catholic religion offers to reason when, presenting
titles which prove her divinity, she asks for that faith which men grant so
easily to other men in matters of various kinds, and even in things with which
they consider themselves to be the best acquainted? Is it an insult to human
reason to point out to him a fixed and certain rule with respect to matters of
the greatest importance, while, on the other hand, she leaves him perfectly free
to think as he pleases on all the various questions which God has left to his
discretion? In this the Church only shows herself to be in accordance with
the lessons of the highest philosophy. She shows a profound knowledge of the
human mind, and she delivers it from all the evils which are inflicted by its
fickleness, its inconstancy, and its ambition, combined as these qualities are
with an extraordinary tendency to defer to the opinions of individuals. Who
does not see that the Catholic Church puts thereby a check on the spirit of
proselytism, of which society has had so much reason to complain? Since
there is in man this irresistible tendency to follow the footsteps of another, does
she not confer an eminent service on humanity, by showing it a sure way of
following the example of a God incarnate? Does she not thus take human
liberty under her protection, and at the same time save from shipwreck those
branches of knowledge which are the most necessary to individuals and to
society?<a href="#Note_8" class="fnanchor">8</a></p>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span></p>


<div class="chapter"></div>

<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VI" id="CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI.</a><br />

<small>DIFFERENCES IN THE RELIGIOUS WANTS OF NATIONS&mdash;MATHEMATICS&mdash;MORAL
SCIENCES</small>.</h2>


<p>The progress of society, and the high degree of civilization and refinement
to which modern nations have attained, will no doubt be urged against the authority
which seeks to exercise jurisdiction over the mind. In this way men
will attempt to justify what they call the emancipation of the human mind.
For my own part, this objection seems to have so little solidity, and to be so
little supported by facts, that, from the progress of society, I should, on the
contrary, conclude that there is the more need of that living rule which is
deemed indispensable by Catholics.</p>

<p>To say that society in its infancy and youth may have required this authority
as a check, but that this check has become useless and degrading since the human
mind has reached a higher degree of development, is completely to mistake
the connection which exists between the various conditions of our mind and the
objects over which this authority extends. The true idea of God, the origin,
the end, and the rule of human conduct, together with all the means with which
God has furnished us to attain to our high destiny, such are the subjects with
which faith deals, and with respect to which Catholics contend that it is necessary
to have an infallible rule. They maintain that without this it would be
impossible to avoid the most lamentable errors, and to protect truth from the
effects of human passions.</p>

<p>This consideration will suffice to show, that private judgment would be much
less dangerous among nations still less advanced in the career of civilization.
There is, indeed, in a young nation, a great fund of natural candor and simplicity,
which admirably disposes it to receive with docility the instructions contained
in the sacred volume. Such a people will relish those things which are
easily to be understood, and will bow with humility before the sublime obscurity
of those pages which it has pleased God to cover with a veil of mystery. Moreover,
the condition of this people, as yet exempt from the pride of knowledge,
would create a sort of authority, since there would be found within its bosom
only a small number of men able to examine divine revelation; and thus a
centre for the distribution of instruction would be naturally formed.</p>

<p>But it is far otherwise with a nation far advanced in the career of knowledge.
With the latter, the extension of knowledge to a greater number of individuals,
by augmenting pride and fickleness, multiplies sects, and ends by revolutionizing
ideas and corrupting the purest traditions. A young nation is devoted to
simple occupations; it remains attached to its ancient customs; it listens with
respect and docility to the aged, who, surrounded by their children and grand-children,
relate with emotion the histories and the maxims which they have received
from their ancestors. But when society has reached a great degree of
development, when respect for the fathers of families and veneration for gray
hairs have become weakened; when pompous titles, scientific display, and grand
libraries make men conceive a high idea of their intellectual powers; when the
multitude and activity of communications widely diffuse those ideas, which,
when put in motion, have an almost magical power of affecting men's minds,
then it is necessary,&mdash;it is indispensable to have an authority, always living,
always ready to act whenever it is wanted,&mdash;to cover with a protecting ægis the
sacred deposit of truths which are the same in all times and places; truths
without the knowledge of which man would be left to the mercy of his own
errors and caprices from the cradle to the grave; truths on which society rests
as its surest foundation; truths which cannot be destroyed without shaking to
pieces the whole social edifice. The literary and political history of Europe for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span>
the last three hundred years affords but too many proofs of this. Religious
revolution broke out at the moment when it was capable of doing the most
harm: it found society agitated by all the activity of the human mind, and it
destroyed the control when it was most necessary.</p>

<p>Undoubtedly, it is necessary to guard against depreciating the mind of man
by charging it with faults which it has not, or by exaggerating those which it
has; but it is no less improper to puff it up by exalting its strength too much.
The latter would be injurious to it in several ways, and would be little likely to
advance its progress; it would also, if properly understood, be little conformable
to that gravity and discretion which ought to distinguish true science. Indeed,
to merit the name, science ought to show the folly of being vain of what
does not rightly belong to it; it ought to know its limits, and have sufficient
candor and generosity to acknowledge its weakness.</p>

<p>There is a fact in the history of science, which, by revealing the intrinsic
weakness of the mind, palpably shows the flattery of those unmeasured eulogies
which are sometimes lavished on it, and also demonstrates to us how dangerous
it would be to abandon it to itself without any guide. This fact is, the obscurity
which increases in proportion as we approach the first principles of science;
so that even in those sciences the truth, evidence, and exactness of which are
considered the best established, it seems that no firm ground is to be obtained
when we attempt to go to the bottom of them; and the mind, not finding any
security, recoils in the fear of meeting with something to throw doubt and uncertainty
on the truths of which it was convinced.</p>

<p>I do not participate in the ill-humor of Hobbes against the mathematics.
Devoted to their progress, and deeply convinced as I am of the advantages
which their study confers on the other sciences and on society, I shall not attempt
to underrate their merit, or deny any of their great claims; but who can
say that they are an exception to the general rule? Have they not their weak
points and their darksome paths?</p>

<p>It is true that, when we confine ourselves to the explanation of the first principles
of these sciences, and the deduction from them of the most elementary
propositions, the mind is on firm ground, where no fear of making a false step
occurs to it. I put aside at present the obscurity which would be found in
ideology and metaphysics, if they were to discuss certain points according to the
writings of the most distinguished philosophers. Let us confine ourselves to
the circle to which the mathematics are naturally confined. Who that has
studied them is ignorant that you may reach a point in their theories, where the
mind finds nothing but obscurity? The demonstration is before our eyes; it
has been developed in all its parts; and yet the mind wavers, feeling within
itself a kind of uncertainty which it cannot well describe. It sometimes happens
that, after reasoning a long time, the truth rushes upon us like the light
of day; but it is not until we have walked in darkness for a long period. When
we fix our attention upon those thoughts which wander in our minds like moving
lights, on those almost imperceptible emotions which, on these occasions,
arise, and then die away in the soul, we observe that the mind, in the midst of
its fluctuations, seeks instinctively for the anchor which is to be found in the
authority of another. To reassure ourselves completely, we then invoke the
authority of some great mathematicians, and we rejoice that the fact is placed
beyond a doubt by the series of great men who have always viewed it in the
same light. But perhaps our ignorance and pride will not admit the truth of
these reflections. Let us, then, study these sciences, or at least read their history,
and we shall be convinced that they afford numerous proofs of the weakness
of the intellect.</p>

<p>Did not the extraordinary invention of Newton and Leibnitz find many opponents
in Europe? Were there not required to establish it, both the sanction of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span>
time and the touchstone of experience, which made manifest the truth of their
principles and the exactness of their reasonings? Do you believe that, if this
invention were again, for the first time, to make its appearance in the field of
science, even fortified with all the proofs which have been brought forward to
strengthen it, and surrounded with all the light which so many explanations
have shed upon it,&mdash;do you believe, I say, that it would not need a second time
the right of prescription, to regain its tranquil and undisturbed empire?</p>

<p>It is easy to suppose that the other sciences have no little share in this uncertainty
arising from the weakness of the human mind; as I do not imagine that
this assertion will be called in question, I pass on to a few remarks on the
peculiar character of the moral sciences.</p>

<p>The fact has not been sufficiently attended to, that there is no study more
deceptive than that of the moral sciences; I say deceptive, because this study,
seducing the mind by an appearance of facility, draws it into difficulties which
it is no easy matter to overcome. It may be compared to those tranquil waters
which, although apparently but shallow, are in reality unfathomably deep.
Familiarized from our infancy with the language of this science, surrounded by
its continual applications, and having before our eyes its truths under a palpable
form, we possess a certain facility of speaking readily on many parts of the
subject; and we have the rashness to suppose that it would not be difficult to
master its highest principles and its most delicate relations. But wonderful as
it is, scarcely have we quitted the path of common sense, and attempted to go
beyond those simple impressions which we have received from our mothers,
when we find ourselves in a labyrinth of confusion. If the mind gives itself
up to subtilties, it ceases to listen to the voice of the heart, which speaks to it
with equal simplicity and eloquence; if it does not repress its pride, and attend
to the wise counsels of good sense, it will be guilty of despising those salutary
and necessary truths, which have been preserved by society to be transmitted
from generation to generation: it is then, while groping its way in the dark,
that it falls into the wildest extravagances, the lamentable effects of which are
so often exemplified in the history of the sciences.</p>

<p>If we observe attentively, we shall find something of the same kind in all the
sciences. The Creator has taken care to supply us with knowledge necessary
for the purposes of life, and for the attainment of our destiny; but it has not
pleased Him to gratify our curiosity by discovering to us what was not necessary.
Nevertheless, in some things He has communicated to the mind a power
which renders it capable of constantly adding to its knowledge; but, with
respect to moral truths, it has been left sterile. What man is required to know,
has been deeply engraven on his heart, in characters simple and intelligible; or
is contained in the sacred volume; and moreover, he has had pointed out to
him, in the authority of the Church, a fixed rule, to which he can apply to have
his doubts explained. With respect to the rest, man has been placed in such a
position, that if he attempt to enter into matters which are too subtle, he only
wanders backwards and forwards in the same road, at the extremities of which
he finds on the one side skepticism, on the other pure truth.</p>

<p>Perhaps some modern ideologists will urge, in opposition to this, the result
of their own analytical labours. "Before men began to analyze facts," they
will say, "and while they indulged in fanciful systems, and satisfied themselves
with verbal disputes without critical examination, all this might be true; but
now that we have explained all the ideas of moral good and evil, in so perfect
a way, and have separated the prejudice in them from the true philosophy; now
that the whole system of morality is based upon the simple principles of pleasure
and pain, and we have given the clearest ideas of these things, such, for example,
as the sensations produced in us by an orange; to maintain your assertion,
is to be ungrateful towards science, and to underrate the fruit of our labours."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span></p>

<p>I am aware of the labours of some moral ideologists, and I know with what
deceptive simplicity they develop their theories, by giving to the most difficult
things an easy turn, which affects to make them intelligible to the most limited
minds. This is not the place to examine these analytical investigations, and
their results. I shall, however, remark that, in spite of their promised simplicity,
it does not appear that either society or science makes much progress
through their means, and that these opinions, although but a short time broached,
are already superannuated. This is not a matter of astonishment to us; for it
was easy to perceive that, in spite of their positiveness, if I may be allowed to
use the expression, these ideologists are as hypothetical as many of their predecessors,
who are loaded by them with sarcasms and contempt. They are a poor,
narrow-minded school, devoid of the truth, and not even adorned by the brilliant
dreams of great men; a proud and deluded school, who fancy they explain a
fact, when they only obscure it; and prove a thing, when they only assert it;
and imagine that they analyze the human heart, when they take it to pieces.</p>

<p>If such is the human mind; if such is its inability in matters of science,
whether physical or moral, that it has not advanced a single step beyond the
limit prescribed by a beneficent Providence; what service has Protestantism
rendered to modern society, by impairing the force of authority, that power
which could alone present an effectual barrier to man's unhappy wanderings?<a href="#Note_9" class="fnanchor">9</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VII" id="CHAPTER_VII">CHAPTER VII.</a><br />

<small>INDIFFERENCE AND FANATICISM</small>.</h2>


<p>In rejecting the authority of the Church, and in adopting this resistance as
its only principle, Protestantism was compelled to seek its whole support in
man; thus to mistake the true character of the human mind, and its relations
with religious and moral truth, was to throw itself, according to circumstances,
into the opposite extremes of fanaticism and indifference.</p>

<p>It may seem strange that these opposite errors should emanate from the same
source; and yet nothing is more certain. Protestantism, by appealing to man
alone in religious matters, had only two courses to adopt; either to suppose
men to be inspired by Heaven for the discovery of truth, or to subject all religious
truths to the examination of reason. To submit religious truths to the
judgment of reason was sooner or later to produce indifference; on the other
hand, private inspiration must engender fanaticism.</p>

<p>There is a universal and constant fact in the history of the human mind&mdash;viz.
its decided inclination to invent systems in which the reality of things is
completely laid aside, and where we only see the workings of a spirit which has
chosen to quit the ordinary path in order to give itself up to its own inspirations.
The history of philosophy is little else than a perpetual repetition of
this phenomenon, which the human mind shows, in some shape or other, in all
things which admit of it. When the mind has conceived a peculiar idea, it
regards it with that blind and exclusive predilection which is found in the love
of the father for his children. Under the influence of this prejudice, the mind
developes its ideas and accommodates facts to suit it; that which at first was
only an ingenious and extravagant idea, becomes the germ of important doctrines;
and if it arise in a person of an ardent disposition, fanaticism, the cause
of so much madness, is the consequence.</p>

<p>The danger is very much increased when the new system applies to religious
matters, or is immediately connected with them. The extravagances of a
diseased mind are then looked upon as inspirations from Heaven; the fever of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span>
delirium as a divine flame; and a mania of being singular as an extraordinary
vocation. Pride, unable to brook opposition, rises against all that it finds established;
it insults all authority; it attacks all institutions; it despises everybody;
it conceals the grossest violence under the mantle of zeal, and ambition
under the name of apostleship. The dupe of himself rather than an impostor,
the wretched maniac sometimes becomes deeply persuaded that his doctrines are
true, and that he has received the commands of Heaven. As there is something
extraordinary and striking in the fiery language of the madman, he communicates
to those who listen to him a portion of his insanity, and makes, in a
short time, a considerable number of proselytes. The men capable of playing
the first part in this scene of madness are not numerous, it is true; but unhappily
the majority of men are foolish enough to be easily led away. History and
experience sufficiently prove that the crowd are easily attracted, and that to form
a party, however criminal, extravagant, or ridiculous, it is only necessary to
raise a standard.</p>

<p>I wish to take this opportunity of making an observation which I have never
seen pointed out&mdash;viz. that the Church, in her contest with heresy, has rendered
an important service to the science which devotes itself to the examination
of the true character, tendency, and power of the human mind. The zealous
guardian of all great truths, she has always known how to preserve them
unimpaired; she was fully acquainted with the weakness of the mind of man,
and its extreme proneness to folly and extravagance; she has followed it closely
in all its steps, has watched it in all its movements, and has constantly resisted
it with energy, when it attempted to pollute the pure fountain of which she is
the guardian. During the long and violent contests which she has had with it,
the Church has made manifest its incurable folly; she has exhibited it on every
side, and has shown it in all its forms. Thus it is that, in the history of heresies,
she has made an abundant collection of facts, and has painted an extremely
interesting picture of the human mind, where its characteristic physiognomy is
faithfully represented; a picture which will doubtless be of great service in the
composition of the important work which is yet unwritten&mdash;viz. the true history
of the human mind.<a href="#Note_10" class="fnanchor">10</a></p>

<p>Certain it is that the ravings and extravagances of fanaticism have not been
wanting in the history of Europe for the last three hundred years. Their monuments
still remain; in whatever direction we turn our steps, we find bloody
traces of the fanatical sects produced by Protestantism, and engendered by its
fundamental principle. Nothing could confine this devastating torrent, neither
the violent character of Luther, nor the furious efforts which he made to oppose
every one who taught doctrines different from his own. Impiety succeeded impiety,
extravagance extravagance, fanaticism fanaticism. The pretended Reformation
was soon divided into as many sects as there were found men with the
ingenuity to invent and the boldness to maintain a system of their own. This
was necessarily the case; for besides the danger of leaving the human mind
without a guide on all questions of religion, there was another cause fruitful in
fatal results, I mean the private interpretation of the sacred books.</p>

<p>It was then found that the best things may be abused, and that these divine
volumes, which contain so much instruction for the mind, and so much consolation
for the heart, are full of danger to the proud. How great will this be, if
you add to the obstinate resolution of resisting all authority in matters of faith,
the false persuasion that the meaning of the Scriptures is everywhere clear, and
that, in all cases, the inspirations of Heaven may be expected to solve every
doubt? What will happen to those who turn over their pages with a longing
desire to find some text which, more or less tortured, may seem to authorize their
sophisms, subtilties, and absurdities?</p>

<p>There never was a greater mistake than that which was committed by the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span>
Protestant leaders, when they placed the Bible in the hands of all for self-interpretation;
never was the nature of that sacred volume more completely lost
sight of. It is true that Protestantism had no other method to pursue, and that
every objection which it could make to the private interpretation of the sacred
text would be a striking inconsistency, an apostasy from its own principles, and
a denial of its own origin; but at the same time, this is its most decided condemnation.
What claim, indeed, can that religion have to truth and sanctity
whose fundamental principle contains the germ of sects the most fanatical&mdash;the
most injurious to society?</p>

<p>It would be difficult to collect into so narrow a space, in opposition to this
essential error of Protestantism, so many facts and convincing proofs of this, as
are contained in the following lines, written by a Protestant, O'Callaghan,
which, I have no doubt, my readers will thank me for quoting here. "Led
away," says O'Callaghan, "by their spirit of opposition to the Church of
Rome, the first Reformers loudly proclaimed the right of interpreting the Scriptures
according to each one's private judgment; but in their eagerness to emancipate
the people from the authority of the Pope, they proclaimed this right
without explanation or restriction: and the consequences were fearful. Impatient
to undermine the papal jurisdiction, they maintained without exception,
that each individual has an incontestable right to interpret the Scriptures for
himself; and as this principle, carried to the fullest extent, was not sustainable,
they were obliged to rely for support upon another, viz. that the Bible is an
easy book, within the comprehension of all minds, and that the divine revelations
contained in it are always clear to all; two propositions which, whether
we consider them together or apart, cannot withstand a serious attack.</p>

<p>"The private judgment of Muncer found in the Scriptures that titles of nobility
and great estates are impious usurpations, contrary to the natural equality
of the faithful, and he invited his followers to examine if this were not the
case. They examined into the matter, praised God, and then proceeded by fire
and sword to extirpate the impious and possess themselves of their properties.
Private judgment made the discovery in the Bible that established laws were
a permanent restriction on Christian liberty; and, behold, John of Leyden,
throwing away his tools, put himself at the head of a mob of fanatics, surprised
the town of Munster, proclaimed himself king of Sion, and took fourteen wives
at a time, asserting that polygamy is Christian liberty, and the privilege of the
saints. But if the criminal madness of these men in another country is afflicting
to the friends of humanity and of real piety, certainly the history of England,
during a great part of the seventeenth century, is not calculated to console
them. During that period an immense number of fanatics appeared, sometimes
together and sometimes in succession, intoxicated with extravagant doctrines
and mischievous passions, from the fierce ravings of Fox to the more
methodical madness of Barclay; from the formidable fanaticism of Cromwell to
the silly profanity of 'Praise God Barebones.' Piety, reason, and good sense
seemed to be extinct on earth, and to be succeeded by an extravagant jargon, a
religious frenzy, and a zeal without discretion. All quoted the Scriptures, all
pretended to have had inspirations, visions, and spiritual ecstasies, and all, indeed,
had equal claims to them. It was strongly maintained that it was proper
to abolish the priesthood and the royal dignity, because priests were the ministers
of Satan, and kings the delegates of the whore of Babylon, and that the
existence of both were inconsistent with the reign of the Redeemer. The fanatics
condemned science as a Pagan invention, and universities as seminaries of
antichristian impiety. Bishops were not protected by the sanctity of their
functions, or kings by the majesty of the throne; both, as objects of contempt
and hatred, were mercilessly put to death by these fanatics, whose only book
was the Bible, without note or comment. During this time, the enthusiasm for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span>
prayer, preaching, and the reading of the sacred books was at the highest point;
everybody prayed, preached, and read, but nobody listened. The greatest atrocities
were justified by the Scriptures; in the most ordinary transactions of life,
scriptural language was made use of; national affairs, foreign and domestic,
were discussed in the phraseology of Holy Writ. There were scriptural plots,
conspiracies, and proscriptions; and all this was not only justified but even
sanctified by quotations from the word of God. These facts, attested by history,
have often astonished and alarmed men of virtue and piety, <em>but the reader,
too much imbued with his own ideas, forgets the lesson to be learnt by this fatal
experience; namely, that the Bible without note or comment was not intended to
be read by rude and ignorant men</em>.</p>

<p>"The majority of mankind must be content to receive the instructions of
others, and are not enabled to trust themselves. The most important truths in
medicine, in jurisprudence, in physics, in mathematics, must be received from
those who drink at the fountain head. The same plan has in general been pursued
with respect to Christianity; and whenever the departure from it has been
wide enough, '<em>society has been shaken to its foundation</em>.'"</p>

<p>These words of O'Callaghan do not require any comment. It cannot be said
that they are hyperbolical or declamatory, as they are only a simple and faithful
narration of acknowledged facts. The recollection of these events should suffice
to prove the danger of placing the sacred Scriptures, without note or comment,
into the hands of all, as Protestantism does, under the pretence, that the authority
of the Church is useless for understanding the holy books; and that
every Christian has only to listen to the dictates which generally emanate from
his passions and heated imagination. By this error alone, if it had committed
no other, Protestantism is self-reproved and condemned; for it is a religion
which has established a principle destructive to itself. In order to appreciate
the madness of Protestantism on this point, and to see how false and dangerous
is the position which it has assumed with regard to the human mind, it is not
necessary to be a theologian, or a Catholic; it is enough to have read the Scriptures
with the eyes of a philosopher or a man of literature. Here is a book
which comprises, within a limited compass, the period of four thousand years,
and advances further towards the most distant future, by embracing the origin
and destiny of man and the universe&mdash;a book which, with the continued history
of a chosen people, intermingles, in its narrations and prophecies, the revolutions
of mighty empires&mdash;a book which, side by side with the magnificent
pictures of the power and splendor of Eastern monarchs, describes, in simple
colors, the plain domestic manners, the candor, and innocence of a young
nation&mdash;a book in which historians relate, sages proclaim their maxims of wisdom,
apostles preach, and doctors instruct&mdash;a book in which prophets, under
the influence of the divine Spirit, thunder against the errors and corruptions of
the people, and announce the vengeance of the God of Sinai, or pour forth inconsolable
lamentations on the captivity of their brethren, and the desolation
and solitude of their country; where they relate, in wonderful and sublime language,
the magnificent spectacles which are presented to their eyes; where, in
moments of ecstasy, they see pass before them the events of society and the
catastrophes of nature, although veiled in mysterious figures and visions of obscurity&mdash;a
book, or rather a collection of books, where are to be found all sorts
of styles and all varieties of narrative, epic majesty, pastoral simplicity, lyric
fire, serious instruction, grave historical narrative, and lively and rapid dramatic
action; a collection of books, in fine, written at various times and in various
languages, in various countries, and under the most peculiar and extraordinary
circumstances. Must not all this confuse the heads of men who, puffed up with
their own conceit, grope through these pages in the dark, ignorant of climates,
times, laws, customs, and manners? They will be puzzled by allusions, sur<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span>prised
by images, deceived by expressions; they will hear the Greek and Hebrew,
which was written in those remote ages, now spoken in a modern idiom.
What effects must all these circumstances produce on the minds of readers who
believe that the Bible is an easy book, to be understood without difficulty by
all? Persuaded that they do not require the instructions of others, they must
either resolve all these difficulties by their own reflections, or trust to that individual
inspiration which they believe will not be wanting to explain to them
the loftiest mysteries. Who, after this, can be astonished that Protestantism
has produced so many absurd visionaries and furious fanatics?<a href="#Note_11" class="fnanchor">11</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VIII" id="CHAPTER_VIII">CHAPTER VIII.</a><br />

<small>FANATICISM&mdash;ITS DEFINITION.&mdash;FANATICISM IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH</small>.</h2>


<p>It would be unjust to charge a religion with falsehood, merely because fanatics
are to be found within its bosom. This would be to reject all, because none are
to be found exempt from them. A religion, then, is not to be condemned
because it has them, but because it produces them, urges them on, and opens a
field for them. If we observe closely, we shall find at the bottom of the human
heart an abundant source of fanaticism; the history of man affords us many
proofs of this incontestable truth. Imagine whatever delusion you please,
relate the most extravagant visions, invent the most absurd system, if you only
take care to give to all a religious coloring, you may be sure that you will have
enthusiastic followers, who will heartily devote themselves to the propagation
of your doctrines, and will espouse your cause blindly and ardently; in other
words, you will have under your standard a troop of fanatics.</p>

<p>Philosophers have devoted many pages to declamation against fanaticism;
they have, as it were, assumed the mission of banishing it from the earth.
They have tired mankind with philosophical lectures, and have thundered
against the monster with all the vigor of their eloquence. They used the word,
however, in so wide a sense as to include all kind of religion. But, if they
had confined themselves to attacking real fanaticism, I believe they would have
done much better if they had devoted some time to the examination of this matter
in an analytic spirit, and had treated it, after so doing, maturely, calmly,
and without prejudice.</p>

<p>Inasmuch as these philosophers were aware that fanaticism is a natural
infirmity of the human mind, they could, if they were men of sense and wisdom,
have had little hope of banishing the accursed monster from the world by
reasoning and eloquence; for I am not aware that, up to the present time, philosophy
has remedied any of the important evils that afflict humanity. Among
the numerous errors of the philosophy of the eighteenth century, one of the
principal was the mania for types; there was formed in the mind a type of the
nature of man, of society, in a word, of every thing; and every thing that
could not be adjusted to this type, every thing that could not be moulded into
the required form, was so subjected to the fury of philosophers, as to make it
certain, at least, that the want of pliability did not go unpunished.</p>

<p>But do I mean to deny the existence of fanaticism in the world? There is
much of it. Do I deny that it is an evil? It is a very great one. Can it be
extirpated? It cannot. How can its extent be diminished, its force weakened,
and its violence checked? By directing man wisely. Can this be done by
philosophy? We shall presently see. What is the origin of fanaticism? We
must begin by defining the real meaning of the word. By fanaticism is meant,
taking the word in its widest signification, the strong excitement of a mind
powerfully acted on by a false or exaggerated opinion. If the opinion be true,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span>
if it be confined within just limits, there is no fanaticism; or, if there <em>be</em> any,
it is only with respect to the means employed in defending the opinion. But in
that case there is an erroneous judgment, since it is believed that the truth of
the opinion authorizes the means; that is to say, there is already error or exaggeration.
If a true opinion be sustained by legitimate means, if the occasion
be opportune, whatever may be the excitement or effervescence of mind, whatever
may be the energy of the efforts and the sacrifices made, then there is
enthusiasm of mind and heroism of action, but no fanaticism. Were it otherwise,
the heroes of all times and countries might be stigmatized as fanatics.</p>

<p>Fanaticism, in this general sense, extends to all the subjects which occupy
the human mind; thus there are fanatics in religion, in politics, even in science
and literature. Nevertheless, according to etymology and custom, the word is
properly applied to religious matters only; therefore the word, when used alone,
means fanaticism in religion, whilst, when applied to other things, it is always
accompanied by a qualifying epithet; thus we say political fanatics, literary
fanatics, &amp;c.</p>

<p>There is no doubt that in religious matters men have a strong tendency to
give themselves to a dominant idea, which they desire to communicate to all
around them, and propagate everywhere. They sometimes go so far as to attempt
this by the most violent means. The same fact appears, to a certain extent, in
other matters; but it acquires in religious things a character different from what
it assumes elsewhere. It is there that the human mind acquires increased force,
frightful energy, and unbounded expansion; there are no more difficulties,
obstacles, or fetters; material interests entirely disappear; the greatest sufferings
acquire a charm; torments are nothing; death itself is a seductive illusion.</p>

<p>This phenomenon varies with individuals, with ideas, with the manners of the
nation in whose bosom it is produced; but at bottom it is always the same. If
we examine the matter thoroughly, we shall find that the violences of the followers
of Mahomet, and the extravagant disciples of Fox, have a common
origin.</p>

<p>It is with this passion as with all others; when they produce great evils, it
is because they deviate from their legitimate objects, or because they strive at
those objects by means which are not conformable to the dictates of reason and
prudence. Fanaticism, then, rightly understood, is nothing but misguided religious
feeling; a feeling which man has within him from the cradle to the tomb,
and which is found to be diffused throughout society in all periods of its existence.
Vain have been the efforts made up to this time to render men irreligious;
a few individuals may give themselves up to the folly of complete irreligion; but
the human race always protests against those who endeavor to stifle the sentiment
of religion. Now this feeling is so strong and active, it exercises so
unbounded an influence on man, that no sooner has it been diverted from its
legitimate object, and quitted the right path, than it is seen to produce lamentable
results; then it is that two causes, fertile in great disasters, are found in
combination, complete blindness of the understanding and irresistible energy
of the will.</p>

<p>In declaiming against fanaticism, many Protestants and philosophers have
thought proper to throw a large share of blame on the Catholic Church; certainly
they ought to have been more moderate in this respect if their philosophy
had been good. It is true the Church cannot boast of having cured all the
follies of man; she cannot pretend to have banished fanaticism so completely
as not to have some fanatics among her children; but she may justly boast that
no religion has taken more effectual means of curing the evil. It may, moreover,
be affirmed, that she has taken her measures so well, that when it does
make its appearance, she confines it within such limits that it may exist for a
time, but cannot produce very dangerous results.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span></p>

<p>Its mental errors and delirious dreams, which, if encouraged, lead men to the
commission of the greatest extravagances and the most horrible crimes, are
kept under control when the mind possesses a salutary conviction of its own
weakness and a respect for infallible authority. If they be not extinguished
at their birth, at least they remain in a state of isolation, they do not injure
the deposit of true doctrine, and the ties which unite all the faithful as members
of the same body are not broken. With respect to revelations, visions,
prophecies, and ecstasies, as long as they preserve a private character and do
not affect the truths of faith, the Church, generally speaking, tolerates them
and abstains from interference, leaving the discussion of the facts to criticism,
and allowing the faithful an entire liberty of thinking as they please; but if
the affair assumes a more important aspect, if the visionary calls in question
points of doctrine, she immediately shows her vigilance. Attentive to every
voice raised against the instructions of her Divine Master, she fixes an observant
eye on the innovator. She examines whether he be a man deceived in matters
of doctrine or a wolf in sheep's clothing; she raises her warning voice, she
points out to all the faithful the error or the danger, and the voice of the Shepherd
recalls the wandering sheep; but if he refuse to listen to her, and prefer
to follow his own caprices, she separates him from the flock, and declares him
to resemble the wolf. From that moment all those who are sincerely desirous
of continuing in the bosom of the Church, can no more be infected with the
error.</p>

<p>Undoubtedly, Protestants will reproach Catholics with the number of visionaries
who have existed in the Church; they will recall the revelations and visions
of a great number of saints who are venerated on our altars; they will accuse
us of fanaticism,&mdash;a fanaticism, they will say, which, far from being limited in
its effects to a narrow circle, has been able to produce the most important results.
"Do not the founders of religious orders alone," they will say, "afford
us a spectacle of a long succession of fanatics, who, self-deluded, exercised upon
others, by their words and example, the greatest fascination that was ever seen?"</p>

<p>As this is not the place to enlarge upon the subject of religious communities,
which I propose to do in another part of this work, I shall content myself with
the observation, that even supposing that all the visions and revelations of our
saints and the heavenly inspirations with which the founders of religious orders
believed themselves to have been favored were delusions, our opponents would
not be in any way justified in throwing on the Church the reproach of fanaticism.
And, first, it is easy to see that, as far as individual visions are concerned,
as long as they are thus limited, there may be delusion, or, if you will,
fanaticism; but this fanaticism will not be injurious to any one, or create confusion
in society. If a poor woman believe herself to be peculiarly favoured
by Heaven, if she fancy that she hears the words of the Blessed Virgin, that
she converses with angels who bring her messages from God, all this may excite
the credulity of some and the raillery of others, but certainly it will not cost
society a drop of blood or a tear. As to the founders of religious orders, in
what way are they subject to the charge of fanaticism? Let us pass in silence
the profound respect which their virtues deserve, and the gratitude which humanity
owes them for the inestimable benefits conferred; let us suppose that
they were deceived in all their inspirations; we may certainly call this delusion,
but not fanaticism. We do not find in them either frenzy or violence; they
are men diffident in themselves, who, when they believe that they are called by
Heaven to a great design, never commence the work without having prostrated
themselves at the feet of the Sovereign Pontiff; they submit to his judgment
the rules for the establishment of their orders, they ask his instruction, listen
to his decision with docility, and do nothing without having obtained his permission.
How, then, do these founders of orders resemble the fanatics, who,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span>
putting themselves at the head of a furious multitude, kill, destroy, and leave
everywhere behind them traces of blood and ruin? We see in the founders of
religious orders men who, deeply impressed with an idea, devote themselves to
realize it, however great may be the sacrifice. Their conduct constantly shows
a fixed idea, which is developed according to a preconcerted plan, and is always
highly social and religious in its object: above all, this is submitted to authority,
maturely examined and corrected by the counsels of prudence. An impartial
philosopher, whatever may be his religious opinions, may find in all this
more or less illusion and prejudice, or prudence and address; but he cannot find
fanaticism, for there is nothing there which resembles it.<a href="#Note_12" class="fnanchor">12</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_IX" id="CHAPTER_IX">CHAPTER IX.</a><br />

<small>INFIDELITY AND INDIFFERENCE IN EUROPE, THE FRUITS OF PROTESTANTISM</small>.</h2>


<p>The fanaticism of sects, which is excited, kept alive, and nourished in Europe,
by the private judgment of Protestantism, is certainly an evil of the
greatest magnitude; yet it is not so mischievous or alarming as the infidelity
and religious indifference for which modern society is indebted to the pretended
Reformation. Brought on by the scandalous extravagances of so many sects of
<i lang="fr">soi-disant</i> Christians, infidelity and religious indifference, which have their root
even in the very principle of Protestantism, began to show themselves with
alarming symptoms in the sixteenth century; they have acquired with time
great diffusion, they have penetrated all the branches of science and literature,
have produced an effect on languages, and have endangered all the conquests
which civilization had gained during so many ages.</p>

<p>Even during the sixteenth century, and amid the hot disputes and religious
wars which Protestantism had enkindled, infidelity spread in an alarming manner;
and it is probable that it was even more common than it appeared to be,
as it was not easy to throw off the mask at a period so near to the time when
religious convictions had been so deeply rooted. It is very likely that infidelity
was propagated disguised under the mantle of the Reformation, and that sometimes
enlisting under the banner of one sect and sometimes of another, it
labored to weaken them all, in order to set up its own throne on the general
ruin of faith.</p>

<p>It does not require a great effort of logic to pass from Protestantism to Deism;
from Deism to Atheism, there is but a step; and there must have been, at the
time when these errors were broached, a large number of persons with reasoning
powers enough to carry them out to the fullest extent. The Christian religion,
as explained by Protestants, is only a kind of philosophic system more or
less reasonable; as, when fully examined, it has no divine character. How,
then, can it govern a reflecting and independent mind? Yes, one glance at the
first exhibitions of Protestantism must have been enough to incline all those
to religious indifference who, naturally disinclined to fanaticism, had lost the
anchor of the Church's authority. When we consider the language and conduct
of the sectarian leaders of that time, we are strongly inclined to suspect
that they laughed at all Christian faith; that they concealed their indifference
or their Atheism under strange doctrines which served as a standard, and that
they propagated their writings with very bad faith, while they disguised their
perfidious intention of preserving in the minds of their partisans sectarian
fanaticism.</p>

<p>Thus, listening to the dictates of good sense, the father of the famous Mon<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span>taigne,
although he had seen as yet only the preludes of the Reformation, said,
"that this beginning of evil would easily degenerate into execrable Atheism."
A very remarkable testimony, which has been preserved to us by his son himself,
who was certainly neither weak nor hypocritical. (<cite>Essais de Montaigne</cite>,
liv. ii. chap. 12.) When this man pronounced so wise a judgment on the real
tendency of Protestantism, did he imagine that his own son would confirm the
justness of his prediction? Everybody knows that Montaigne was one of the
first skeptics that became famous in Europe. It was requisite, at that time, for
men to be cautious in declaring themselves Atheists or indifferentists, among
Protestants themselves; and it may readily be imagined that all unbelievers
had not the boldness of Gruet; yet we may believe the celebrated theologian
of Toledo, Chacon, who said at the beginning of the last third of the sixteenth
century, "that the heresy of the Atheists, of those who believed nothing, had
great strength in France and in other countries."</p>

<p>Religious controversy continued to occupy the attention of all the savants of
Europe, and during this time the gangrene of infidelity made great progress.
This evil, from the middle of the seventeenth century, assumed a most alarming
aspect. Who is not dismayed at reading the profound thoughts of Pascal on
religious indifference? and who has not felt, in reading them, the emotion
which is caused in the soul by the presence of a dreadful evil?</p>

<p>Things were now much advanced, and unbelievers were not far from being
in a position, to take their rank among the schools who disputed for the upper
hand in Europe. With more or less of disguise, they had already for a long
time shown themselves under the form of Socinianism; but that did not suffice,
for Socinianism bore at least the name of a religious sect, and irreligion began
to feel itself strong enough to appear under its own name. The last part of the
seventeenth century presents a crisis which is very remarkable with respect to
religion;&mdash;a crisis which perhaps has not been well examined, although it exhibits
some very remarkable facts; I allude to a lassitude of religious disputes,
marked by two tendencies diametrically opposed to each other, and yet very
natural: one towards Catholicity and the other towards Atheism.</p>

<p>Every one knows how much disputing there had been up to this time on
religion; religious controversies were the prevailing taste, and it may be said
that they formed the principal occupation not only of ecclesiastics, both Catholic
and Protestant, but even of the well-educated laity. This taste penetrated the
palaces of kings and princes. The natural result of so many controversies was
to disclose the radical error of Protestantism: then the mind, which could not
remain firm on such slippery ground, was obliged, either to adopt authority, or
abandon itself to Atheism or complete indifference. These tendencies made
themselves very perceptibly felt; thus it was that at the very time when Bayle
thought Europe sufficiently prepared for his infidelity and skepticism, there was
going on an animated and serious correspondence for the reunion of the German
Protestants with the Catholic Church. Men of education are acquainted with
the discussions which took place between the Lutheran Molanus, abbot of
Lockum, and Christopher, at first Bishop of Tyna, and afterwards of Newstad.
The correspondence between the two most remarkable men at that time in
Europe of both communions, Bossuet and Leibnitz, is another monument of the
importance of these negotiations. The happy moment was not yet come;
political considerations, which ought to have vanished in the presence of such
lofty interests, exercised a mischievous influence on the great soul of Leibnitz,
and he did not preserve, throughout the progress of the discussions and negotiations,
the sincerity, good faith, and elevation of view, which he had evinced
at the commencement. The negotiation did not succeed, but the mere fact of
its existence shows clearly enough the void which was felt in Protestantism;
for we cannot believe that the two most celebrated men of that communion,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span>
Molanus and Leibnitz, would have advanced so far in so important a negotiation,
unless they had observed among themselves many indications of a disposition
to return to the bosom of the Church. Add to this, the declaration of the
Lutheran university of Helmstad in favor of the Catholic religion, and the
fresh attempts at a reunion made by a Protestant prince, who addressed himself
to Pope Clement XI., and you have strong reasons for believing that the
Reformation felt itself mortally wounded. If God had been willing to permit
that so great a result should appear to have been effected in any way by human
means, the deep convictions prevalent among the most distinguished Protestants
might perhaps have greatly contributed to heal the wounds which had been
inflicted upon religious unity by the revolutionists of the sixteenth century.</p>

<p>But the profound wisdom of God had decided otherwise. In allowing men
to pursue their own opposite and perverse inclinations, He was pleased to chastise
them by means of their own pride. The tendency towards unity was no
longer dominant in the next century, but gave place to a philosophic skepticism,
indifferent towards all other religions, but the deadly enemy of the Catholic.
It may be said that at that time there was a combination of the most fatal
influences to hinder the tendency towards unity from attaining its object.
Already were the Protestant sects divided and subdivided into numberless parties,
and although Protestantism was thereby weakened, yet, nevertheless, it
was diffused over the greater part of Europe; the germ of doubt in religious
matters had inoculated the whole of European society. There was no truth
which had escaped attack; no error or extravagance which had not had apostles
and proselytes; and it was much to be feared that men would fall into that
state of fatigue and discouragement which is the result of great efforts made
without success, and into that disgust which is always produced by endless disputes
and great scandals.</p>

<p>To complete the misfortune, and to bring to a climax the state of lassitude
and disgust, there was another evil, which produced the most fatal results.
The champions of Catholicity contended, with boldness and success, against the
religious innovations of Protestants. Languages, history, criticism, philosophy,
all that is most precious, rich, and brilliant in human knowledge, had been
employed in the noblest way in this important struggle; and the great men
who were most prominent among the defenders of the Church seemed to console
her for the sad losses which she had sustained by the troubles of another
age. But while she embraced in her arms these zealous sons, those who boasted
the most of being called her children, she observed in some of them, with surprise
and dread, an attitude of disguised hostility; and in their thinly veiled
language and conduct she could easily perceive that they meditated giving her
a fatal blow. Always asserting their submission and their obedience, but never
submitting or obeying; continually extolling the authority and divine origin
of the Church, and carefully concealing their hatred of her existing laws and
institutions under cover of professed zeal for the re-establishment of ancient
discipline; they sapped the foundations of morality, while they claimed to be
its earnest advocates; they disguised their hypocrisy and pride under false
humility and affected modesty; they called obstinacy firmness, and wilful
blindness strength of mind. This rebellion presented an aspect more dangerous
than any heresy; their honeyed words, studied candor, respect for antiquity,
and the show of learning and knowledge, would have contributed to blind the
best informed, if the innovators had not been distinguished by the constant and
unfailing characteristic of all erroneous sects, viz. hatred of authority.</p>

<p>They were seen from time to time struggling against the declared enemies
of the Church, defending, with great display of learning, the truth of her sacred
dogmas, citing, with respect and deference, the writings of the holy fathers, and
declaring that they adhered to tradition, and had a profound veneration for the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span>
decisions of councils and Popes. They particularly prided themselves on being
called Catholics, however much their language and conduct were inconsistent
with the name. Never did they get rid of the marvellous infatuation with which
they denied their existence as a sect; and thus did they throw in the way of
ill-informed persons the unhappy scandal of a dogmatical dispute, going on
apparently within the bosom of the Church herself. The Pope declared them
heretics; all true Catholics bowed to the decision of the Vicar of Jesus Christ;
from all parts of the world a voice was unanimously raised to pronounce
anathema against all who did not listen to the successor of St. Peter; but
they themselves, denying and eluding all, persisted in considering themselves
as a body of Catholics oppressed by the spirit of relaxation, abuse, and
intrigue.</p>

<p>This scandal gave the finishing stroke to the leading of men astray, and the
fatal gangrene which was infecting European society soon developed itself with
frightful rapidity. The religious disputes, the multitude and variety of sects,
the animosity which they showed against each other, all contributed to disgust
with religion itself whoever were not held fast by the anchor of authority. To
establish indifference as a system, atheism as a creed, and impiety as a fashion,
there was only wanting a man laborious enough to collect, unite, and present in
a body all the numerous materials which were scattered in a multitude of works;
a man who knew how to give to all this a philosophical complexion suitable to
the prevailing taste, and who could give to sophistry and declamation that seductive
appearance, that deceptive form and dazzling show, by which the productions
of genius are always marked, in the midst even of their wildest vagaries.
Such a man appeared in the person of Bayle. The noise which his famous
dictionary made in the world, and the favor which it enjoyed from the beginning,
show how well the author had taken advantage of his opportunity. The
dictionary of Bayle is one of those books which, considered apart from their
scientific and literary merit, always serve to denote a remarkable epoch, because
they present, together with the fruits of the past, the clear perception of a long
future. The author of such a work is not distinguished so much on account of
his own merit, as because he has known how to become the representative of
ideas previously diffused in society, but floating about in a state of uncertainty;
and yet his name recalls a vast history, of which he is the personification. The
publication of Bayle's work may be regarded as the solemn inauguration of the
chair of infidelity in Europe. The sophists of the eighteenth century found at
hand an abundant repository of facts and arguments; but to render the thing
complete, there was wanting a hand capable of retouching the old paintings, of
restoring their faded colors, and of shedding over all the charms of imagination
and the refinement of wit; there was wanting a guide to lead mankind by a
flowery path to the borders of the abyss. Scarcely had Bayle descended into
the tomb, when there appeared above the literary horizon a young man, whose
great talents were equalled by his malice and audacity; Voltaire.</p>

<p>It was necessary to draw the reader's attention to the period which I have
just described, to show him how great was the influence exercised by Protestantism
in producing and establishing in Europe the irreligion, atheism, and
fatal indifference which have caused so many evils in modern society. I do not
mean to charge all Protestants with impiety; and I willingly acknowledge the
sincerity and firmness of many of their most illustrious men, in struggling
against the progress of irreligion. I am not ignorant that men sometimes
adopt a principle and repudiate its consequences, and that it would, therefore,
be very unjust to class them with those who openly accept those consequences;
but on the other hand, however painful it may be to Protestants to avow that
their system leads to atheism, it is nevertheless a fact which cannot be denied.
All that they can claim of me on this point is, not to criminate their intentions;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span>
after that, they cannot complain if, guided by the instructions of history and
philosophy, I develop their fundamental principle to the fullest extent.</p>

<p>It would be useless to sketch, even in the most rapid manner, what has
passed in Europe since the appearance of Voltaire: the events are so recent,
and have been so often discussed, that all that I could say would be only a useless
repetition. I shall better attain my object by offering some remarks on the
actual state of religion in Protestant countries. Amid so many revolutions, and
when so many heads were turned; when all the foundations of society were
shaken, and the strongest institutions were torn out of the soil in which they
had been so deeply rooted; when even Catholic truth itself could not have been
sustained without the manifest aid of the arm of the Most High, we may imagine
the fate of the fragile edifice of Protestantism, exposed, like all the rest, to
so many and such violent attacks. No one is ignorant of the numberless sects
which abound in Great Britain, of the deplorable condition of faith among the
Swiss Protestants, even on the most important points. That there might be no
doubt as to the real state of the Protestant religion in Germany, that is, in its
native country, where it was first established as in its dearest patrimony, the
Protestant minister, Baron Starck, has taken care to tell us, that "<em>in Germany
there is not one single point of Christian faith which has not been openly attacked
by the Protestant ministers themselves</em>." The real state of Protestantism appears
to me to be truly and forcibly depicted by a curious idea of J. Heyer, a Protestant
minister. Heyer published, in 1818, a work entitled <i lang="fr">Coup d'œil sur les
Confessions de Foi</i>; not knowing how to get out of the difficulty in which all
Protestants found themselves placed when they had to choose a symbol, he proposed
the simple expedient of <em>getting rid of all symbols</em>.</p>

<p>The only way that Protestantism has of preserving itself, is to violate as much
as possible its own fundamental principle, by withdrawing the right of private
judgment, inducing the people to remain faithful to the opinions in which they
have been educated, and carefully concealing from them the inconsistency into
which they fall, when they submit to the authority of a private individual, after
having rejected the authority of the Catholic church. But things are not taking
this course; and in spite of the efforts of some Protestants to follow it, Bible
Societies, working with a zeal worthy of a better cause, in promoting among all
classes the private interpretation of the Bible, would suffice to keep alive always
the spirit of inquiry. This diffusion of the Bible operates as a constant appeal
to private judgment, which, after perhaps causing many days of sorrow and
mourning to society, will eventually destroy the remains of Protestantism. All
this has not escaped the notice of its disciples; and some of the most remarkable
among them have raised their voices to point out the danger.<a href="#Note_13" class="fnanchor">13</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_X" id="CHAPTER_X">CHAPTER X.</a><br />

<small>CAUSES OF THE CONTINUANCE OF PROTESTANTISM</small>.</h2>


<p>After having clearly shown the intrinsic weakness of Protestantism, it is
natural to ask this question: If it be so feeble, owing to the radical defects of
its constitution, why has it not by this time completely disappeared? If it bear
in its own breast the seeds of death, how has it been able so long to withstand
such powerful adversaries, as Catholicity, on the one hand, and irreligion or
Atheism, on the other? In order to resolve this question satisfactorily, it is
necessary to consider Protestantism in two points of view; as embodying a
fixed creed, and as expressing a number of sects, who, in spite of their numerous
mutual differences, agree in calling themselves Christians, and preserve a
shadow of Christianity, although they reject the authority of the Church. It<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span>
is necessary to consider Protestantism in this double point of view, since its
founders, while endeavoring to destroy the authority and dogmas of the Roman
Church, were compelled to form a system of doctrines to serve as a symbol for
their followers. Considered in the first aspect, it has almost entirely disappeared;
we should rather say it scarcely ever had existence. This truth is
sufficiently evident from what I have said of the variations and actual condition
of Protestantism in the various countries of Europe; time has shown how much
the pretended Reformers were deceived, when they fancied that they could fix
the columns of Hercules of the human mind, to repeat the expression of Madame
de Staël.</p>

<p>Who now defends the doctrines of Luther and Calvin? Who respects the
limits which they prescribed? What Protestant Church distinguishes itself by
the ardor of its zeal in preserving any particular dogmas? What Protestant
now holds the divine mission of Luther, or believes the Pope to be Antichrist?
Who watches over the purity of doctrine, and points out errors? Who opposes
the torrent of sectarianism?</p>

<p>Do we find, in their writings, or in their discourses, the energetic tones of
conviction, or the zeal of truth? In fine, what a wide difference do we find
when we compare the Protestant Church with the Catholic! Inquire into the
faith of the latter, and you will hear from the mouth of Gregory XVI., the
successor of St. Peter, the same that Luther heard from Leo X. Compare the
doctrine of Leo X. with that of his predecessors, you will always find it the
same up to the Apostles, and to Jesus Christ himself. If you attempt to assail
a dogma, if you try to attack the purity of morals, the voice of the ancient
Fathers will denounce your errors, and in the middle of the nineteenth century
you will imagine that the old Leos and Gregories are risen from the tomb. If
your intentions are good, you will find indulgence; if your merits are great, you
will be treated with respect; if you occupy an elevated position in the world,
you will have attention paid to you. But if you attempt to abuse your talents
by introducing novelty in doctrine; if, by your power, you aspire to demand a
modification of faith; and if, to avoid troubles or prevent schism, or conciliate
any one, you ask for a compromise or even an ambiguous explanation; the
answer of the successor of St. Peter will be, "Never! faith is a sacred deposit
which we cannot alter; truth is immutable; it is one:" and to this reply of
the Vicar of Jesus Christ, which with a word will banish all your hopes, will
be added those of the modern Athanasiuses, Gregories of Nazianzen, Ambroses,
Jeromes, and Augustins. Always the same firmness in the same faith, the
same unchangeableness, the same energy in preserving the sacred deposit intact,
in defending it against the attacks of error, in teaching it to the faithful in all
its purity, and in transmitting it unaltered to future generations. Will it be
said that this is obstinacy, blindness, and fanaticism? But, eighteen centuries
gone by, the revolutions of empires, the most fearful catastrophes, an infinite
variety of ideas and manners, the most severe persecutions, the darkness of
ignorance, the conflicts of passion, the lights of knowledge,&mdash;none of these
have been able to enlighten this blindness, to bend this obstinacy, or extinguish
this fanaticism. Certainly a reflecting Protestant, one of those who know how
to rise above the prejudices of education, when fixing his eyes on this picture,
the truth of which he cannot but acknowledge, if he is well informed on the
question, will feel strong doubts arise within him as to the truth of the instruction
he has received; he will at least feel a desire of examining more closely
this great prodigy which the Catholic Church presents to us. But to return.</p>

<p>We see the Protestant sects melting away daily, and this dissolution must
constantly increase; nevertheless, we have no reason to be astonished that
Protestantism, inasmuch as it consists of a number of sects who preserve the
name and some remains of Christianity, does not wholly disappear; for how<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span>
could it disappear? Either Protestant nations must be completely swallowed
up by irreligion or atheism, or they must give up Christianity and adopt one
of the religions which are established in other parts of the world. Now both
these suppositions are impossible; therefore this false form of Christianity has
been and will be preserved, in some shape or other, until Protestants return to
the bosom of the Church.</p>

<p>Let us develop these ideas. Why cannot Protestant nations be completely
swallowed up by irreligion and atheism, or indifference? Because such a misfortune
may happen to an individual, but not to a nation. By means of false
books, erroneous reasonings, and continual efforts, some individuals may extinguish
the lively sentiments of their hearts, stifle the voice of conscience, and
trample under foot the dictates of common sense; but a nation cannot do so.
A people always preserves a large fund of candor and docility, which, amid the
most fatal errors and even the most atrocious crimes, compels it to lend an
attentive ear to the inspirations of nature. Whatever may be the corruption of
morals, whatever may be the errors of opinion, there will never be more than a
small number of men found capable of struggling for a long time against themselves,
in the attempt to eradicate from their hearts that fruitful germ of good
feelings, that precious seed of virtuous thoughts, with which the beneficent
hand of the Creator has enriched our souls. The conflagration of the passions,
it is true, produces lamentable prostration, and sometimes terrible explosions;
but when the fire is extinguished, man returns to himself, and his mind becomes
again accessible to the voice of reason and virtue. An attentive study
of society proves that the number of men is happily very small who are, as it
were, steeled against truth and virtue; who reply with frivolous sophistry to
the admonitions of good sense; who oppose with cold stoicism the sweetest and
most generous inspirations of nature, and venture to display, as an illustration
of philosophy, firmness, and elevation of mind, the ignorance, obstinacy, and
barrenness of an icy heart. The generality of mankind, more simple, more
candid, more natural, are consequently ill-suited to a system of atheism, or indifference.
Such a system may take possession of the proud mind of a learned
visionary; it may be adopted, as a convenient opinion, by dissipated youth; and
in times of agitation, it may influence a few fiery spirits; but it will never be
able to establish itself in society as a normal condition.</p>

<p>No, by no means. An individual may be irreligious, but families and society
never will. Without a basis on which the social edifice must rest; without a
great creative idea, whence will flow the ideas of reason, virtue, justice, obligation,
and right, which are as necessary to the existence and preservation of
society as blood and nourishment are to the life of the individual, society would
be destroyed; without the sweet ties by which religious ideas unite together the
members of a family, without the heavenly harmony which they infuse into all
its connections, the family would cease to exist, or at least would be only a
rude and transient union, resembling the intercourse of animals. God has
happily gifted all his creatures with a marvellous instinct of self-preservation.
Guided by that instinct, families and society repudiate with indignation those
degrading ideas which, blasting by their fatal breath all the germs of life,
breaking all ties, upsetting all laws, make both of them retrograde towards the
most abject barbarism, and finish by scattering their members like dust before
the wind.</p>

<p>The repeated lessons of experience ought to have convinced certain philosophers
that these ideas and feelings, engraven on the heart of man by the finger
of the Author of nature, cannot be eradicated by declamation or sophistry. If
a few ephemeral triumphs have occasionally flattered their pride, and made them
conceive false hopes of the result of their efforts, the course of events has soon
shown them, that to pride themselves on these triumphs was to act like a man<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span>
who, on account of having succeeded in infusing unnatural sentiments into the
hearts of a few mothers, would flatter himself that he has banished maternal
love from the world. Society (I do not mean the populace or the commonalty)&mdash;society
will be religious, even at the risk of being superstitious; if it does
not believe in reasonable things, it will in extravagant ones; and if it have not
a divine religion, it will have a human one: to suppose the contrary, is to
dream; to struggle against this tendency, is to struggle against an eternal law;
to attempt to restrain it, is to attempt to restrain with a weak arm a body
launched with an immense force&mdash;the arm will be destroyed, but the body will
continue its course. Men may call this superstition, fanaticism, the result of
error; but to talk thus can only serve to console them for their failure.</p>

<p>Since, then, religion is a real necessity, we have therein an explanation of the
phenomenon which history and experience present to us, namely, that religion
never wholly disappears, and that when changes take place, the two rival religions,
during their struggles, more or less protracted, occupy successively the
same ground. The consequence is, that Protestantism cannot entirely disappear
unless another religion takes its place. Now, as in the actual state of civilization,
no religion can replace it but the Catholic, it is evident that Protestant
sects will continue to occupy, with more or less variation, the countries which
they have gained.</p>

<p>Indeed, how is it possible, in the present state of civilization among Protestant
nations, that the follies of the Koran, or the absurdities of idolatry, should
have any chance of success among them? The spirit of Christianity circulates
in the veins of modern society; its seal is set upon all legislation; its
light is shed upon all branches of knowledge; its phraseology is found in all
languages; its precepts regulate morals; habits and manners have assumed its
form; the fine arts breathe its perfume, and all the monuments of genius are
full of its inspirations. Christianity, in a word, pervades all parts of that great,
varied, and fertile civilization, which is the glory of modern society. How
then, is it possible for a religion entirely to disappear which possesses, with the
most venerable antiquity, so many claims to gratitude, so many endearing ties,
and so many glorious recollections? How could it give place, among Christian
nations, to one of those religions which, at the first glance, show the finger of
man, and indicate, as their distinctive mark, degradation and debasement?
Although the essential principle of Protestantism saps the foundations of the
Christian religion, although it disfigures its beauty, and lowers its sublimity,
yet the remains which it preserves of Christianity, its idea of God, and its
maxims of morality, raise it far above all the systems of philosophy, and all
the other religions of the world.</p>

<p>If, then, Protestantism has preserved some shadow of the Christian religion,
it was because, looking at the condition of the nations who took part in the
schism, it was impossible for the Christian name wholly to disappear; and not
on account of any principle of life contained in the bosom of the pretended
Reformation. On the other hand, consider the efforts of politicians, the natural
attachment of ministers to their own interests, the illusions of pride which flatter
men with the freedom they will enjoy in the absence of all authority, the
remains of old prejudices, the power of education, and such like causes, and you
will find a complete solution of the question. Then you will no longer be surprised
that Protestantism continues to retain possession of many of those countries
where it unfortunately became deeply rooted.</p>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span></p>


<div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XI" id="CHAPTER_XI">CHAPTER XI.</a><br />

<small>THE POSITIVE DOCTRINES OF PROTESTANTISM REPUGNANT TO THE
INSTINCT OF CIVILIZATION</small>.</h2>


<p>The best proof of the extreme weakness of Protestantism, considered as a
body of doctrine, is the little influence which its positive doctrines have exercised
in European civilization. I call its positive doctrines those which it
attempts to establish as its own; and I distinguish them thus from its other
doctrines, which I call negative, because they are nothing but the negation of
authority. The latter found favor on account of their conformity with the
inconstancy and changeableness of the human mind; but the others, which have
not the same means of success, have all disappeared with their authors, and are
now plunged in oblivion. The only part of Christianity which has been preserved
among Protestants, is that which was necessary to prevent European
civilization from losing among them its nature and character; and this is the
reason why the doctrines which had too direct a tendency to alter the nature
of this civilization have been repudiated, we should rather say, despised by it.</p>

<p>There is a circumstance here well worthy of attention, and which has not
perhaps been noticed, viz. the fate of the doctrine held by the first reformers
with respect to free-will. It is well known that one of the first and most important
errors of Luther and Calvin consisted in denying free-will. We find
this fatal doctrine professed in the works which they have left us. Does it not
seem that this doctrine ought to have preserved its credit among the Protestants,
and that they ought to have fiercely maintained it, since such is commonly the
case with errors which serve as a nucleus in the formation of a sect? It seems,
also, that Protestantism being widely spread, and deeply rooted in several
countries of Europe, this fatalist doctrine ought to have exercised a strong influence
on the legislation of Protestant nations. Wonderful as it is, such has not
been the case; European moralists have despised it; legislation has not adopted
it as a basis; civilization has not allowed itself to be directed by a principle
which sapped all the foundations of morality, and which, if once applied to
morals and laws, would have substituted for European civilization and dignity
the barbarism and debasement of Mahometanism.</p>

<p>There is no doubt that this fatal doctrine has perverted some individuals; it
has been adopted by sects more or less numerous; and it cannot be denied that
it has affected the morality of some nations. But it is also certain, that, in the
generality of the great human family, governments, tribunals, administration,
legislation, science, and morals, have not listened to this horrible doctrine of
Luther,&mdash;a doctrine which strips man of his free will, which makes God the
author of sin, which charges the Creator with the responsibility of all the
crimes of His creatures, and represents Him as a tyrant, by affirming that His
precepts are impossible; a doctrine which monstrously confounds the ideas of
good and evil, and removes all stimulus to good deeds, by teaching that faith
is sufficient for salvation, and that all the good works of the just are only sins.</p>

<p>Public opinion, good sense, and morality here side with Catholicity. Those
even who in theory embrace these fatal religious doctrines, usually reject them
in practice; this is because Catholic instruction on these important points has
made so deep an impression on them; because so strong an instinct of civilization
has been communicated to European society by the Catholic religion.
Thus the Church, by repudiating the destructive errors taught by Protestantism,
preserved society from being debased by these fatalist doctrines. The Church
formed a barrier against the despotism which is enthroned wherever the sense
of dignity is lost; she was a fence against the demoralization which always
spreads whenever men think themselves bound by blind necessity, as by an<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span>
iron chain; she also freed the human mind from the state of abjection into
which it falls whenever it thinks itself deprived of the government of its own
conduct, and of the power of influencing the course of events. In condemning
those errors of Luther, which were the bond of Protestantism at its birth, the
Pope raised the alarm against an irruption of barbarism into the order of ideas;
he saved morality, laws, public order, and society; the Vatican, by securing
the noble sentiment of liberty in the sanctuary of conscience, preserved the
dignity of man; by struggling against Protestant ideas, by defending the sacred
deposit confided to it by its Divine Master, the Roman See became the tutelary
divinity of future civilization.</p>

<p>Reflect on these great truths, understand them thoroughly, you who speak
of religious disputes with cold indifference, with apparent mockery and pity, as
if they were only scholastic puerilities. Nations <em>do not live on bread alone</em>;
they live also on ideas, on maxims, which, converted into spiritual aliment, give
them greatness, strength, and energy, or, on the contrary, weaken them, reduce
them, and condemn them to stupidity. Look over the face of the globe, examine
the periods of human history, compare times with times, and nations with
nations, and you will see that the Church, by giving so much importance to the
preservation of these transcendent truths, by accepting no compromise on this
point, has understood and realized better than any other teacher, the elevated
and salutary maxim, that truth ought to reign in the world; that on the order
of ideas depends the order of events, and that when these great problems are
called in question, the destinies of humanity are involved.</p>

<p>Let us recapitulate what we have said; the essential principle of Protestantism
is one of destruction; this is the cause of its incessant variations, of its dissolution
and annihilation. As a particular religion it no longer exists, for it has no
peculiar faith, no positive character, no government, nothing that is essential to
form an existence; Protestantism is only a negative. If there is any thing to
be found in it of a positive nature, it is nothing more than vestiges and ruins;
all is without force, without action, without the spirit of life. It cannot show
an edifice raised by its own hands; it cannot, like Catholicity, stand in the
midst of its vast works and say, "These are mine." Protestantism can only sit
down on a heap of ruins, and say with truth, "I have made this pile."</p>

<p>As long as sectarian fanaticism lasted, as long as this flame, enkindled by
furious declamation, was kept alive by unhappy circumstances, Protestantism
showed a certain degree of force, which, although it was not the sign of vigorous
life, at least indicated the convulsive energy of delirium. But that period
has passed, the action of time has dispersed the elements that fed the flame,
and none of the attempts which have been made to give to the Reformation the
character of a work of God, have been able to conceal the fact that it was the
work of human passions. Let us not be deceived by the efforts which are now
being made; what is acting under our eyes is not living Protestantism, it is the
operation of false philosophy, perhaps of policy, sometimes of sordid interest
disguised under the name of policy. Every one knows how powerful Protestantism
was in exciting disturbances and causing disunion. It is on this account
that evil-minded men search in the bed of this exhausted torrent for some
remains of its impure waters, and knowing them to contain a deadly poison,
present them to the unsuspecting in a golden cup.</p>

<p>But it is in vain for weak man to struggle against the arm of the Almighty,
God will not abandon His work. Notwithstanding all his attempts to deface
the work of God, man cannot blot out the eternal characters which distinguish
truth from error. Truth in itself is strong and robust: as it is the ensemble
of the relations which unite things together, it is strongly connected with them,
and cannot be separated either by the efforts of man or by the revolution of
time. Error, on the contrary, the lying image of the great ties which bind to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span>gether
the compact mass of the universe, stretches over its usurped domain like
those dead branches of the forest which, devoid of sap, afford neither freshness
nor verdure, and only serve to impede the advance of the traveller.</p>

<p>Confiding men, do not allow yourselves to be seduced by brilliant appearances,
pompous discourse, or false activity. Truth is open, modest, without
suspicion, because it is pure and strong; error is hypocritical and ostentatious,
because it is false and weak. Truth resembles a woman of real beauty, who,
conscious of her charms, despises the affectation of ornament; error, on the
contrary, paints and ornaments herself, because she is ugly, without expression,
without grace, without dignity. Perhaps you may be pleased with its laborious
activity. Know, then, that it has no strength but when it is the rallying cry of
a faction; then, indeed, it is rapid in action and fertile in violent measures. It
is like the meteor which explodes and vanishes, leaving behind it nothing but
darkness, death, and destruction; truth, on the contrary, like the sun, sends
forth its bright and steady beams, fertilizes with its genial warmth, and sheds on
every side life, joy, and beauty.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XII" id="CHAPTER_XII">CHAPTER XII.</a><br />

<small>THE EFFECTS WHICH THE INTRODUCTION OF PROTESTANTISM INTO
SPAIN WOULD HAVE PRODUCED</small>.</h2>


<p>In order to judge of the real effect which the introduction of Protestant
doctrines would have had in Spain, we shall do well, in the first place, to take a
survey of the present state of religion in Europe. In spite of the confusion of
ideas which is one of the prevailing characteristics of the age, it is undeniable
that the spirit of infidelity and irreligion has lost much of its strength, and that
where it still exists it has merged into indifference, instead of preserving its
systematic form of the last century. With the lapse of time declamation
ceases; men grow tired of continually repeating the same insulting language;
their minds resist the intolerance and bad faith of sects; systems betray their
emptiness, opinions their erroneousness, judgments their precipitation, and reasonings
their want of exactitude. Time shows their counterfeit intentions, their
deceptive statements, the littleness of their ideas, and the mischievousness of
their projects; truth begins to recover its empire, things regain their real names,
and, thanks to the new direction of the public mind, that which before was considered
innocent and generous is now looked upon as criminal and vile. The
deceitful masks are taken off, and falsehood is discovered surrounded by the discredit
which ought always to have accompanied it.</p>

<p>Irreligious ideas, like all those which are prevalent in an advanced state of
society, would not, and could not be confined to mere speculation; they invaded
the domain of practice, and labored to gain the upper hand in all branches of
administration and politics. But the revolution which they produced in society
became fatal to themselves; for there is nothing which better exposes the faults
and errors of a system, and undeceives men on the subject, than the touchstone
of experience. There is in our minds a certain power of viewing an object
under a variety of aspects, and an unfortunate aptitude for supporting the most
extravagant proposition by a multitude of sophisms. In mere disputation, it is
difficult for the most reasoning minds to keep clear of the snares of sophistry.
But when we come to experience, it is otherwise; the mind is silent, and facts
speak; and if the experience has been on a large scale, and applied to objects
of great interest and importance, it is difficult for the most specious arguments
to counteract the convincing eloquence of the result. Hence it is that a man
of much experience obtains an instinct so sure and delicate, that when a system<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span>
is but explained he can point out all its inconveniences. Inexperience, presumptuous
and prejudiced, appeals to argument in support of its doctrines; but
good sense, that precious and inestimable quality, shakes its head, shrugs its
shoulders, and with a tranquil smile leaves its prediction to be tested by time.</p>

<p>It is not necessary now to insist on the practical results of those doctrines of
which infidelity was the motto; we have said enough on that subject. Suffice
it to say, that those same men who seem to belong to the last century by their
principles, interests, recollections, or for other reasons, have been obliged to
modify their doctrines, to limit their principles, to palliate their propositions, to
cool the warmth and passion of their invectives; and when they wish to give a
mark of their esteem and veneration for those writers who were the delight of
their youth, they are compelled to declare "that those men were great philosophers,
but philosophers of the cabinet;" as if in reality what they call the
knowledge of the cabinet was not the most dangerous ignorance.</p>

<p>It is certain that these attempts have had the effect of throwing discredit on
irreligion as a system. If people do not regard it with horror, at least they
look upon it with mistrust. Irreligion has labored in all the branches of science,
in the vain hope that the heavens would cease to relate the glories of God, that
the earth would disown Him who laid its foundations, and that all nature would
give testimony against the Lord who gave it existence and life. These same
labors have banished the scandalous division which had begun between religion
and science; so that the ancient accents of the man of Hus have again resounded,
without dishonor to science, in the mouths of men in the nineteenth century;
and what shall we say of the triumphs of religion in all that is noble, tender,
and sublime on earth? How grand are the operations of Providence displayed
therein! Admirable dispensation! The mysterious hand which governs the
universe seems to hold in reserve for every great crisis of society an extraordinary
man. At the proper moment this man presents himself; he advances,
himself ignorant whither he is going, but he advances with a firm step towards
the accomplishment of the high mission for which Providence has destined
him.</p>

<p>Atheism was bathing France in a sea of tears and blood; an unknown man
silently traverses the ocean. While the violence of the tempest rends the sails
of his vessel, he listens attentively to the hurricane&mdash;he is lost in the contemplation
of the majesty of the heavens. Wandering in the solitudes of America,
he asks of the wonders of creation the name of their Author; the thunder on
the confines of the desert, the low murmuring of the forests, and the beauties
of nature answer him with canticles of love and harmony. The view of a solitary
cross reveals to him mysterious secrets; the traces of an unknown missionary
awaken important recollections which connect the new world with the
old; a monument in ruins, the hut of a savage, excite in his mind thoughts
which penetrate to the foundations of society and to the heart of man. Intoxicated
with these spectacles, his mind full of sublime conceptions, and his heart
inundated with the charms of so much beauty, this man returns to his native
soil. What does he find there? The bloody traces of Atheism; the ruins and
ashes of ancient temples devoured by the flames or destroyed by violence; the
remains of a multitude of innocent victims, buried in the graves which formerly
afforded an asylum to persecuted Christians. He observes, however, that
something is in agitation; he sees that religion is about to redescend upon
France, like consolation upon the unfortunate, or the breath of life upon a
corpse. From that moment he hears on all sides a concert of celestial harmony;
the inspirations of meditation and solitude revive and ferment in his
great soul; transported out of himself, and ravished into ecstasy, he sings with
a tongue of fire the glories of religion, he reveals the delicacy and beauty of the
relations between religion and nature, and in surpassing language he points out<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span>
to astonished men the mysterious golden chain which connects the heavens and
the earth. That man was Chateaubriand.</p>

<p>It must, however, be confessed, that the confusion which has been introduced
into ideas cannot be corrected in a short time, and that it is not easy to
eradicate the deep traces of the ravages of irreligion. Men's minds, it is true,
are tired of the irreligious system; society, which had lost its balance, is
generally ill at ease; the family feels its ties relaxed, and individuals sigh after
a ray of light, a drop of hope and consolation. But where shall the world find
the remedy which is wanting? Will it follow the best road&mdash;the only road?
Will it re-enter the fold of the Catholic Church? Alas! God alone knows the
secrets of the future; He alone has clearly unfolded before His eyes the great
events which are no doubt awaiting humanity. He alone knows what will be
the result of that activity, of that energy, which again urges men to the examination
of great political and religious questions; and He alone knows what, to
future generations, will be the result of the triumphs obtained by religion, in
the fine arts, in literature, in science, in politics, in all the operations carried on
by the human mind.</p>

<p>As to us, carried away as we are by the rapid and precipitate course of revolution,
hardly have we time to cast a fleeting glance upon the chaos in which
our country is involved. What can we confidently predict? All that we can
be sure of is, that we are in an age of disquietude, of agitation, of transition;
that the multiplied examples and warnings of so many disappointed expectations,
the fruits of fearful revolutions and unheard-of catastrophes, have everywhere
thrown discredit upon irreligious and disorganizing doctrines, without
having established the legitimate empire of true religion. Hearts sick of so
many misfortunes are willingly open to hope; but minds are in a state of great
uncertainty as to the future: perhaps they even anticipate a new series of
calamities. Owing to revolutions, to the efforts of industry, to the activity and
extension of commerce, to the progress and prodigious diffusion of printing, to
scientific discoveries, to the ease, rapidity, and universality of communication,
to the taste for travelling, to the dissolving action of Protestantism, of incredulity,
and skepticism, the human mind certainly now presents one of the most
singular phases of its history. Reason, imagination, and the heart are in a state
of agitation, of movement, and of extraordinary development, and show us at
the same time the most singular contrasts, the most ridiculous extravagances,
and the most absurd contradictions. Observe the sciences, and you will no
longer find those lengthened labors, that indefatigable patience, that calm and
tranquil progress, which characterized these studies at other epochs; but you
will find there a spirit of observation, and a tendency to place questions in that
transcendental point of view where may be discovered the relations subsisting
between them, the ties by which they are connected, and the way in which they
throw light upon each other. Questions of religion, of politics, of legislation,
of morals, of government, are all mingled, stand prominently forward, and give
to the horizon of science a grandeur and immensity which it did not previously
possess. This progress, this confusion, this chaos, if you like to call it so, is a
fact which must be taken into account in studying the spirit of the age, in
examining the religious condition of the time; for it is not the work of a single
man, or the effect of accident; it is the result of a multitude of causes, the fruit
of a great number of facts; it is an expression of the present state of intelligence;
a symptom of strength and disease, an announcement of change and of
transition, perhaps a sign of consolation, perhaps a presage of misfortune. And
who has not observed the fertility of imagination and unbounded reach of
thought in that literature, so various, so irregular, and so vague, but at the
same time so rich in fine images, in delicate feeling, and in bold and generous
thought? You may talk as much as you please of the debasement of science,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span>
of the falling off in study. You may speak in a tone of derision of the <em>lights
of the age</em>, and turn with regret to ages more studious and more learned; there
will be some exaggeration, truth and error, in all this, as there always is in
declamation of this kind; but whatever may be the degree of utility belonging
to the present labors of the human mind, never, perhaps, was there a time when
it displayed more activity and energy, never was it agitated by a movement so
general, so lively, so various, and never, perhaps, did it desire, with a more
excusable curiosity and impatience, to raise a part of the veil which covers the
boundless future. What will be able to govern elements so powerful and so
opposite? What can calm this tempestuous sea? What will give the union,
the connection, the consistency necessary to form, out of these repulsive and
discordant elements, a whole compact and capable of resisting the action of
time? Will this be done by Protestantism, with its fundamental principle
which establishes and diffuses and sanctions the dissolving principle of private
interpretation in matters of religion, and realizes this unhappy notion by circulating
among all classes of society copies of the Bible?</p>

<p>Nations numerous, proud of their power, vain of their knowledge, rendered
dissipated by pleasure, refined by luxury, continually exposed to the powerful
influence of the press, and possessing means of communication which would
have appeared fabulous to their ancestors; nations in whom all the violent passions
have an object, all intrigues an existence, all corruptions a veil, all crimes
a title, all errors an advocate, all interests a support; nations which, warned
and deceived, still vacillate in a state of dreadful uncertainty between truth and
falsehood; sometimes looking at the torch of truth as if they meant to be
guided by its light, and then again seduced by an <i lang="la">ignis fatuus</i>; sometimes
making an effort to rule the storm, and then abandoning themselves to its violence;
modern nations show us a picture as extraordinary as it is interesting,
where hopes, fears, prognostics, and conjectures have free scope, and nobody
can pretend to predict with accuracy, and the wise man must await in silence
the dénouement marked out in the secret decrees of God, where alone are clearly
written the events of all time, and the future destinies of men.</p>

<p>But it may be easily understood that Protestantism, on account of its essentially
dissolving nature, is incapable of producing any thing in morals or religion
to increase the happiness of nations, for it is impossible for this happiness
to exist as long as men's minds are at war on the most important questions
which can occupy them.</p>

<p>When the observer, amid this chaos and obscurity, seeks for a ray of light
to illuminate the world&mdash;for a powerful principle capable of putting an end to
so much confusion and anarchy, and of bringing back men's minds to the path
of truth, Catholicity immediately presents herself to him, as the only source of
all these benefits. When we consider with what <i lang="fr">éclat</i> and with what power
Catholicity maintains herself against all the unprecedented attempts which are
made to destroy her, our hearts are filled with hope and consolation; and we
feel inclined to hail this divine religion, and to congratulate her on the new
triumph which she is about to achieve on earth.</p>

<p>There was a time when Europe, inundated by a torrent of barbarians, saw at
once overwhelmed all the monuments of ancient civilization and refinement.
Legislators and their laws, the empire and its power and splendor, philosophers
and the sciences, the arts and their <i lang="fr">chef-d'œuvres</i>, all disappeared; and those
immense regions, where had flourished all the civilization and refinement that
had been gained during so many ages, were suddenly plunged into ignorance
and barbarism. Nevertheless, the spark of light which had appeared to the
world in Palestine, continued to shine amid the chaos: in vain did whirlwinds
threaten to extinguish it; kept alive by the breath of the Eternal, it continued
to shine. Ages rolled away, and it appeared with greater brilliancy; and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span>
when, perchance, the nations only expected a beam of light to guide them in
the darkness, they found a resplendent sun, everywhere diffusing life and light:
and who shall say that there is not reserved for her in the secrets of the Eternal,
another triumph more difficult, but not less useful, not less brilliant? If
in other times that religion instructed ignorance, civilized barbarism, polished
rudeness, softened ferocity, and preserved society from being always the prey
of the fiercest brutality and the most degrading stupidity, will it be less glorious
for her to correct ideas, to harmonize and refine feelings, to establish the eternal
principles of society, to curb the passions, to remove animosities, to remove excesses,
to govern all minds and hearts? How honorable will it be to her, if,
while regulating all things, and unceasingly stimulating all kinds of knowledge
and improvement, she can inspire with a proper spirit of moderation that society
which so many elements, devoid of central attraction, threaten every moment
with dissolution and death!</p>

<p>It is not given to man to penetrate the future; but in the same way as the
physical world would be broken up by a terrible catastrophe, if it were deprived
for a moment of the fundamental principle which gives unity, order, and concert
to the various movements of the system; in the same way, if society, full
as it is of motion, of communication, and life, were not placed under the direction
of a constant and universal regulating principle, we could not fix our eyes
on the lot of future generations without the greatest alarm.</p>

<p>There is, however, a fact which is consoling in the highest degree, viz. the
wonderful progress which Catholicity has made in different countries. It is
gaining strength in France and Belgium: the obstinacy with which it is combated
in the north of Europe shows how much it is feared. In England its
progress has been recently so great that it would not be credited without the
most irresistible evidence; and in the foreign missions it has shown an extent
of enterprise and fruitfulness, worthy of the time of its greatest ascendency and
power.</p>

<p>When other nations tend towards unity, shall we commit the gross mistake
of adopting schism? at a time when other nations would be happy to find within
their bosoms a vital principle capable of restoring the power which incredulity
has destroyed, shall Spain, which preserves Catholicity, and alone possesses it
full and complete, allow the germ of death to be introduced into her bosom,
thereby rendering impossible the cure of her evils, or rather entailing on herself
complete and certain ruin? Amid the moral regeneration towards which
nations are advancing, seeking to quit the painful position in which they have
been placed by irreligious doctrines, is it possible to overlook the immense advantage
which Spain still preserves over most of them? Spain is one of those
least affected by the gangrene of irreligion; she still preserves religious unity,
that inestimable inheritance of a long line of ages. Is it possible to overlook
the advantage of that unity if properly made use of, that unity which is mixed
up with all our glories, which awakens such noble recollections, and which may
be made so wonderful an instrument in the regeneration of social order?</p>

<p>If I am asked my opinion of the nearness of the danger, and if I think the
present attempts of Protestants have any probability of success, I must draw a
distinction in my reply. Protestantism is extremely weak, both on account of
its own nature, and of its age and decaying condition. In endeavoring to introduce
itself into Spain, it will have to contend with an adversary full of life and
strength, and deeply rooted in the soil. This is the reason why I think that
its direct action is not to be feared; and yet, if it should succeed in establishing
itself in any part of our country, however limited may be its domain, it is sure
to produce fearful results. It is evident that we shall then have in the midst
of us a new apple of discord, and it is not difficult to foresee that collisions will
frequently arise. Protestantism in Spain, besides its intrinsic weakness, will<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span>
labor under the disadvantage of not finding its natural aliment. Hence it will
be obliged to take advantage of any support that is offered; it will immediately
become the point of reunion for the discontented; and although failing in its
intended object, it will succeed in becoming the nucleus of new parties and the
banner of factions. Scandal, strife, demoralization, troubles, and perhaps catastrophes,&mdash;such
will be the immediate and infallible results of the introduction
of Protestantism among us. On this point I appeal to the candid opinion of
every man who is well acquainted with Spain. But this is not all: the question
is enlarged, and acquires an incalculable importance, if we consider it with
reference to foreign politics. What a lever will be afforded to foreigners for all
kinds of attempts in our unhappy country! How gladly will those, who are
perhaps on the look-out for such an aid, avail themselves of it!</p>

<p>There is in Europe a nation remarkable for her immense power, and worthy
of respect on account of the great progress which she has made in the arts and
sciences; a nation that holds in her hands powerful means of action in all parts
of the world, and knows how to use them with wonderful discretion and sagacity.
As that nation has taken the lead in modern times in passing through
all the phases of political and religious revolution, and has seen, during fearful
convulsions, the passions in all their nakedness, and crime in all its forms, she
is better acquainted than all others with their causes.</p>

<p>Not misled by the vain names under which, at such periods, the lowest passions
and the most sordid interests disguise themselves, she is too much on her
guard to allow the troubles which have inundated other countries with tears
and blood, to be easily excited within herself. Her internal peace is not disturbed
by the agitation and heat of disputes; although she may expect to have
to encounter, sooner or later, difficulties and embarrassments, she enjoys, in the
mean time, the tranquillity which is secured to her by her constitution, her
manners, her riches,&mdash;and, above all, by the ocean which surrounds her. Placed
in so advantageous a position, that nation watches the progress of others, for the
purpose of attaching them to her car by golden chains, if they are simple enough
to listen to her flattery; at least she attempts to hinder their advance, when a
noble independence is about to free them from her influence. Always attentive
to her own aggrandizement, by means of commerce and the arts, and by a policy
eminently mercantile, she hides her self-interest under all sorts of disguises;
and although religion and politics, where she has to do with another people, are
quite indifferent to her, she knows how to make an adroit use of these powerful
arms, to make friends, to defeat her enemies, and to enclose all within the net
of commerce, which she is always extending in all quarters of the world. Her
sagacity must necessarily have perceived how much progress she will have
made in adding Spain to the number of her colonies, when she has persuaded
the Spanish people to fraternize with her in religion; not so much on account
of the sympathy which such a fraternization would establish between them, as
because she would find therein a sure method of stripping the Spanish people
of that peculiar character and grave appearance which distinguishes them from
all others, by depriving them of the only national and regenerative idea which
remains to them after so many convulsions; from that moment, in truth, Spain,
that proud nation, would be rendered accessible to all kinds of foreign impressions,
docile and pliable in bending to all opinions, and subject to the interests
of her astute protectors. Let it not be forgotten that there is no other nation
that conceives her plans with so much foresight, prepares them with so much
prudence, executes them with so much ability and perseverance. As she has
remained since her great revolutions, that is, since the end of the seventeenth
century, in a settled condition, and entirely free from the convulsions undergone
since that time by other European nations, she has been able to follow a
regular political system, both internal and external; and her politicians have<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span>
been formed to the perfect science of government, by constantly inheriting the
experience and views of their predecessors. Her statesmen well know how important
it is to be prepared beforehand for every event. They deeply study
what may aid or impede them in other nations. They go out of the sphere of
politics: they penetrate to the heart of every nation over which they propose
to extend their influence: they examine what are the conditions of its existence;
what is its vital principle; what are the causes of the strength and
energy of every people.</p>

<p>During the autumn of 1805, Pitt gave a dinner in the country to some of his
friends. While thus engaged, a despatch was brought to him announcing the
surrender of Mack at Ulm, with 40,000 men, and the march of Napoleon on
Vienna. Pitt communicated the fatal news to his friends, who cried out, "All
is lost; there is no longer any resource against him." "There is one still
left," replied the minister, "if I can excite a national war in Europe; and that
war must begin in Spain." "Yes, gentlemen," he added, "Spain will be the
first country to commence the patriotic war which shall give liberty to Europe."
Such was the importance attributed by this profound statesman to a national
idea; he expected from it what the strength of all the governments could not
effect, the downfall of Napoleon, and the liberation of Europe. But it not uncommonly
happens that the march of events is such, that these same national
ideas, which one time were the powerful auxiliaries of ambitious cabinets, become,
at another, the greatest obstacles; and then, instead of encouraging, it
becomes their interest to extinguish them. As the nature of this work will not
allow me to enter into the details of politics, I must content myself with appealing
to the judgment of those who have observed the line of conduct pursued by
England during our war and revolution, since the death of Ferdinand VII. If
we consider what the interests of that powerful nation require for the future, we
may conjecture the part which she will take.</p>

<p>The means of saving a nation, by delivering it from interested protectors,
and of securing her real independence, are to be found in great and generous
ideas, deeply rooted in the people; in feelings engraved on their hearts by the
action of time, by the influence of powerful institutions, by ancient manners
and customs; in fine, in that unity of religious thought, which makes a whole
people as one man. Then the past is united with the present, the present is
connected with the future; then arises in the mind that enthusiasm which is
the source of great deeds; then are found disinterestedness, energy, and constancy;
because ideas are fixed and elevated, because hearts are great and
generous.</p>

<p>It is not impossible that during one of the convulsions which disturb our
unhappy country, men may arise amongst us blind enough to attempt to introduce
the Protestant religion into Spain. We have had warnings enough to
alarm us; we have not forgotten events which showed plainly enough how far
some would sometimes have gone, if the great majority of the nation had not
restrained them by their disapprobation. We do not dread the outrages of the
reign of Henry VIII.; but what we do fear is, that advantage may be taken
of a violent rupture with the Holy See, of the obstinacy and ambition of some
ecclesiastics, of the pretext of establishing toleration in our country, or some
other pretext, to attempt to introduce amongst us, in some shape or other, the
doctrines of Protestantism. We certainly have no need of importing toleration
from abroad; it already exists amongst us so fully, that no one is afraid of being
disturbed on account of his religious opinions. What would be thus introduced
and established in Spain, would be a new system of religion, provided
with every thing necessary for gaining the upper hand; and for weakening, and,
if possible, destroying Catholicity. Then would resound in our ears, with a
force constantly increasing, the fierce declamation which we have heard for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span>
several years; the vain threatenings of a party who are delirious, because they
are on the point of expiring. The aversion with which the nation regards
the pretended Reformation, we have no doubt, would be looked upon as rebellion;
the pastorals of bishops would be treated as insidious persuasions, and
the fervent zeal of our priests as sedition; the unanimity of Catholics to preserve
themselves from contagion would be denounced as a diabolical conspiracy,
devised by intolerance and party spirit, and executed by ignorance and fanaticism.
Amid the efforts of the one party, and the resistance of the other, we
should see enacted, in a greater or less degree, the scenes of times gone by; and
although the spirit of moderation, which is one of the characteristics of this
age, would not allow the perpetration of excesses which have stained the annals
of other nations, they would not be without imitators. We must not forget
that, with respect to religion in Spain, we cannot calculate on the coldness and
indifference which other nations would now display on a similar occasion. With
the latter, religious feelings have lost much of their force, but in Spain they
are still deep, lively, and energetic; and if they were to come into open and
avowed opposition to each other, the shock would be violent and general. Although
we have witnessed lamentable scandals, and even fearful catastrophes in
religious matters, yet, up to this time, perverse intentions have been always
concealed by a mask, more or less transparent. Sometimes the attack was
made against a person charged with political machinations; sometimes against
certain classes of citizens, who were accused of imaginary crimes. If, at times,
the revolution exceeded its bounds, it was said that it was impossible to restrain
it, and thus the vexations, the insults, the outrages heaped upon all that was
most sacred upon earth, were only the inevitable results, and the work of a mob
that nothing could restrain. There has always been more or less of disguise;
but if the dogmas of Catholicity were attacked deliberately, and with <i lang="fr">sang
froid</i>; if the most important points of discipline were trodden under foot; if
the most august mysteries were turned into ridicule, and the most holy ceremonies
treated with public contempt; if church were raised against church, and
pulpit against pulpit, what would be the result? It is certain that minds would
be very much exasperated; and if, as might be feared, alarming explosions did
not ensue, at least religious controversy would assume a character so violent
that we should believe ourselves transferred to the sixteenth century.</p>

<p>It is a common thing among us for the principles which prevail in politics to
be entirely opposed to those which rule in society; it may then easily happen
that a religious principle, rejected by society, may find support among influential
statesmen. We should then see reproduced, under more important circumstances,
a phenomenon which we have witnessed for so many years, viz. governments
attempting to alter the course of society by force. This is one of the
principal differences between our revolution and those of other countries; it is,
at the same time, a key which explains the greatest anomalies. Everywhere
else revolutionary ideas took possession of society, and afterwards extended
themselves to the sphere of politics; with us they first ruled in the political
sphere, and afterwards strove to descend into the social sphere; society was far
from being prepared for such innovations; this was the cause of shocks so violent
and so frequent. It is on account of this want of harmony that the government
of Spain exercises so little influence over the people; I mean by influence,
that moral ascendency which does not require to be accompanied by the idea of
force. There is no doubt that this is an evil, since it tends to weaken that
authority which is indispensably necessary for all societies. But on more than
one occasion it has been a great benefit. It is no slight advantage that in presence
of a senseless and inconstant government there is found a society full of
calmness and wisdom, and that that society pursues its quiet and majestic
march, while the government is carried away by rashness. We may expect<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span>
much from the right instinct of the Spanish nation, from her proverbial gravity,
which so many misfortunes have only augmented, and from that fact, which
teaches her so well how to discern the true path to happiness, by rendering her
deaf to the insidious suggestions of those who seek to lead her astray. Although
for so many years, owing to a fatal combination of circumstances, and a
want of harmony between the social and political order, Spain has not been
able to obtain a government which understands her feelings and instincts, follows
her inclinations, and promotes her prosperity, we still cherish the hope that
the day will come when from her own bosom, so fertile in future life, will come
forth the harmony which she seeks, and the equilibrium which she has lost.
In the mean time, it is of the highest importance that all men who have a
Spanish heart in their breasts, and who do not wish to see the vitals of their
country torn to pieces, should unite and act in concert to preserve her from the
genius of evil. Their unanimity will prevent the seeds of perpetual discord
from being scattered upon our soil, will ward off this additional calamity, and
will preserve from destruction those precious germs, whence may arise, with
renovated vigor, our civilization, which has been so much injured by disastrous
events.</p>

<p>The soul is overwhelmed with painful apprehensions at the thought that a day
may come when religious unity will be banished from among us; that unity
which is identified with our habits, our customs, our manners, our laws; which
guarded the cradle of our monarchy in the cavern of Covadonga, and which
was the emblem on our standard during a struggle of eight centuries against
the formidable crescent; that unity which developed and illustrated our civilization
in times of the greatest difficulty; that unity which followed our terrible
<i lang="es">tercios</i>, when they imposed silence upon Europe; which led our sailors when
they discovered the new world, and guided them when they for the first time
made the circuit of the globe; that unity which sustains our soldiers in their
most heroic exploits, and which, at a recent period, gave the climax to their
many glorious deeds in the downfall of Napoleon. You who condemn so rashly
the work of ages; you who offer so many insults to the Spanish nation, and
who treat as barbarism and ignorance the regulating principle of our civilization,
do you know what it is you insult? Do you know what inspired the
genius of Gonzalva, of Ferdinando Cortez, of the conqueror of Lepanto? Do
not the shades of Garcilazo, of Herrara, of Ercilla, of Fray Luis de Leon, of
Cervantes, of Lope de Vega, inspire you with any respect? Can you venture
to break the tie which connects us with them, to make us the unworthy posterity
of these great men? Do you wish to place an impassable barrier between
their faith and ours, between their manners and ours, to make us destroy all our
traditions, and to forget our most inspiring recollections? Do you wish to preserve
the great and august monuments of our ancestors' piety among us only as
a severe and eloquent reproach? Will you consent to see dried up the most
abundant fountains to which we can have recourse to revive literature, to
strengthen science, to reorganize legislation, to re-establish the spirit of nationality,
to restore our glory, and replace this nation in the high position which
her virtues merit, by restoring to her the peace and happiness which she seeks
with so much anxiety, and which her heart requires?</p>

<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XIII" id="CHAPTER_XIII">CHAPTER XIII.</a><br />

<small>CATHOLICITY AND PROTESTANTISM IN RELATION TO SOCIAL PROGRESS.
PRELIMINARY COUP D'ŒIL</small>.</h2>


<p>After having placed Catholicity and Protestantism in contrast, in a religious
point of view, in the picture which I have just drawn; after having shown the
superiority of the one over the other, not only in certainty, but also in all that
regards the instincts, the feelings, the ideas, the characteristics of the human
mind, it seems to me proper to approach another question, certainly not less
important, but much less understood, and in the examination of which we shall
have to contend against strong antipathies, and to dissipate many prejudices and
errors. Amid the difficulties by which the question that I am about to undertake
is surrounded, I am supported by a strong hope that the interest of the
subject, and its analogy with the scientific taste of the age, will invite a perusal;
and that I shall thereby avoid the danger which commonly threatens those who
write in favor of the Catholic religion, that of being judged without being
heard. The question may be stated thus: "When we compare Catholicity and
Protestantism, which do we find the most favorable to real liberty, to the real
progress of nations, to the cause of civilization?" Liberty! This is one of
those words which are as generally employed as they are little understood;
words which, because they contain a certain vague idea, easily perceived, present
the deceptive appearance of perfect clearness, while, on account of the
multitude and variety of objects to which they apply, they are susceptible of a
variety of meanings, and, consequently, are extremely difficult to comprehend.
Who can reckon the number of applications made of the word liberty? There
is always found in this word a certain radical idea, but the modifications and
graduations to which the idea is subject are infinite. The air circulates with
liberty; we move the soil around the plant, to enable it to grow and increase
with liberty; we clean out the bed of a stream to allow it to flow with liberty;
when we set free a fish in a net, or a bird in a cage, we give them their liberty;
we treat a friend with freedom; we have free methods, free thoughts, free
expressions, free successions, free will, free actions; a prisoner has no liberty;
nor have boys, girls, or married people; a man behaves with greater freedom in
a foreign country; soldiers are not free; there are men free from conscription,
from contributions; we have free votes, free acknowledgments, free interpretation,
free evidence; freedom of commerce, of instruction, of the press, of conscience;
civil freedom, and political freedom; we have freedom just, unjust,
rational, irrational, moderate, excessive, limited, licentious, seasonable, unseasonable.
But I need not pursue the endless enumeration. It seemed to me
necessary to dwell upon it for a moment, even at the risk of fatiguing the
reader; perhaps the remembrance of all this may serve to engrave deeply on
our minds the truth, that when, in conversation, in writing, in public discussions,
in laws, this word is so frequently employed as applied to objects of the
highest importance, it is necessary to consider maturely the number and nature
of the ideas which it embraces in the particular case, the meaning that the subject
needs, the modifications which the circumstances require, and the precaution
demanded in the case.</p>

<p>Whatever may be the acceptation in which the word liberty is taken, it is
apparent that it always implies the absence of a cause restraining the exercise
of a power. Hence it follows that, in order to fix in each case the real meaning
of the word, it is indispensable to pay attention to the circumstances as well as
to the nature of the power, the exercise of which is to be prevented or limited,
without losing sight of the various objects to which it applies, the conditions
of its exercise, as also the character, power, and extent of the means which are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span>
employed to restrain it. To explain this matter, let it be proposed to form a
judgment on the proposition, "Man ought to enjoy liberty of thought."</p>

<p>It is here affirmed that freedom of thought in man ought not to be restrained;
but do you speak of physical force exercised directly on thought itself? In
that case the proposition is entirely vain; for as such an application of force is
impossible, it is useless to say that it ought not to be employed. Do you mean
to say that it is not allowable to restrain the expression of thought; that is to
say, that the liberty of manifesting thought ought not to be hindered or
restrained? You have, then, made a great step, you have placed the question
on a different footing. Or if you do not mean to say that every man, at all
times, in all places, and on all subjects, has a right to give utterance to all that
comes into his head, and that in any way he may think proper, you must then
specify the things, the persons, the places, the times, the subjects, the conditions;
in short, you must note a variety of circumstances, you must prohibit
altogether in some cases, limit in others, bind in some, loosen in others; in
fine, make so many restrictions, that you will make little progress in establishing
your general principle of freedom of thought, which at first appeared so
simple and so clear. Even in the sanctuary of thought, where human sight
does not extend, and which is open to the eye of God alone, what means the
liberty of thought? Is it owing to chance that laws are imposed on thought to
which it is obliged to submit under pain of losing itself in chaos? Can it
despise the rules of sound reason? Can it refuse to listen to the counsels of
good sense? Can it forget that its object is truth? Can it disregard the
eternal principles of morality? Thus we find, in examining the meaning of
the word liberty, even as applied to what is certainly freer than any thing else
in man, viz. thought&mdash;we find such a number and variety of meanings that we
are forced to make many distinctions, and necessity compels us to limit the
general proposition, if we wish to avoid saying any thing in opposition to the
dictates of reason and good sense, the eternal laws of morality, the interests
of individuals, and the peace and preservation of society. And what may not
be said of so many claims of liberty which are constantly propounded in language
intentionally vague and equivocal?</p>

<p>I avail myself of these examples to prevent a confusion of ideas; for in
defending the cause of Catholicity, I have no need of pleading for oppression,
or of applauding tyranny, or of approving the conduct of those who have trodden
under foot men's most sacred rights. Yes, I say, sacred; for after the
august religion of Jesus Christ has been preached, man is sacred in the eyes of
other men on account of his origin and divine destiny, on account of the image
of God which is reflected in him, and because he has been redeemed with ineffable
goodness and love by the Son of the Eternal. This divine religion
declares the rights of man to be sacred; for its august Founder threatens with
eternal punishment not only those who kill a man, those who mutilate or rob
him, but even those who offend him in words: "He who shall say to his
brother, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire." (Matt. v. 22.) Thus
speaks our divine Lord.</p>

<p>Our hearts swell with generous indignation, when we hear the religion of
Jesus Christ reproached with a tendency towards oppression. It is true that,
if you confound the spirit of real liberty with that of demagogues, you will not
find it in Catholicity; but, if you avoid a monstrous misnomer, if you give to
the word liberty its reasonable, just, useful, and beneficial signification, then the
Catholic religion may fearlessly claim the gratitude of the human race, <em>for she
has civilized the nations who embraced her, and civilization is true liberty</em>.</p>

<p>It is a fact now generally acknowledged, and openly confessed, that Christianity
has exercised a very important and salutary influence on the development
of European civilization; if this fact has not yet had given to it the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span>
importance which it deserves, it is because it has not been sufficiently appreciated.
With respect to civilization, a distinction is sometimes made between the
influence of Christianity and that of Catholicity; its merits are lavished on the
former, and stinted to the latter, by those who forget that, with respect to
European civilization, Catholicity can always claim the principal share; and,
for many centuries, an exclusive one; since, during a very long period, she
worked alone at the great work. People have not been willing to see that,
when Protestantism appeared in Europe, the work was bordering on completion;
with an injustice and ingratitude which I cannot describe, they have reproached
Catholicity with the spirit of barbarism, ignorance, and oppression, while they
were making an ostentatious display of the rich civilization, knowledge, and
liberty, for which they were principally indebted to her.</p>

<p>If they did not wish to fathom the intimate connection between Catholicity
and European civilization, if they had not the patience necessary for the long
investigations into which this examination would lead them, at least it would
have been proper to take a glance at the condition of countries where the
Catholic religion has not exerted all her influence during centuries of trouble,
and compare them with those in which she has been predominant. The East
and the West, both subject to great revolutions, both professing Christianity,
but in such a way that the Catholic principle was weak and vacillating in the
East, while it was energetic and deeply rooted in the West; these, we say,
would have afforded two very good points of comparison to estimate the value
of Christianity without Catholicity, when the civilization and the existence of
nations were at stake. In the West, the revolutions were multiplied and fearful;
the chaos was at its height; and, nevertheless, out of chaos came light and
life. Neither the barbarism of the nations who inundated those countries, and
established themselves there, nor the furious assaults of Islamism, even in the
days of its greatest power and enthusiasm, could succeed in destroying the
germs of a rich and fertile civilization. In the East, on the contrary, all tended
to old age and decay; nothing revived; and, under the blows of the power
which was ineffectual against us, all was shaken to pieces. The spiritual power
of Rome, and its influence on temporal affairs, have certainly borne fruits very
different from those produced, under the same circumstances, by its violent
opponents.</p>

<p>If Europe were destined one day again to undergo a general and fearful revolution,
either by a universal spread of revolutionary ideas or by a violent invasion
of social and proprietary rights by pauperism; if the colossus of the North,
seated on its throne amid eternal snows, with knowledge in its head, and blind
force in its hands, possessing at once the means of civilization, and unceasingly
turning towards the East, the South, and the West that covetous and crafty look
which in history is the characteristic march of all invading empires; if, availing
itself of a favorable moment, it were to make an attempt on the independence
of Europe, then we should perhaps have a proof of the value of the Catholic
principle in a great extremity; then we should feel the power of the unity
which is proclaimed and supported by Catholicity, and while calling to mind the
middle ages, we should come to acknowledge one of the causes of the weakness
of the East and the strength of the West. Then would be remembered a fact,
which, though but of yesterday, is falling into oblivion, viz. that the nation
whose heroic courage broke the power of Napoleon was proverbially Catholic;
and who knows whether, in the attempts made in Russia against Catholicity,
attempts which the Vicar of Jesus Christ has deplored in such touching language&mdash;who
knows whether there be not the secret influence of a presentiment,
perhaps even a foresight of the necessity of weakening that sublime power,
which has been in all ages, when the cause of humanity was in question, the
centre of great attempts? But let us return.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span></p>

<p>It cannot be denied that, since the sixteenth century, European civilization
has shown life and brilliancy; but it is a mistake to attribute this phenomenon
to Protestantism. In order to examine the extent and influence of a fact, we
ought not to be content with the events which have followed it; it is also necessary
to consider whether these events were already prepared; whether they are
any thing more than the necessary result of anterior facts; and we must take
care not to reason in a way which is justly declared to be sophistical by logicians,
<i lang="la">post hoc, ergo propter hoc</i>: after that, therefore on account of it. Without
Protestantism, and before it, European civilization was already very much advanced,
thanks to the labors and influence of the Catholic religion; the greatness
and splendor which it subsequently displayed were not owing to it, but
arose in spite of it.</p>

<p>Erroneous ideas on this matter have arisen from the fact, that Christianity
has not been deeply studied; and that, without entering into a serious examination
of Church history, men have too often contented themselves with taking a
superficial view of the principles of brotherhood which she has so much recommended.
In order fully to understand an institution, it is not enough to remain
satisfied with its leading ideas; it is necessary to follow all its steps, see how it
realizes its ideas, and how it triumphs over the obstacles that oppose it. We
shall never form a complete idea of an historical fact, unless we carefully study
its history. Now the study of Church history in its relations with civilization,
is still incomplete. It is not that ecclesiastical history has not been profoundly
studied; but it may be said that since the spirit of social analysis has been
developed, that history has not yet been made the subject of those admirable
labors which have thrown so much light upon it in a critical and dogmatical
point of view.</p>

<p>Another impediment to the complete comprehension of this matter is, that an
exaggerated importance is given to the intentions of men, and the great march
of events is too much neglected. The greatness of events is measured, and their
nature judged of, by the immediate means which produces them, and the objects
of the men whose actions are treated of; this is a very important error. The
eye ought to range over a wider field; we ought to observe the successive development
of ideas, the influence which they have exercised on events, the institutions
which have sprung from them; but it is necessary to see all these things
as they are in themselves, that is, on a large scale, without stopping to consider
particular and isolated facts. It is an important truth, which ought to be deeply
engraven on the mind, that when one of those great facts which change the lot
of a considerable portion of the human race is developed, it is rarely understood
by those who take part in it, and figure as the principal actors. The march of
humanity is a grand drama; the parts are played by persons who pass by and
disappear: man is very little; God alone is great. Neither the actors who
figured on the scene in the ancient empires of the East, nor Alexander invading
Asia and reducing numberless nations into servitude, nor the Romans subjugating
the world, nor the barbarians overturning the empire and breaking it in
pieces, nor the Mussulmen ruling Asia and Africa and menacing the independence
of Europe, knew, or could know, that they were the instruments in the
great designs whereof we admire the execution.</p>

<p>I mean to show from this, that when we have to do with Christian civilization,
when we collect and analyze the facts which distinguish its march, it is
not necessary, or even often proper, to suppose that the men who have contributed
to it in the most remarkable manner understood, to the full extent, the
results of their own efforts. It is glory enough for a man to be pointed out as
the chosen instrument of Providence, without the necessity of attributing to him
great ability or lofty ambition. It is enough to observe that a ray of light has
descended from heaven and illumined his brow; it is of little importance<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span>
whether he foresaw that this ray, by reflection, was destined to shed a brilliant
light on future generations. Little men are commonly smaller than they think
themselves, but great men are often greater than they imagine; if they do not
know all their grandeur, it is because they are ignorant that they are the instruments
of the high designs of Providence. Another observation which we ought
always to have present in the study of these great events is, that we should not
expect to find there a system, the connection and harmony of which are apparent
at the first <i lang="fr">coup d'œil</i>. We must expect to see some irregularities and objects
of an unpleasant aspect; it is necessary to guard against the childish impatience
of anticipating the time; it is indispensable to abandon that desire which we
always have, in a greater or less degree, and which always urges us to seek
every thing in conformity with our own ideas, and to see every thing advance
in the way most pleasing to us.</p>

<p>Do you not see nature herself so varied, so rich, so grand, lavish her treasures
in disorder, hide her inestimable precious stones and her most valuable
veins of metal in masses of earth? See how she presents huge chains of mountains,
inaccessible rocks, and fearful precipices, in contrast with her wide and
smiling plains. Do you not observe this apparent disorder, this prodigality, in
the midst of which numberless agents work, in secret concert, to produce the
admirable whole which enchants our eyes and ravishes the lover of nature? So
with society; the facts are dispersed, scattered here and there, frequently offering
no appearance of order or concert; events succeed each other, act on each
other, without the design being discovered; men unite, separate, co-operate,
and contend, and nevertheless time, that indispensable agent in the production
of great works, goes on, and all is accomplished according to the destinies marked
out in the secrets of the Eternal.</p>

<p>This is the march of humanity; this is the rule for the philosophic study of
history; this is the way to comprehend the influence of those productive ideas,
of those powerful institutions, which from time to time appear among men to
change the face of the earth. When in a study of this kind we discover acting
at the bottom of things a productive idea, a powerful institution, the mind, far
from being frightened at meeting with some irregularities, is inspired, on the
contrary, with fresh courage; for it is a sure sign that the idea is full of truth,
that the institution is fraught with life, when we see them pass through the
chaos of ages, and come safe out of the frightful ordeals. Of what importance
is it that certain men were not influenced by the idea, that they did not answer
the object of the institution, if the latter has survived its revolutions, and the
former has not been swallowed up in the stormy sea of the passions? To mention
the weaknesses, the miseries, the faults, the crimes of men, is to make the
most eloquent apology for the idea and the institution.</p>

<p>In viewing men in this way, we do not take them out of their proper places,
and we do not require from them more than is reasonable. We see them
enclosed in the deep bed of the great torrent of events, and we do not attribute
to their intellects, or to their will, any thing that exceeds the sphere appointed
for them; we do not, however, fail to appreciate in a proper manner the nature
and the greatness of the works in which they take part, but we avoid giving to
them an exaggerated importance, by honoring them with eulogiums which they
do not deserve, or reproaching them unjustly. Times and circumstances are not
monstrously confounded; the observer sees with calmness and <i lang="fr">sang froid</i> the
events which pass before his eyes; he speaks not of the empire of Charlemagne
as he would of that of Napoleon, and is not hurried into bitter invectives against
Gregory VII. because he did not adopt the same line of political conduct as
Gregory XVI.</p>

<p>Observe that I do not ask from the philosophical historian an impassive indifference
to good and evil, to justice and injustice; I do not claim indulgence for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span>
vice, nor would I refuse to virtue its eulogy. I have no sympathy with that
school of historic fatalism, which would bring back to the world the destiny of
the ancients; a school which, if it acquired influence, would corrupt the best
part of history, and stifle the most generous emotions. I see in the march of
society a plan, a harmony, but not a blind necessity; I do not believe that
events are mingled up together indiscriminately in the dark urn of destiny, nor
that fatalism holds the world enclosed in an iron circle. But I see a wonderful
chain stretching over the course of centuries, a chain which does not fetter the
movements of individuals or of nations, and which accommodates itself to the
ebb and flow which are required by the nature of things; at its touch great
thoughts arise in the minds of men: this golden chain is suspended by the hand
of the Eternal, it is the work of infinite intelligence and ineffable love.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XIV" id="CHAPTER_XIV">CHAPTER XIV.</a><br />

<small>DID THERE EXIST AT THE EPOCH WHEN CHRISTIANITY APPEARED ANY
OTHER PRINCIPLE OF REGENERATION?</small></h2>


<p>In what condition did Christianity find the world? This is a question which
ought to fix all our attention, if we wish to appreciate correctly the blessings
conferred by that divine religion on individuals and on society, if we are desirous
of knowing the real character of Christian civilization. Certainly at the time
when Christianity appeared, society presented a dark picture. Covered with
fine appearances, but infected to the heart with a mortal malady, it presented an
image of the most repugnant corruption, veiled by a brilliant garb of ostentation
and opulence. Morality was without reality, manners without modesty,
the passions without restraint, laws without authority, and religion without God.
Ideas were at the mercy of prejudices, of religious fanaticism, and philosophical
subtilties. Man was a profound mystery to himself; he did not know how to
estimate his own dignity, for he reduced it to the level of brutes; and when he
attempted to exaggerate its importance, he did not know how to confine it within
the limits marked out by reason and nature: and it is well worthy of observation,
that while a great part of the human race groaned in the most abject
servitude, heroes, and even the most abominable monsters, were elevated to the
rank of gods.</p>

<p>Such elements must, sooner or later, have produced social dissolution. Even
if the violent irruption of the barbarians had not taken place, society must
have been overturned sooner or later, for it did not possess a fertile idea, a
consoling thought, or a beam of hope, to preserve it from ruin.</p>

<p>Idolatry had lost its strength; it was an expedient exhausted by time and
by the gross abuse which the passions had made of it. Its fragile tissue once
exposed to the dissolving influence of philosophical observation, idolatry was
entirely disgraced; and if the rooted force of habit still exercised a mechanical
influence on the minds of men, that influence was neither capable of re-establishing
harmony in society, nor of producing that fiery enthusiasm which
inspires great actions&mdash;enthusiasm which in virgin hearts may be excited by
superstition the most irrational and absurd. To judge of them by the relaxation
of morals, by the enervated weakness of character, by the effeminate
luxury, by the complete abandonment to the most repulsive amusements and
the most shameful pleasures, it is clear that religious ideas no longer possessed
the majesty of the heroic age; no longer efficacious, they only exerted on men's
minds a feeble influence, while they served in a lamentable manner as instruments
of dissolution. Now it was impossible for it to be otherwise: nations
who had obtained the high degree of cultivation of the Greeks and Romans;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span>
nations who had heard their great sages dispute on the grand questions of
divinity and man, could not continue in the state of simplicity which was
necessary to believe with good faith the intolerable absurdities of which Paganism
is full; and whatever may have been the disposition of mind among the
ignorant portion of the people, assuredly those who were raised above the common
standard did not believe them&mdash;those who listened to philosophers as
enlightened as Cicero, and who daily enjoyed the malicious railleries of their
satirical poets.</p>

<p>If religion was impotent, was there not another means, viz. knowledge?
Before we examine what was to be hoped from this, it is necessary to observe,
that knowledge never founded a society, nor was it ever able to restore one that
had lost its balance. In looking over the history of ancient times, we find at
the head of some nations eminent men who, thanks to the magic influence which
they exercised over others, dictated laws, corrected abuses, rectified ideas,
reformed morals, and established a government on wise principles; thus securing,
in a more or less satisfactory manner, the happiness and prosperity of those who
were confided to their care. But we should be much mistaken if we imagined
that these men proceeded according to what we call scientific combinations.
Generally simple and rude, they acted according to the impulses of their generous
hearts, only guided by the wisdom and good sense of the father of a family
in the management of his domestic affairs: never did these men adopt for their
rule the wretched subtilties which we call theories, the crude mass of ideas
which we disguise under the pompous name of science. Were the most distinguished
days of Greece those of Plato and Aristotle? The proud Romans,
who conquered the world, certainly had not the extent and variety of knowledge
of the Augustan age; and yet who would exchange the times or the men?</p>

<p>Modern times also can show important evidences of the sterility of science
in creating social institutions; which is the more evident as the practical effects
of the natural sciences are the more visible. It seems that in the latter sciences
man has a power which he has not in the former; although, when the matter
is fully examined, the difference does not appear so great as at the first view.</p>

<p>Let us briefly compare their respective results.</p>

<p>When man seeks to apply the knowledge which he has acquired of the great
laws of nature, he finds himself compelled to pay respect to her; as, whatever
might be his wishes, his weak arm could not cause any great <i lang="fr">bouleversement</i>, he
is obliged to make his attempts limited in extent, and the desire of success
induces him to act in conformity with the laws which govern the bodies he has
to do with. It is quite otherwise with the application made of the social
sciences. There man is able to act directly and immediately on society itself,
on its eternal foundations; he does not consider himself necessarily bound to
make his attempts on a small scale, or to respect the eternal laws of society;
he is able, on the contrary, to imagine those laws as he pleases, indulge in as
many subtilties as he thinks proper, and bring about disasters which humanity
laments. Let us remember the extravagances which have found favor, with
respect to nature, in the schools of philosophy, ancient and modern, and we
shall see what would have become of the admirable machine of the universe,
if philosophers had had full power over it. Descartes said, "Give me matter
and motion, and I will form a world!" He could not derange an atom in the
system of the universe. Rousseau, in his turn, dreamed of placing society on
a new basis, and he upset the social state. It must not be forgotten that science,
properly so called, has little power in the organization of society: this ought to
be remembered in modern times, when it boasts so much of its pretended fertility.
It attributes to its own labors what is the fruit of the lapse of ages, of
the instinctive law of nations, and sometimes of the inspirations of genius;
now neither this instinct of nations nor genius at all resembles science.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span></p>

<p>But without pushing any further these general considerations, which are,
nevertheless, very useful in leading us to a knowledge of man, what could be
hoped from the false light of science which was preserved in the ruins of the
ancient schools at the time we are speaking of? However limited the knowledge
of the ancient philosophers, even the most distinguished, may have been
on these subjects, we must allow that the names of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle
command some degree of respect, and that amid their errors and mistakes
they give us thoughts which are really worthy of their lofty genius. But when
Christianity appeared, the germs of knowledge planted by them had been destroyed;
dreams had taken the place of high and fruitful thoughts, the love of
disputation had replaced that of wisdom, sophistry and subtilties had been substituted
for mature judgment and severe reasoning. The ancient schools had
been upset, others as sterile as they were strange had been formed out of their
ruins; on all sides there appeared a swarm of sophists like the impure insects
which announce the corruption of a dead body. The Church has preserved for
us a very valuable means of judging of the science of that time, in the history
of the early heresies. Without speaking of what therein deserves all our indignation,
as, for example, their profound immorality, can we find any thing
more empty, absurd, or pitiable?<a href="#Note_14" class="fnanchor">14</a></p>

<p>The Roman legislation, so praiseworthy for its justice and equity, its wisdom
and prudence, and much as it deserves to be regarded as one of the most precious
ornaments of ancient civilization, was yet incapable of preventing the
dissolution with which society was threatened. Never did it owe its safety to
jurisconsults; so great a work is beyond the sphere of action of jurisprudence.
Let us suppose the laws as perfect as possible, jurisprudence carried to the
highest point, jurisconsults animated by the purest feelings and guided by the
most honest intentions, what would all this avail if the heart of society is corrupt,
if moral principles have lost their force, if manners are in continual opposition
with laws? Let us consider the picture of Roman manners such as their
own historians have painted them; we shall not find even a reflection of the
equity, justice, and good sense which made the Roman laws deserve the glorious
name of written reason.</p>

<p>To give a proof of impartiality, I purposely omit the blemishes from which
the Roman law was certainly not exempt, for I do not desire to be accused of
wishing to lower every thing which is not the work of Christianity. Yet I
must not pass over in silence the important fact, that it is by no means true
that Christianity had no share in perfecting the jurisprudence of Rome; I do
not mean merely during the period of the Christian emperors, which does not
admit of a doubt, but even at a prior period. It is certain that some time before
the coming of Jesus Christ the number of the Roman laws was very considerable,
and that their study and arrangement already occupied the attention
of many of the most illustrious men. We know from Suetonius (<cite>In Cæsar.</cite>
c. 44) that Julius Cæsar had undertaken the extremely useful task of condensing
into a small number of books those which were the most select and
necessary among the immense collection of laws; a similar idea occurred to
Cicero, who wrote a book on the methodical digest of the civil law (<i lang="la">de jure
civili in arte redigendo</i>), as Aulus Gellius attests. (<cite>Noct. Att.</cite> lib. i. c. 22.)
According to Tacitus, this work also occupied the attention of the Emperor
Augustus. Certainly these projects show that legislation was not in its infancy;
but it is not the less true that the Roman law, as we possess it, is in great part
the product of later ages. Many of the most famous jurists, whose opinions
form a considerable part of the law, lived long after the coming of Jesus Christ.
As to the constitutions of the emperors, their very names remind us of the
time when they were digested.</p>

<p>These facts being established, I shall observe that it does not follow that be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span>cause
the emperors and jurists were pagans, the Christian ideas had no influence
on their works. The number of Christians was immense in all places; the
cruelty alone with which they had been persecuted, the heroic courage which
they had displayed in the face of torments and death, must have drawn upon
them the attention of the whole world; and it is impossible that this should
not have excited, among men of reflection, curiosity enough to examine what
this new religion taught its proselytes. The reading of the apologies for Christianity
already written in the first ages with so much force of reasoning and
eloquence, the works of various kinds published by the early Fathers, the homilies
of Bishops to their people, contain so much wisdom, breathe such a love
for truth and justice, and proclaim so loudly the eternal principles of morality,
that it was impossible for their influence not to be felt even by those who condemned
the religion of Christ. When doctrines having for their object the
greatest questions which affect man are spread everywhere, propagated with fervent
zeal, received with love by a considerable number of disciples, and maintained
by the talent and knowledge of illustrious men, these doctrines make a
profound impression in all directions, and affect even those who warmly combat
them. Their influence in this case is imperceptible, but it is not the less true
and real. They act like the exhalations which impregnate the atmosphere; with
the air we inhale sometimes death, and sometimes a salutary odor which purifies
and strengthens us.</p>

<p>Such must necessarily have been the case with a doctrine which was preached
in so extraordinary a manner, propagated with so much rapidity, and the truth
of which, sealed by torrents of blood, was defended by writers such as Justin,
Clement of Alexandria, Irenæus, and Tertullian. The profound wisdom, the
ravishing beauty of these doctrines, explained by the Christian doctors, must
have called attention to the sources whence they flowed; it was natural that
curiosity thus excited should put the holy Scriptures into the hands of many
philosophers and jurists. Would it be strange if Epictetus had imbibed some
of the doctrines of the Sermon on the Mount, and if the oracles of jurisprudence
had imperceptibly received the inspiration of a religion whose power,
spreading in a wonderful manner, took possession of all ranks of society?
Burning zeal for truth and justice, the spirit of brotherhood, grand ideas of the
dignity of man, the continued themes of Christian instruction, could not remain
confined among the children of the Church. More or less rapidly they penetrated
all classes; and when, by the conversion of Constantine, they acquired
political influence and imperial authority, it was only the repetition of an ordinary
phenomenon; when a system has become very powerful in the social order,
it ends by exerting an empire, or at least an influence, in the political.</p>

<p>I leave these observations to the judgment of thinking men with perfect confidence;
I am sure that if they do not adopt them, at least they will not consider
them unworthy of reflection. We live at a time fruitful in great events, and
when important revolutions have taken place; therefore we are better able to
understand the immense effects of indirect and slow influences, the powerful
ascendency of ideas, and the irresistible force with which doctrines work their
way.</p>

<p>To this want of vital principles capable of regenerating society, to all those
elements of dissolution which society contained within itself, was joined another
evil of no slight importance,&mdash;the vice of its political organization. The world
being under the yoke of Rome, hundreds of nations differing in manners and
customs were heaped together in confusion, like spoils on the field of battle, and
constrained to form a factitious body, like trophies placed upon a spear. The
unity of the government being violent, could not be advantageous; and moreover,
as it was despotic, from the emperor down to the lowest proconsul, it will
be seen that it could not produce any other result than the debasement and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span>
degradation of nations, and that it was impossible for them to display that elevation
and energy of character which are the precious fruit of a feeling of self-dignity
and love for national independence. If Rome had preserved her ancient
manners, if she had retained in her bosom warriors as celebrated for the simplicity
and austerity of their lives as for the renown of their victories, some of
the qualities of the conquerors might have been communicated to the conquered,
as a young and robust heart reanimates with its vigor a body attenuated by disease.
Unfortunately such was not the case. The Fabiuses, the Camilluses, the
Scipios, would not have acknowledged their unworthy posterity; Rome, the
mistress of the world, like a slave, was trodden under the feet of monsters who
mounted to the throne by perjury and violence, stained their sceptres with corruption
and cruelty, and fell by the hands of assassins. The authority of the
Senate and people had disappeared; only vain imitations of them were left,
<i lang="la">vestigia morientis libertatis</i>, as Tacitus calls them, vestiges of expiring liberty;
and this royal people, who formerly disposed of kingdoms, consulships, legions,
and all, then thought only of two things, food and games,</p>

<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza">
<div class="verse indent18">"Qui dabat olim<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Continet, atque duas tantum res anxius optat,<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Panem et Circenses."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Juvenal</span></div>, <cite>Satire</cite> <span class="smcap">X</span>.<br />
</div></div></div>

<p>At length, in the plenitude of time Christianity appeared; and without announcing
any change in political forms, without intermeddling in the temporal
and earthly, it brought to mankind a twofold salvation, by calling them to the
path of eternal felicity, but at the same time bountifully supplying them with
the only means of preservation from social dissolution, the germ of a regeneration
slow and pacific, but grand, immense, and lasting, and secure from the
revolutions of ages; and this preservative against social dissolution, this germ
of invaluable improvements, was a pure and lofty doctrine, diffused among all
mankind, without exception of age, sex, and condition, as the rain which falls
like a mild dew on an arid and thirsty soil. No religion has ever equalled
Christianity in knowledge of the hidden means of influencing man; none has
ever, when doing so, paid so high a compliment to his dignity; and Christianity
has always adopted the principle, that the first step in gaining possession of the
whole man is that of gaining his mind; and that it is necessary, in order either
to destroy evil or to effect good, to adopt intellectual means: thereby it has
given a mortal blow to the systems of violence which prevailed before its existence;
it has proclaimed the wholesome truth, that in influencing men, the
weakest and most unworthy method is force; a fruitful and beneficial truth,
which opened to humanity a new and happy future. Only since the Christian
era do we find the lessons of the sublimest philosophy taught to all classes of
the people, at all times and in all places. The loftiest truths relating to God
and man, the rules of the purest morality, are not communicated to a chosen
number of disciples in hidden and mysterious instructions; the philosophy of
Christianity has been bolder; it has ventured to reveal to man the whole naked
truth, and that in public, with a loud voice, and that generous boldness which
is the inseparable companion of the truth. "That which I tell you in the dark,
speak ye in the light; and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the
housetop." (Matt. x. 27.)</p>

<p>As soon as Christianity and Paganism met face to face, the superiority of the
former was rendered palpable, not only by its doctrines themselves, but by the
manner in which it propagated them. It might easily be imagined that a religion
so wise and pure in its teachings, and which, in propagating them, addressed
itself directly to the mind and heart, must quickly drive from its usurped dominion
the religion of imposture and falsehood. And, indeed, what did Paganism
do for the good of man? What moral truths did it teach? How did it check<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span>
the corruption of manners? "As to morals," says St. Augustine, "why have
not the gods chosen to take care of those of their adorers, and prevent their
irregularities? As to the true God, it is with justice that He has neglected
those who did not serve Him. But whence comes it that those gods, the prohibition
of whose worship is complained of by ungrateful men, have not established
laws to lead their adorers to virtue? Was it not reasonable that, as
men undertook their mysteries and sacrifices, the gods, on their side, should
undertake to regulate the manners and actions of men? It is replied, that no
one is wicked but because he wishes to be so. Who doubts this? but the gods
ought not on that account to conceal from their worshippers precepts that might
serve to make them practise virtue. They were, on the contrary, under the
obligation of publishing those precepts aloud, of admonishing and rebuking
sinners by their prophets; of publicly threatening punishment to those who
did evil, and promising rewards to those who did well. Was there ever heard,
in the temples of the gods, a loud and generous voice teaching any thing of the
kind?" (<cite>De Civit.</cite> lib. ii. c. 4.) The holy doctor afterwards paints a dark picture
of the infamies and abominations which were committed in the spectacles
and sacred games celebrated in honor of the gods&mdash;games and shows at which
he had himself assisted in his youth; he continues thus: "Thence it comes
that these divinities have taken no care to regulate the morals of the cities and
nations who adore them, or to avert by their threats those dreadful evils which
injure not only fields and vineyards, houses and properties, or the body which
is subject to the mind, but the mind itself, the directress of the body, which
was drenched with their iniquities. Or if it be pretended that they did make
such menaces, let them be shown and proved to us. But let there not be alleged
a few secret words whispered in the ears of a small number of persons, and
which, with a great deal of mystery, were to teach virtue. It is necessary to
point out, to name the places consecrated to the assemblies&mdash;not those in which
were celebrated games with lascivious words and gestures; not those feasts called
<i lang="fr">fuites</i>, and which were solemnized with the most unbridled license; but the
assemblies where the people were instructed in the precepts of the gods for the
repression of avarice, moderating ambition, restraining immodesty; those where
these unfortunate beings learn what Perseus desires them to know, when he
says, in severe language, 'Learn, O unhappy mortals, the reason of things,
what we are, why we come into the world, what we ought to do, how miserable
is the term of our career, what bounds we ought to prescribe to ourselves in the
pursuit of riches, what use we ought to make of them, what we owe to our
neighbor, in fine, the obligations we owe to the rank we occupy among men.'
Let them tell us in what places they have been accustomed to instruct the
people in these things by order of the gods; let them show us these places, as
we show them churches built for this purpose wherever the Christian religion
has been established." (<cite>De Civit.</cite> lib. ii. c. 6.) This divine religion was too
deeply acquainted with the heart of man ever to forget the weakness and inconstancy
which characterize it; and hence it has ever been her invariable rule of
conduct unceasingly to inculcate to him, with untiring patience, the salutary
truths on which his temporal well-being and eternal happiness depend. Man
easily forgets moral truths when he is not constantly reminded of them; or if
they remain in his mind, they are there like sterile seeds, and do not fertilize
his heart. It is good and highly salutary for parents constantly to communicate
this instruction to their children, and that it should be made the principal
object of private education; but it is necessary, moreover, that there should be
a public ministry, never losing sight of it, diffusing it among all classes and
ages, repairing the negligences of families, and reviving recollections and impressions
which the passions and time constantly efface.</p>

<p>This system of constant preaching and instruction, practised at all times and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span>
in all places by the Catholic Church, is so important for the enlightenment and
morality of nations, that it must be looked upon as a great good, that the first
Protestants, in spite of their desire to destroy all the practices of the Church,
have nevertheless preserved that of preaching. We need not be insensible on
this account to the evils produced at certain times by the declamation of some
factious or fanatical ministers; but as unity had been broken, as the people had
been precipitated into the perilous paths of schism, we say that it must have
been extremely useful for the preservation of the most important notions with
respect to God and man and the fundamental maxims of morality, that such
truths should be frequently explained to the people by men who had long studied
them in the sacred Scriptures. No doubt the mortal blow given to the hierarchy
by the Protestant system, and the degradation of the priesthood which was the
consequence, have deprived its preachers of the sacred characteristics of the
Holy Spirit; no doubt it is a great obstacle to the efficacy of their preachers,
that they cannot present themselves as the anointed of the Lord, and that they
are only, as an able writer has said, <em>men clothed in black, who mount the pulpit
every Sunday to speak reasonable things</em>; but at least the people continue to
hear some fragments of the excellent moral discourses contained in the sacred
Scriptures, they have often before their eyes the edifying examples spread over
the Old and New Testament, and, what is still more precious, they are reminded
frequently of the events in the life of Jesus Christ,&mdash;of that admirable life, the
model of all perfection, which, even when considered in a human point of view,
is acknowledged by all to be the purest sanctity <i lang="fr">par excellence</i>, the noblest code
of morality that was ever seen, the realization of the finest <i lang="fr">beau idéal</i> that philosophy
in its loftiest thoughts has ever conceived under human form, and which
poetry has ever imagined in its most brilliant dreams. This we say is useful
and highly salutary; for it will always be salutary for nations to be nourished
with the wholesome food of moral truths, and to be excited to virtue by such
sublime examples.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XV" id="CHAPTER_XV">CHAPTER XV.</a><br />


<small>DIFFICULTIES WHICH CHRISTIANITY HAD TO OVERCOME IN THE WORK OF
SOCIAL REGENERATION.&mdash;OF SLAVERY.&mdash;COULD IT BE DESTROYED WITH
MORE PROMPTNESS THAN IT WAS BY CHRISTIANITY?</small></h2>


<p>Although the Church attached the greatest importance to the propagation
of truth, although she was convinced that to destroy the shapeless mass of immorality
and degradation that met her sight, her first care should be to expose
error to the dissolving fire of true doctrines, she did not confine herself to this;
but, descending to real life, and following a system full of wisdom and prudence,
she acted in such a manner as to enable humanity to taste the precious
fruit which the doctrines of Jesus Christ produce even in temporal things. The
Church was not only a <em>great and fruitful school; she was also a regenerative association</em>;
she did not diffuse her general doctrines by throwing them abroad at
hazard, merely hoping that they would fructify with time; she developed them
in all their relations, applied them to all subjects, inoculated laws and manners
with them, and realized them in institutions which afforded silent but eloquent
instructions to future generations. Nowhere was the dignity of man acknowledged,
slavery reigned everywhere; degraded woman was dishonored by the
corruption of manners, and debased by the tyranny of man. The feelings of
humanity were trodden under foot, infants were abandoned, the sick and aged
were neglected, barbarity and cruelty were carried to the highest pitch of atrocity
in the prevailing laws of war; in fine, on the summit of the social edifice<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span>
was seen an odious tyranny, sustained by military force, and looking down with
an eye of contempt on the unfortunate nations that lay in fetters at its feet.</p>

<p>In such a state of things it certainly was no slight task to remove error, to
reform and improve manners, abolish slavery, correct the vices of legislation,
impose a check on power, and make it harmonize with the public interest, give
new life to individuals, and reorganize family and society; and yet nothing less
than this was done by the Church. Let us begin with slavery. This is a matter
which is the more to be fathomed, as it is a question eminently calculated
to excite our curiosity and affect our hearts. What abolished slavery among
Christian nations? Was it Christianity? Was it Christianity alone, by its
lofty ideas on human dignity, by its maxims and its spirit of fraternity and
charity, and also by its prudent, gentle, and beneficent conduct? I trust I shall
prove that it was. No one now ventures to doubt that the Church exercised a
powerful influence on the abolition of slavery; this is a truth too clear and evident
to be questioned. M. Guizot acknowledges the successful efforts with
which the Church labored to improve the social condition. He says: "No one
doubts that she struggled obstinately against the great vices of the social state;
for example, against slavery." But, in the next line, and as if he were reluctant
to establish without any restriction a fact which must necessarily excite in
favor of the Catholic Church the sympathies of all humanity, he adds: "It
has been often repeated that the abolition of slavery in the modern world was
entirely due to Christianity. I believe that this is saying too much; slavery
existed for a long time in the bosom of Christian society without exciting astonishment
or much opposition." M. Guizot is much mistaken if he expects to
prove that the abolition of slavery was not due exclusively to Christianity, by
the mere representation that slavery existed for a long time amid Christian
society. To proceed logically, he must first see whether the sudden abolition
of it was possible, if the spirit of peace and order which animates the Church
could allow her rashly to enter on an enterprise which, without gaining the desired
object, might have convulsed the world. The number of slaves was immense;
slavery was deeply rooted in laws, manners, ideas, and interests, individual
and social; a fatal system, no doubt, but the eradication of which all at
once it would have been rash to attempt, as its roots had penetrated deeply and
spread widely in the bowels of the land.</p>

<p>In a census of Athens there were reckoned 20,000 citizens and 40,000 slaves;
in the Peloponnesian war no less than 20,000 passed over to the enemy. This
we learn from Thucydides. The same author tells us, that at Chio the number
of slaves was very considerable, and that their defection, when they passed over
to the Athenians, reduced their masters to great extremities. In general, the
number of slaves was so very great everywhere that the public safety was often
compromised thereby. Therefore it was necessary to take precautions to prevent
their acting in concert. "It is necessary," says Plato (<cite>Dial.</cite> 6, <cite>de Leg.</cite>),
"that slaves should not be of the same country, and that they should differ as
much as possible in manners and desires; for experience has many times shown,
in the frequent defections which have been witnessed, among the Messenians,
and in other cities that had a great number of slaves of the same language, that
great evils commonly result from it." Aristotle in his Government (b. i. c. 5)
gives various rules as to the manner in which slaves ought to be treated; it is
remarkable that he is of the same opinion as Plato, for he says: "That there
should not be many slaves of the same country." He tells us in his Politics
(b. ii. c. 7), "That the Thessalians were reduced to great embarrassments on
account of the number of their Penestes, a sort of slaves; the same thing happened
to the Spartans on account of the Helotes. The Penestes have often
rebelled in Thessaly; and the Spartans, during their reverses, have been menaced
by the plots of the Helotes." This was a difficulty which required the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span>
serious attention of politicians. They did not know how to prevent the inconveniences
induced by this immense multitude of slaves. Aristotle laments the
difficulty there was in finding the best way of treating them; and we see that
it was the subject of grave cares; I will transcribe his own words: "In truth,"
he says, "the manner in which this class of men ought to be treated is a thing
difficult and full of embarrassment; for if they are treated mildly, they become
insolent, and wish to become equal to their masters; if they are treated harshly,
they conceive hatred, and conspire."</p>

<p>At Rome, the multitude of slaves was such that when, at a certain period, it
was proposed to give them a distinctive dress, the Senate opposed the measure,
fearing that if they knew their own numbers the public safety would be endangered;
and certainly this precaution was not vain, for already, a long time before,
the slaves had caused great commotions in Italy. Plato, in support of the advice
which I have just quoted, states, "That the slaves had frequently devastated
Italy with piracy and robbery." In more recent times Spartacus, at the head
of an army of slaves, was the terror of that country for some time, and engaged
the best generals of Rome. The number of slaves had reached such an excess,
that many masters reckoned them by hundreds. When the Prefect of Rome,
Pedanius Secundus, was assassinated, four hundred slaves who belonged to him
were put to death. (<cite>Tac. Ann.</cite> b. xiv.) Pudentila, the wife of Apulcius, had
so many that she gave four hundred to her son. They became a matter of
pomp, and the Romans vied with each other in their number. When asked
this question, <i lang="la">quod pascit servos</i>, how many slaves does he keep, according to
the expression of Juvenal (<cite>Sat.</cite> 3, v. 140), they wished to be able to show a
great number. The thing had reached such a pass that, according to Pliny, the
cortege of a family resembled an army.</p>

<p>It was not only in Greece and Italy that this abundance of slaves was found;
at Tyre they arose against their masters, and, by their immense numbers, they
were able to massacre them all. If we turn our eyes towards barbarous nations,
without speaking of some the best known, we learn from Herodotus that the
Scythians, on their return from Media, found their slaves in rebellion, and were
compelled to abandon their country to them. Cæsar in his Commentaries (<cite>de
Bello Gall.</cite> lib. vi.) bears witness to the multitude of slaves in Gaul. As their
number was everywhere so considerable, it is clear that it was quite impossible
to preach freedom to them without setting the world on fire. Unhappily we
have, in modern times, the means of forming a comparison which, although on
an infinitely smaller scale, will answer our purpose. In a colony where black
slaves abound, who would venture to set them at liberty all at once? Now how
much are the difficulties increased, what colossal dimensions does not the danger
assume, when you have to do, not with a colony, but with the world? Their
intellectual and moral condition rendered them incapable of turning such an
advantage to their own benefit and that of society; in their debasement, urged
on by the hatred and the desire of vengeance which ill-treatment had excited in
their minds, they would have repeated, on a large scale, the bloody scenes
with which they had already, in former times, stained the pages of history; and
what would then have happened? Society, thus endangered, would have been
put on its guard against principles favoring liberty; henceforth it would have
regarded them with prejudice and suspicion, and the chains of servitude, instead
of being loosened, would have been the more firmly riveted. Out of this immense
mass of rude, savage men, set at liberty without preparation, it was
impossible for social organization to arise; for social organization is not the
creation of a moment, especially with such elements as these; and in this case,
since it would have been necessary to choose between slavery and the annihilation
of social order, the instinct of preservation, which animates society as well
as all beings, would undoubtedly have brought about the continuation of slavery<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span>
where it still existed, and its re-establishment where it had been destroyed.
Those who complain that Christianity did not accomplish the work of abolishing
slavery with sufficient promptitude, should remember that, even supposing a
sudden or very rapid emancipation possible, and to say nothing of the bloody
revolutions which would necessarily have been the result, the mere force of
circumstances, by the insurmountable difficulties which it would have raised,
would have rendered such a measure absolutely useless. Let us lay aside all
social and political considerations, and apply ourselves to the economical question.
First, it was necessary to change all the relations of property. The slaves
played a principal part therein; they cultivated the land, and worked as mechanics;
in a word, among them was distributed all that is called labor; and
this distribution being made on the supposition of slavery, to take away this
would have made a disruption, the ultimate consequences of which could not
be estimated. I will suppose that violent spoliations had taken place, that a
repartition or equalization of property had been attempted, that lands had been
distributed to the emancipated, and that the richest proprietors had been compelled
to hold the pickaxe and the plough; I will suppose all these absurdities
and mad dreams to be realized, and I say that this would have been no remedy;
for we must not forget that the production of the means of subsistence must be
in proportion to the wants of those they are intended to support, and that this
proportion would have been destroyed by the abolition of slavery. The production
was regulated, not exactly according to the number of the individuals
who then existed, but on the supposition that the majority were slaves; now we
know that the wants of a freeman are greater than those of a slave.</p>

<p>If at the present time, after eighteen centuries, when ideas have been corrected,
manners softened, laws ameliorated; when nations and governments
have been taught by experience; when so many public establishments for the
relief of indigence have been founded; when so many systems have been tried
for the division of labor; when riches are distributed in a more equitable manner;
if it is still so difficult to prevent a great number of men from becoming
the victims of dreadful misery, if that is the terrible evil, which, like a fatal
nightmare, torments society, and threatens its future, what would have been the
effect of a universal emancipation, at the beginning of Christianity, at a time
when slaves were not considered by the law as <em>persons</em>, but as <em>things</em>; when
their conjugal union was not looked upon as a marriage; when their children
were property, and subject to the same rules as the progeny of animals; when,
in fine, the unhappy slave was ill-treated, tormented, sold, or put to death,
according to the caprices of his master? Is it not evident that the cure of such
evils was the work of ages? Do not humanity and political and social economy
unanimously tell us this? If mad attempts had been made, the slaves themselves
would have been the first to protest against them; they would have
adhered to a servitude which at least secured to them food and shelter; they
would have rejected a liberty which was inconsistent even with their existence.
Such is the order of nature: man, above all, requires wherewith to live; and
the means of subsistence being wanting, liberty itself would cease to please
him. It is not necessary to allude to the individual examples of this, which
we have in abundance; entire nations have given signal proofs of this truth.
When misery is excessive, it is difficult for it not to bring with it degradation,
stifle the most generous sentiments, and take away the magic of the words independence
and liberty. "The common people," says Cæsar, speaking of the
Gauls (lib. vi. <cite>de Bello Gall.</cite>), "are almost on a level with slaves; of themselves
they venture nothing; their voice is of no avail. There are many of that
class, who, loaded with debts and tributes, or oppressed by the powerful, give
themselves up into servitude to the nobles, who exercise over those who have
thus delivered themselves up the same rights as over slaves." Examples of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span>
same kind are not wanting in modern times; we know that in China there is a
great number of slaves whose servitude is owing entirely to the incapacity of
themselves or their fathers to provide for their own subsistence.</p>

<p>These observations, which are supported by facts that no one can deny, evidently
show that Christianity has displayed profound wisdom in proceeding with
so much caution in the abolition of slavery.</p>

<p>It did all that was possible in favor of human liberty; if it did not advance
more rapidly in the work, it was because it could not do so without compromitting
the undertaking&mdash;without creating serious obstacles to the desired emancipation.
Such is the result at which we arrive when we have thoroughly
examined the charges made against some proceedings of the Church. We look
into them by the light of reason, we compare them with the facts, and in the
end we are convinced that the conduct blamed is perfectly in accordance with
the dictates of the highest wisdom and the counsels of the soundest prudence.
What, then, does M. Guizot mean, when, after having allowed that Christianity
labored with earnestness for the abolition of slavery, he accuses it of having
consented for a long time to its continuance? Is it logical thence to infer that
it is not true that this immense benefit is due exclusively to Christianity? That
slavery endured for a long time in presence of the Church is true; but it was
always declining, and it only lasted as long as was necessary to realize the
benefit without violence&mdash;without a shock&mdash;without compromitting its universality
and its continuation. Moreover, we ought to subtract from the time of
its continuance many ages, during which the Church was often proscribed,
always regarded with aversion, and totally unable to exert a direct influence on
the social organization. We ought also, to a great extent, to make exception of
later times, as the Church had only begun to exert a direct and public influence,
when the irruption of the northern barbarians took place, which, together with
the corruption which infected the empire and spread in a frightful manner, produced
such a perturbation, such a confused mass of languages, customs, manners,
and laws, that it was almost impossible to make the regulating power
produce salutary fruits. If, in later times, it has been difficult to destroy
feudality; if there remain to this day, after ages of struggles, the remnants of
that constitution; if the slave-trade, although limited to certain countries and
circumstances, still merits the universal reprobation which is raised throughout
the world against its infamy; how can we venture to express our astonishment&mdash;how
can we venture to make it a reproach against the Church, that slavery
continued some ages after she had proclaimed men's fraternity with each other,
and their equality before God?</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XVI" id="CHAPTER_XVI">CHAPTER XVI.</a><br />

<small>IDEAS AND MANNERS OF ANTIQUITY WITH RESPECT TO SLAVERY.&mdash;THE
CHURCH BEGINS BY IMPROVING THE CONDITION OF SLAVES</small>.</h2>


<p>Happily the Catholic Church was wiser than philosophers; she knew how
to confer on humanity the benefit of emancipation, without injustice or revolution.
She knew how to regenerate society, but not in rivers of blood. Let us
see what was her conduct with respect to the abolition of slavery. Much has
been already said of the spirit of love and fraternity which animates Christianity,
and that is sufficient to show that its influence in this work must have
been great. But perhaps sufficient care has not been taken in seeking the positive
and practical means which the Church employed for this end. In the darkness
of ages, in circumstances so complicated or various, will it be possible to
discover any traces of the path pursued by the Catholic Church in accomplish<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span>ing
the destruction of that slavery under which a large portion of the human
race groaned? Will it be possible to do any thing more than praise her Christian
charity? Will it be possible to point out a plan, a system, and to prove
the existence and development of it, not by referring to a few expressions, to
elevated thoughts, generous sentiments, and the isolated actions of a few illustrious
men, but by exhibiting positive facts, and historical documents, which
show what were the <i lang="fr">esprit de corps</i> and tendency of the Church? I believe
that this may be done, and I have no doubt that I shall be able to do it, by
availing myself of what is most convincing and decisive in the matter, viz. the
monuments of ecclesiastical legislation.</p>

<p>In the first place, it will not be amiss to remember what I have already pointed
out, viz. that when we have to do with the conduct, designs, and tendencies of
the Church, it is by no means necessary to suppose that these designs were conceived
in their fullest extent by the mind of any individual in particular, nor
that the merit and all the prudence of that conduct was understood by those
who took part in it. It is not even necessary to suppose that the first Christians
understood all the force of the tendencies of Christianity with respect to the
abolition of slavery. What requires to be shown is, that the result has been
obtained by the doctrines and conduct of the Church, as with Catholics, (although
they know how to esteem at their just value the merit and greatness of
each man,) individuals, when the Church is concerned, disappear. Their
thoughts and will are nothing; the spirit which animates, vivifies, and directs
the Church, is not the spirit of man, but that of God himself. Those who
belong not to our faith will employ other names; but at least we shall agree in
this, that facts, considered in this way, above the mind and the will of individuals,
preserve much better their real dimensions; and thus the great chain of
events in the study of history remains unbroken. Let it be said that the conduct
of the Church was inspired and directed by God; or that it was the result
of instinct; that it was the development of a tendency contained in her doctrines;
we will not now stay to consider the expressions which may be used by
Catholics, or by philosophers; what we have to show is, that this instinct was
noble and well-directed; that this tendency had a great object in view, and
knew how to attain it.</p>

<p>The first thing that Christianity did for slaves, was to destroy the errors
which opposed, not only their universal emancipation, but even the improvement
of their condition; that is, the first force which she employed in the attack
was, according to her custom, the <em>force of ideas</em>. This first step was the more
necessary, as the same thing applies to all other evils, as well as to slavery;
every social evil is always accompanied by some error which produces or foments
it. There existed not only the oppression and degradation of a large portion
of the human race, but, moreover, an accredited error, which tended more and
more to lower that portion of humanity. According to this opinion, slaves
were a mean race, far below the dignity of freemen: they were a race degraded
by Jupiter himself, marked by a stamp of humiliation, and predestined to their
state of abjection and debasement. A detestable doctrine, no doubt, and contradicted
by the nature of man, by history and experience; but which, nevertheless,
reckoned distinguished men among its defenders, and which we see proclaimed
for ages, to the shame of humanity and the scandal of reason, until
Christianity came to destroy it, by undertaking to vindicate the rights of man.
Homer tells us (<cite>Odys.</cite> 17) that "Jupiter has deprived slaves of half the mind."
We find in Plato a trace of the same doctrine, although he expresses himself, as
he is accustomed to do, by the mouth of another; he ventures to advance the
following: "It is said that, in the mind of slaves, there is nothing sound or
complete; and that a prudent man ought not to trust that class of persons;
which is equally attested by the wisest of our poets." Here Plato cites the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span>
above-quoted passage of Homer (<cite>Dial.</cite> 8, <cite>de Legibus</cite>). But it is in the Politics
of Aristotle that we find this degrading doctrine in all its deformity and nakedness.
Some have wished to excuse this philosopher, but in vain; his own words
condemn him without appeal. In the first chapter of his work, he explains the
constitution of the family, and attempts to state the relations of husband and
wife, of master and slave; he states that, as the wife is by nature different from
the husband, so is the slave from the master. These are his words: "Thus the
woman and the slave are distinguished by nature itself." Let it not be said
that this is an expression that escaped from the pen of the writer; it was stated
with a full knowledge, and is a <i lang="fr">résumé</i> of his theory. In the third chapter,
where he continues to analyze the elements which compose the family, after
having stated "that a complete family is formed of free persons and slaves,"
he alludes particularly to the latter, and begins by combating an opinion which
he thinks too favorable to them: "There are some," he says, "who think that
slavery is a thing out of the order of nature, since it is the law itself which
makes some free and others slaves, while nature makes no distinction." Before
combating this opinion, he explains the relations between master and slave, by
using the comparison of artist and instrument, and that of the soul and body;
he continues thus: "If we compare man to woman, we find that the first is superior,
therefore he commands; the woman is inferior, therefore she obeys.
The same thing ought to take place among all men. <em>Thus it is that those among
them who are as inferior with respect to others, as the body is with respect to the
soul, and the animal to man; those whose powers principally consist in the use of
the body, the only service that can be obtained from them, they are naturally
slaves.</em>" We should imagine, at first sight, that the philosopher spoke only of
idiots; his words would seem to indicate this; but we shall see, by the context,
that such is not his intention. It is evident that if he spoke only of idiots, he
would prove nothing against the opinion which he desires to combat; for the
number of them is nothing with respect to the generality of men. If he spoke
only of idiots, of what use would be a theory founded on so rare and monstrous
an exception?</p>

<p>But we have no need of conjectures as to the real intention of the philosopher,
he himself takes care to explain it to us, and tells us at the same time for
what reason he ventures to make use of expressions which seem, at first, to place
the matter on another level. His intention is nothing less than to attribute to
nature the express design of producing men of two kinds; one born for slavery,
the other for liberty. The passage is too important and too curious to be
omitted. It is this: "Nature has taken care to create the bodies of free men
different from those of slaves; the bodies of the latter are strong, and proper
for the most necessary labors: those of freemen, on the contrary, well formed,
although ill adapted for servile works, are proper for civil life, which consists
in the management of things in war and peace. Nevertheless, the contrary
often happens. To a free man is given the body of a slave; and to a slave the
soul of a free man. There is no doubt that, if the bodies of some men were as
much more perfect than others, as we see is the case in the image of the Gods,
all the world would be of opinion that these men should be obeyed by those
who had not the same beauty. If this is true in speaking of the body, it is
still more so in speaking of the soul; although it is not so easy to see the
beauty of the soul as that of the body. Thus it cannot be doubted that there
are some men born for liberty, as others are for slavery; a slavery which is not
only useful to the slaves themselves, but, moreover, just." A miserable philosophy,
which, in order to support that degraded state, was obliged to have
recourse to such subtilties, and ventured to impute to nature the intention of creating
different castes, some born to command and others to obey; a cruel philosophy,
which thus labored to break the bonds of fraternity with which the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span>
Author of nature has desired to knit together the human race, pretending to
raise a barrier between man and man, and inventing theories to support inequality;
not that inequality which is the necessary result of all social organization,
but an inequality so terrible and degrading as that of slavery.</p>

<p>Christianity raises its voice, and by the first words which it pronounces on
slaves, declares them equal to all men in the dignity of nature, and in the participation
of the graces which the Divine Spirit diffuses upon earth. We must
remark the care with which St. Paul insists on this point; it seems as if he had
in view those degrading distinctions which have arisen from a fatal forgetfulness
of the dignity of man. The Apostle never forgets to inculcate to the faithful
that there is no difference between the slave and the freeman. "For in one
Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether
bond or free." (1 Cor. xii. 13.) "For you are all children of God, by faith in
Jesus Christ. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put
on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek; <em>there is neither bond or free</em>;
there is neither male or female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. iii.
26-28.) "Where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision,
barbarian or Scythian, bond or free; but Christ is all and in all." (Colos.
iii. 11.) The heart dilates at the sound of the voice thus loudly proclaiming
the great principles of holy fraternity and equality. After having heard the
oracles of Paganism inventing doctrines to degrade still more the unhappy
slaves, we seem to awake from a painful dream, and to find ourselves in the
light of day in the midst of the delightful reality. The imagination delights
to contemplate the millions of men who, bent under degradation and ignominy,
at this voice raised their eyes towards Heaven, and were animated with hope.</p>

<p>It was with this teaching of Christianity as with all generous and fruitful
doctrines; they penetrate the heart of society, remain there as a precious germ,
and, developed by time, produce an immense tree which overshadows families
and nations. When these doctrines were diffused among men, they could not
fail to be misunderstood and exaggerated. Thus there were found some who
pretended that Christian freedom was the proclamation of universal freedom.
The pleasing words of Christ easily resounded in the ears of slaves: they heard
themselves declared children of God, and brethren of Jesus Christ; they saw
that there was no distinction made between them and their masters, between
them and the most powerful lords of the earth; is it, then, strange that men
only accustomed to chains, to labor, to every kind of trouble and degradation,
exaggerated the principles of Christian liberty, and made applications of them
which were neither just in themselves, nor capable of being reduced to practice?
We know, from St. Jerome, that many, hearing themselves called to Christian
liberty, believed that they were thereby freed. Perhaps the Apostle alluded to
this error when, in his first epistle to Timothy, he said, "Whosoever are servants
under the yoke, let them count their masters worthy of all honor; lest
the name of the Lord and His doctrines be blasphemed." (1 Timothy vi. 1.)
This error had been so general, that after three centuries it was still much credited;
and the Council of Gangres, held about 324, was obliged to excommunicate
those who, under pretence of piety, taught that slaves ought to quit their
masters, and withdraw from their service. This was not the teaching of Christianity;
besides, we have clearly shown that it would not have been the right
way to achieve universal emancipation. Therefore this same Apostle, from
whose mouth we have heard such generous language in favor of slaves, frequently
inculcates to them obedience to their masters; but let us observe, that
while fulfilling this duty imposed by the spirit of peace and justice which animates
Christianity, he so explains the motives on which the obedience of slaves
ought to be based, he calls to mind the obligations of masters in such affecting
and energetic words, and establishes so expressly and conclusively the equality<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span>
of all men before God, that we cannot help seeing how great was his compassion
for that unhappy portion of humanity, and how much his ideas on this point
differed from those of a blind and hardened world. There is in the heart of
man a feeling of noble independence, which does not permit him to subject
himself to the will of another, except when he sees that the claims to his obedience
are founded on legitimate titles. If they are in accordance with reason
and justice, and, above all, if they have their roots in the great objects of human
love and veneration, his understanding is convinced, his heart is gained,
and he yields. But if the reason for the command is only the will of another,
if it is only man against man, these thoughts of equality ferment in his mind,
then the feeling of independence burns in his heart, he puts on a bold front,
and his passions are excited. Therefore, when a willing and lasting obedience
is to be obtained, it is necessary that the man should be lost sight of in the
ruler, and that he should only appear as the representative of a superior power,
or the personification of the motives which convince the subject of the justice
and utility of his submission; thus he does not obey the will of another because
it is that will, but because it is the representative of a superior power, or
the interpreter of truth and justice; then man no longer considers his dignity
outraged, and obedience becomes tolerable and pleasing.</p>

<p>It is unnecessary to say that such were not the titles on which was founded
the obedience of slaves before Christianity: custom placed them in the rank of
brutes; and the laws, outdoing it if possible, were expressed in language which
cannot be read without indignation. Masters commanded because such was
their pleasure, and slaves were compelled to obey, not on account of superior
motives or moral obligations, but because they were the property of their masters,
horses governed by the bridle, and mere mechanical machines. Was it,
then, strange that these unhappy beings, drenched with misfortune and ignominy,
conceived and cherished in their hearts that deep rancor, that violent
hatred, and that terrible thirst for vengeance, which at the first opportunity exploded
so fearfully? The horrible massacre of Tyre, the example and terror
of the universe, according to the expression of Justin; the repeated revolts of
the Penestes in Thessaly, of the Helotes in Sparta; the defections of the slaves
of Chio and Athens; the insurrection under the command of Herdonius, and
the terror which it spread in all the families of Rome; the scenes of blood, the
obstinate and desperate resistance of the bands of Spartacus; was all this any
thing but the natural result of the system of violence, outrage, and contempt
with which slaves were treated? Is it not what we have seen repeated in modern
times, in the catastrophes of the negro colonies? Such is the nature of
man, whoever sows contempt and outrage will reap fury and vengeance. Christianity
was well aware of these truths; and this is the reason why, while preaching
obedience, it took care to found it on Divine authority. If it confirmed to
masters their rights, it also taught them an exalted sense of their obligation.
Wherever Christian doctrines prevailed, slaves might say: "It is true that we
are unfortunate; birth, poverty, or the reverses of war have condemned us to
misfortune; but at least we are acknowledged as men and brethren; between
us and our masters there is a reciprocity of rights and obligations." Let us
hear the Apostle: "You, slaves, obey those who are your masters according to
the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your hearts, as to Jesus
Christ himself. <em>Not serving to the eye, as it were pleasing men</em>, but, as the servants
of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With a good will serving,
as to the Lord, and not to men. Knowing that whatsoever good things
any man shall do, the same shall he receive from the Lord, <em>whether he be bond
or free</em>. And you, masters, do the same thing to them, forbearing threatenings,
knowing that the Lord both of them and you is in heaven, and <em>there is no respect
of persons with Him</em>." (Eph. vi. 5-9.) In the Epistle to the Colossians he in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span>culcates
the same doctrine of obedience anew, basing it on the same motives;
for, to console the unfortunate slaves, he tells them: "You shall receive of the
Lord the reward of inheritance: serve ye the Lord Christ. For he that doth
wrong shall receive for that which he hath done wrongfully, and there is no
respect of persons with God" (Colos. iii. 24, 25); and lower down, addressing
himself to masters: "Masters, do to your servants that which is just and equal,
knowing that you also have a Master in heaven." (iv. 1.)</p>

<p>The diffusion of such beneficent doctrines necessarily tended to improve
greatly the condition of slaves; their immediate effect was to soften that excessive
rigor, that cruelty which would be incredible if it were not incontrovertibly
proved. We know that the master had the right of life and death, and that
he abused that power even to putting a slave to death from caprice, as Quintus
Flaminius did in the midst of a festival. Another caused one of these unfortunate
beings to be thrown to the fishes, because he broke a glass of crystal.
This is related of Vedius Pollio; and this horrible cruelty was not confined to
the circle of a few families subject to a master devoid of compassion; no, cruelty
was formed into a system, the fatal but necessary result of erroneous notions on
this point, and of the forgetfulness of the sentiments of humanity. This violent
system could only be supported by constantly trampling upon the slave;
and there was no cessation of tyranny until the day when he, with superior
power, attacked his master and destroyed him. An ancient proverb said, "So
many slaves, so many enemies." We have already seen the ravages committed
by men thus rendered savage by revenge, whenever they were able to break
their chains; but certainly, when it was desired to terrify them, their masters
did not yield to them in ferocity. At Sparta, on one occasion when they feared
the ill-will of the Helotes, they assembled them all at the temple of Jupiter,
and put them to death. (<cite>Thucyd.</cite> b. iv.) At Rome, whenever a master was
assassinated, all his slaves were condemned to death. We cannot read in Tacitus
without a shudder (<cite>Ann.</cite> l. xiv. 43) the horrible scene which was witnessed
when the prefect of the town, Pedanius Secundus, was assassinated by one of
his slaves. Not less than four hundred were to die; all, according to the ancient
custom, were to be led to punishment. This cruel and pitiable spectacle,
in which so many of the innocent were to suffer death, excited the compassion
of the people, who raised a tumult to prevent this horrid butchery. The Senate,
in doubt, deliberated on the affair, when an orator named Cassius maintained
with energy that it was necessary to complete the bloody execution, not
only in obedience to the ancient custom, but also because without it it would
be impossible to preserve themselves from the ill-will of the slaves. His words
are all dictated by injustice and tyranny; he sees on all sides dangers and conspiracies;
he can imagine no other safeguards than force and terror. The following
passage is above all remarkable in his speech, as showing in a few words
the ideas and manners of the ancients in this matter: "Our ancestors," says
the senator, "always mistrusted the character of slaves, even of those who,
born on their possessions and in their houses, might be supposed to have conceived
from their cradle an affection for their masters; but as we have slaves
of foreign nations, differing in customs and religion, this rabble can only be
restrained by terror." Cruelty prevailed, the boldness of the people was repressed,
the way was filled with soldiers, and the four hundred unfortunate beings
were led to punishment.</p>

<p>To soften this cruel treatment, to banish these frightful atrocities, ought to
have been the first effect of the Christian doctrines; and we may rest assured
that the Church never lost sight of so important an object. She devoted all
her efforts to improve as much as possible the condition of slaves; in punishments
she caused mildness to be substituted for cruelty; and what was more
important than all, she labored to put reason in the place of caprice, and to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span>
make the impetuosity of masters yield to the calmness of judges; that is to
say, she every day assimilated the condition of slaves more and more to that of
freemen, by making right and not might reign over them. The Church never
forgot the noble lesson which the Apostle gave when writing to Philemon, and
interceding in favor of a fugitive slave named Onesimus; he spoke in his favor
with a tenderness which this unhappy class had never before inspired: "I beseech
thee," he says to him, "for my son Onesimus. Receive him as my own
bowels; no more as a slave, but as a most dear brother. If he hath wronged
thee in any thing, or is in thy debt, put that to my account." (Epis. to Phil.)
The Council of Elvira, held in the beginning of the fourth century, subjects
the woman who shall have beaten her slave so as to cause her death in three
days to many years of penance; the Council of Orleans, held in 549, orders
that if a slave guilty of a fault take refuge in a church, he is to be restored to
his master, but not without having exacted from the latter a promise, confirmed
by oath, that he will not do him any harm; that if the master, in violation of
his oath, maltreat the slave, he shall be separated from the communion of the
faithful and the sacraments. This canon shows us two things: the habitual
cruelty of masters, and the zeal of the Church to soften the treatment of slaves.
To restrain this cruelty, nothing less than an oath was required; and the Church,
always so careful in these things, yet considered the matter important enough to
justify and require the invocation of the sacred name of God.</p>

<p>The favor and protection which the Church granted to slaves rapidly extended.
It seems that in some places the custom was introduced of requiring a promise
on oath, not only that the slave who had taken refuge in the church should not
be ill-treated in his person, but even that no extraordinary work should be imposed
on him, and that he should wear no distinctive mark. This custom, produced
no doubt by zeal for humanity, but which may have occasioned some inconveniences
by relaxing too much the ties of obedience, and allowing excesses
on the part of slaves, appears to be alluded to in a regulation of the Council of
Epaone (now Abbon, according to some), held about 517. This Council labors
to stop the evil by prescribing a prudent moderation; but without withdrawing
the protection already granted. It ordains, in the 39th canon, "That if a slave,
guilty of any atrocious offence, takes refuge in a church, he shall be saved from
corporal punishment; but the master shall not be compelled to swear that he
will not impose on him additional labor, or that he will not cut off his hair,
in order to make known his fault." Observe that this restriction is introduced
only in the case when the slave shall have committed a heinous offence, and
even in this case all the power allowed to the master consists in imposing on the
slave extraordinary labor, or distinguishing him by cutting his hair.</p>

<p>Perhaps such indulgence may be considered excessive; but we must observe
that when abuses are deeply rooted, they cannot be eradicated without a vigorous
effort. At first sight it often appears as if the limits of prudence were
passed; but this apparent excess is only the inevitable oscillation which is observed
before things regain their right position. The Church had therein no
wish to protect crime, or give unmerited indulgence; her object was to check
the violence and caprice of masters; she did not wish to allow a man to suffer
torture or death because such was the will of another. The establishment of
just laws and legitimate tribunals, the Church has never opposed; but she has
never given her consent to acts of private violence. The spirit of opposition to
the exercise of private force, which includes social organization, is clearly shown
to us in the 15th canon of the Council of Merida, held in 666. I have already
shown that slaves formed a large portion of property. As the division of labor
was made in conformity with this principle, slaves were absolutely necessary to
those who possessed property, especially when it was considerable. Now the
Church found this to be the case; and as she could not change the organization<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span>
of society on a sudden, she was obliged to yield to necessity, and admit slavery.
But if she wished to introduce improvements in the lot of slaves in general, it
was good for her to set the example herself: this example is found in the canon
I have just quoted. There, after having forbidden the bishops and priests to
maltreat the servants of the Church by mutilating their limbs, the Council
ordains that if a slave commit an offence, he shall be delivered to the secular
judges, but so that the bishops shall moderate the punishment inflicted on him.
We see by this canon that the right of mutilation exercised by private masters
was still in use; and perhaps it was still more strongly established, since we see
that the Council limits itself to interdicting that kind of punishment to ecclesiastics,
without saying any thing as to laymen. No doubt, one of the motives
for this prohibition made to ecclesiastics, was to prevent their shedding human
blood, and thus rendering themselves incapable of exercising their lofty ministry,
the principal act of which is the august sacrifice in which they offer a victim
of peace and love; but this does not in any way detract from the merit of
the regulation, or at all diminish its influence on the improvement of the condition
of slaves. It was the substitution of public vengeance for private; it
was again to proclaim the equality of slaves and freemen with respect to the
effusion of their blood; it was to declare that the hands which had shed the
blood of a slave, had contracted the same stain as if they had shed that of a
freeman. Now, it was necessary to inculcate these salutary truths on men's
minds in every way, for they ran in direct contradiction to the ideas and manners
of antiquity; it was necessary to labor assiduously to destroy the shameful
and cruel exceptions which continued to deprive the majority of mankind of a
participation in the rights of humanity. There is, in the canon which I have
just quoted, a remarkable circumstance, which shows the solicitude of the
Church to restore to slaves the dignity and respect of which they had been deprived.
To shave the hair of the head was among the Goths a very ignominious
punishment; which, according to Lucas de Tuy, was to them more cruel
than death itself. It will be understood, that whatever was the force of prejudice
on this point, the Church might have allowed the shaving of the hair without
incurring the stain which was attached to the shedding of blood. Yet she
was not willing to allow it, which shows us how attentive she was to destroy the
marks of humiliation impressed on slaves. After having enjoined priests and
bishops to deliver criminal slaves to the judges, she commands them "not to
allow them to be shaved ignominiously." No care was too great in this matter;
to destroy one after another the odious exceptions which affected slaves, it was
necessary to seize upon all favorable opportunities. This necessity is clearly
shown by the manner in which the eleventh Council of Toledo, held in 675,
expresses itself. This Council, in its 6th canon, forbids bishops themselves to
judge crimes of a capital nature, as it also forbids them to order the mutilation
of members. Behold in what terms it was considered necessary to state that
this rule admitted of no exception; "not even," says the Council, "with
respect to the slaves of the Church." The evil was great, it could not be cured
without assiduous care. Even the right of life and death, the most cruel of all,
could not be extirpated without much trouble; and cruel applications of it were
made in the beginning of the sixth century, since the Council of Epaone, in its
34th canon, ordains that "the master who, <em>of his own authority</em>, shall take
away the life of his slave, shall be cut off for two years from the communion of
the Church." After the middle of the ninth century, similar attempts were
still made, and the Council of Worms, held in 868, labored to repress them,
by subjecting to two years of penance the master who, of his own authority,
shall have put his slave to death.</p>

<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XVII" id="CHAPTER_XVII">CHAPTER XVII.</a><br />

<small>MEANS EMPLOYED BY THE CHURCH TO ENFRANCHISE SLAVES</small>.</h2>


<p>While improving the condition of slaves and assimilating it as much as
possible to that of freemen, it was necessary not to forget the universal emancipation;
for it was not enough to ameliorate slavery, it was necessary to abolish
it. The mere force of Christian notions, and the spirit of charity which was
spread at the same time with them over the world, made so violent an attack on
the state of slavery, that they were sure sooner or later to bring about its complete
abolition. It is impossible for society to remain for a long time under an
order of things which is formally opposed to the ideas with which it is imbued.
According to Christian maxims, all men have a common origin and the same
destiny; all are brethren in Jesus Christ; all are obliged to love each other
with all their hearts, to assist each other in their necessities, to avoid offending
each other even in words; all are equal before God, for they will all be judged
without exception of persons. Christianity extended and took root everywhere&mdash;took
possession of all classes, of all branches of society; how, then, could
the state of slavery last&mdash;a state of degradation which makes man the property
of another, allows him to be sold like an animal, and deprives him of the
sweetest ties of family and of all participation in the advantages of society?
Two things so opposite could not exist together; the laws were in favor of
slavery, it is true; it may even be said that Christianity did not make a direct
attack on those laws. But, on the other hand, what did it do? It strove to
make itself master of ideas and manners, communicated to them a new impulse,
and gave them a different direction. In such a case, what did laws avail?
Their rigor was relaxed, their observance was neglected, their equity began to
be doubted, their utility was disputed, their fatal effects were remarked, and
they gradually fell into desuetude, so that sometimes it was not necessary to
strike a blow to destroy them. They were thrown aside as things of no use;
or, if they deserved the trouble of an express abolition, it was only for the sake
of ceremony; it was a body interred with honor.</p>

<p>But let it not be supposed, after what I have just said, that in attributing so
much importance to Christian ideas and manners, I mean that the triumph of
these ideas and manners was abandoned to that force alone, without that co-operation
on the part of the Church which the time and circumstances required.
Quite the contrary: the Church, as I have already pointed out, called to her
aid all the means the most conducive to the desired result. In the first place,
it was requisite, to secure the work of emancipation, to protect from all assault
the liberty of the freed&mdash;liberty which unhappily was often attacked and put in
great danger. The causes of this melancholy fact may be easily found in the
remains of ancient ideas and manners, in the cupidity of powerful men, the
system of violence made general by the irruptions of the barbarians, in the
poverty, neglect, and total want of education and morality in which slaves must
have been when they quitted servitude. It must be supposed that a great
number of them did not know all the value of liberty; that they did not always
conduct themselves, in their new state, according to the dictates of reason and
the exigences of justice; and that, newly entered on the possession of the rights
of freemen, they did not know how to fulfil all their new obligations. But
these different inconveniences, inseparable from the nature of things, were not
to hinder the consummation of an enterprise called for both by religion and
humanity, and it was proper to be resigned to them from the consideration of
the numerous motives for excusing the conduct of the enfranchised; the state
which these men had just quitted had checked the development of their moral
and intellectual faculties.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span></p>

<p>The liberty of newly-emancipated slaves was protected against the attacks of
injustice, and clothed with an inviolable sanctity, from the time that their
enfranchisement was connected with things which then exercised the most powerful
ascendency. Now the Church, and all that belonged to her, was in this
influential position; therefore the custom, which was then introduced, of performing
the manumission in the churches, was undoubtedly very favorable to
the progress of liberty. This custom, by taking the place of ancient usages,
caused them to be forgotten; it was, at the same time, a tacit declaration of the
value of human liberty in the sight of God, and a proclamation, with additional
authority, of the equality of men before Him; for the manumission was made
in the same place where it was so often read, that before Him there was no exception
of persons; where all earthly distinctions disappeared, and all men were
commingled and united by the sweet ties of fraternity and love. This method
of manumission more clearly invested the Church with the right of defending
the liberty of the enfranchised. As she had been witness to the act, she could
testify to the spontaneity and the other circumstances which assured its validity;
she could even insist on its observance, by representing that the promised liberty
could not be violated without profaning the sacred place, without breaking a
pledge which had been given in the presence of God himself. The Church did
not forget to turn these circumstances to the advantage of the freed. Thus we
see that the first Council of Orange, held in 441, ordains, in its 7th canon, that
it was necessary to check, by ecclesiastical censures, whoever desired to reduce
to any kind of servitude slaves who had been emancipated within the enclosure
of the church. A century later we find the same prohibition repeated in the
7th canon of the fifth Council of Orleans, held in 549.</p>

<p>The protection given by the Church to freed slaves was so manifest and
known to all, that the custom was introduced of especially recommending them
to her. This recommendation was sometimes made by will, as the Council of
Orange, which I have just quoted, gives us to understand; for it orders that
the emancipated who had been recommended to the Church by will, shall be
protected from all kinds of servitude, by ecclesiastical censures.</p>

<p>But this recommendation was not always made in a testamentary form. We
read in the sixth canon of the sixth Council of Toledo, held in 589, that when
any enfranchised persons had been recommended to the Church, neither they
nor their children could be deprived of the protection of the Church: here they
speak in general, without limitation to cases in which there had been a will.
The same regulation may be seen in another Council of Toledo, held in 633,
which simply says, that the Church will receive under her protection only
the enfranchised of individuals who shall have taken care to recommend them
to her.</p>

<p>In the absence of all particular recommendation, and even when the manumission
had not been made in the Church, she did not cease to interest herself
in defending the freed, when their liberty was endangered. He who has any
regard for the dignity of man, and any feeling of humanity in his heart, will
certainly not find it amiss that the Church interfered in affairs of this kind;
indeed, she acted as every generous man should do, in the exercise of the right
of protecting the weak. We shall not be displeased, therefore, to find in the
twenty-ninth canon of the Council of Agde in Languedoc, held in 506, a regulation
commanding the Church, in case of necessity, to undertake the defence
of those to whom their masters had given liberty in a lawful way.</p>

<p>The zeal of the Church in all times and places for the redemption of captives
has no less contributed to the great work of the abolition of slavery. We know
that a considerable portion of slaves owed their servitude to the reverses of
war. The mild character which we see in modern wars would have appeared
fabulous to the ancients. Woe to the vanquished! might then be said with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span>
perfect truth; there was nothing but slavery or death. The evil was rendered
still greater by a fatal prejudice, which was felt with respect to the redemption
of captives&mdash;a prejudice which was, nevertheless, founded on a trait of remarkable
heroism. No doubt the heroic firmness of Regulus is worthy of all admiration.
The hair stands upon our head when we read the powerful description
of Horace; the book falls from our hands at this terrible passage:</p>

<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza">
<div class="verse">"Fertur pudicæ conjugis osculum<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Parvosque natos, ut capitis minor,<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Ab se removisse, et virilem<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Torvus humi posuisse vultum."&mdash;Lib. iii. od. 5.<br /></div>
</div></div></div>

<p>Nevertheless, if we lay aside the deep impression which such heroism produces
on us, and the enthusiasm at all that shows a great soul, we must confess that
this virtue bordered on ferocity; and that, in the terrible discourse of Regulus,
that is a cruel policy, against which the sentiments of humanity would strongly
recoil, if the mind were not, as it were, prostrated at the sight of the sublime
disinterestedness of the speaker. Christianity could not consent to such doctrines;
it could not allow the maxim to be maintained that, in order to render
men brave in battle, it was necessary to deprive them of hope. The wonderful
traits of valor, the magnificent scenes of force and constancy, which shine in
every page of the history of modern nations, eloquently show that the Christian
religion was not deceived; gentleness of manners may be united with heroism.
The ancients were always in excess, either in cowardice or ferocity; between
these two extremes there is a middle way, and that has been taught to mankind
by the Christian religion. Christianity, in accordance with its principles of
fraternity and love, regarded the redemption of captives as one of the worthiest
objects of its charitable zeal. Whether we consider the noble traits of particular
actions, which have been preserved to us by history, or observe the spirit
which guided the conduct of the Church, we shall find therein one of the most
distinguished claims of the Christian religion to the gratitude of mankind.</p>

<p>A celebrated writer of our times, M. de Chateaubriand, has described to us
a Christian priest who, in the forests of France, voluntarily made himself a
slave, who devoted himself to slavery for the ransom of a Christian soldier, and
thus restored a husband to his desolate wife, and a father to three unfortunate
orphan children. The sublime spectacle which Zachary offers us, when enduring
slavery with calm serenity for the love of Jesus Christ, and for the unhappy
being for whom he has sacrificed his liberty, is not a mere fiction of the poet.
More than once, in the first ages of the Church, such examples were seen; and
he who has wept over the sublime disinterestedness and unspeakable charity of
Zachary, may be sure that his tears are only a tribute to the truth. "We
have known," says St. Clement the Pope, "many of ours who have devoted
themselves to captivity, in order to ransom their brethren." (<cite>First Letter to the
Corinth.</cite> c. 55.) The redemption of captives was so carefully provided for by
the Church that it was regulated by the ancient canons, and to fulfil it, she
sold, if necessary, her ornaments, and even the sacred vessels. When unhappy
captives were in question, her charity and zeal knew no bounds, and she went
so far as to ordain that, however bad might be the state of her affairs, their
ransom should be provided for in the first instance. (<cite>Caus.</cite> 12, 5, 2.) In the
midst of revolutions produced by the irruption of barbarians, we see that the
Church, always constant in her designs, forgot not the noble enterprise in which
she was engaged. The beneficent regulations of the ancient canons fell not into
forgetfulness or desuetude, and the generous words of the holy Bishop of Milan,
in favor of slaves, found an echo which ceased not to be heard amid the chaos
of those unhappy times. We see by the fifth canon of the Council of Mâcon,
held in 585, that priests undertook the ransom of captives by devoting to it the
Church property. The Council of Rheims, held in 625, inflicts the punishment<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span>
of suspension from his functions on the bishop who shall have destroyed the
sacred vessels; but with generous foresight, it adds, "for any other motive
than the redemption of captives;" and long afterwards, in the twelfth canon
of the Council of Verneuil, held in 844, we find that the property of the Church
was used for that merciful purpose. When the captive was restored to liberty,
the Church did not deprive him of her protection; she was careful to continue
it, by giving him letters of recommendation, for the double purpose of protecting
him from new trouble during his journey, and of furnishing him with the
means of repairing his losses during his captivity. We find a proof of this new
kind of protection in the second canon of the Council of Lyons, held in 583,
which ordains that bishops shall state in the letters of recommendation which
they give to captives, the date and price of their ransom. The zeal for this
work was displayed in the Church with so much ardor, that it went so far as to
commit acts of imprudence which the ecclesiastical authority was compelled to
check. These excesses, and this mistaken zeal, prove how great was the spirit
of charity. We know by a Council, called that of St. Patrick, held in Ireland
in the year 451 or 456, that some of the clergy ventured to procure the freedom
of captives by inducing them to run away. The Council, by its thirty-second
canon, very prudently checks this excess, by ordaining that the ecclesiastic
who desires to ransom captives must do so with his own money; for to steal
them, by inducing them to run away, was to expose the clergy to be considered
as robbers, which was a dishonor to the Church. A remarkable document,
which, while showing us the spirit of order and equity which guides the Church,
at the same time enables us to judge how deeply was engraved on men's minds
the maxim, that <em>it is holy, meritorious, and generous to give liberty to captives</em>;
for we see that some persons had persuaded themselves that the excellence of
the work justified seizing them forcibly. The disinterestedness of the Church
on this point is not less laudable. When she had employed her funds in the
ransom of a captive, she did not desire from him any recompense, even when
he had it in his power to discharge the debt. We have a certain proof of this
in the letters of St. Gregory, where we see that that Pope reassures some persons
who had been freed with the money of the Church, and who feared that
after a time they would be called upon to pay the sum expended for their
advantage. The Pope orders that no one, at any time, shall venture to disturb
either them or their heirs, seeing that the sacred canons allow the employment
of the goods of the Church for the ransom of captives. (L. 7, ep. 14.)</p>

<p>The zeal of the Church for so holy a work must have contributed in an extraordinary
way to diminish the number of slaves; the influence of it was so much
the more salutary, as it was developed precisely at the time when it was most
needed, that is, in those ages when the dissolution of the Roman empire, the
irruption of the barbarians, the fluctuations of so many peoples, and the ferocity
of the invading nations, rendered wars so frequent, revolutions so constant, and
the empire of force so habitual and prevailing. Without the beneficent and
liberating intervention of Christianity, the immense number of slaves bequeathed
by the old society to the new, far from diminishing, would have been
augmented more and more; for wherever the law of brute force prevails, if it
be not checked and softened by a powerful element, the human race becomes
rapidly debased, the necessary result of which is the increase of slavery. This
lamentable state of agitation and violence was in itself very likely to render
the efforts which the Church made to abolish slavery useless; and it was not
without infinite trouble that she prevented what she succeeded in preserving on
one side, from being destroyed on the other. The absence of a central power,
the complication of social relations, almost always badly determined, often
affected by violence, and always deprived of the guarantee of stability and consistency,
was the reason why there was no security either for things or persons,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span>
and that while properties were unceasingly invaded, persons were deprived of
their liberty. So that it was at that time necessary to fight against the violence
of individuals, as had been formerly done against manners and legislation.
We see that the third canon of the Council of Lyons, held about 566, excommunicates
those who unjustly retain free persons in slavery; in the seventeenth
canon of the Council of Rheims, held in 625, it is forbidden, under the same
penalty, to pursue free persons in order to reduce them to slavery: in the twenty-seventh
canon of the Council of London, held in 1102, the barbarous custom
of dealing in men, like animals, is proscribed: and in the seventh canon of the
Council of Coblentz, held in 922, he who takes away a Christian to sell him is
declared guilty of homicide; a remarkable declaration, when we see liberty
valued at as high a price as life itself. Another means of which the Church
availed herself to abolish slavery was, to preserve for the unfortunate who had
been reduced to that state by misery, a sure means of quitting it.</p>

<p>We have already remarked above that indigence was one of the causes of
slavery, and we have seen that this was frequently the cause among the Gauls,
as is evidenced by a passage of Cæsar. We also know that by virtue of an
ancient law, he who had fallen into slavery could not recover his liberty without
the consent of his master; as the slave was really property, no one could dispose
of him without the consent of his master, and least of all himself. This
law was in accordance with Pagan doctrines, but Christianity regarded the thing
differently; and if the slave was still in her eyes a property, he did not cease
to be a man. Thus on this point the Church refused to follow the strict rules
of other properties; and when there was the least doubt, at the first favorable
opportunity she took the side of the slave. These observations make us understand
all the value of the new law introduced by the Church, which ordained
that persons who had been sold by necessity should be able to return to their
former condition by restoring the price which they had received. This law,
which is expressly laid down in a French Council, held about 616 at Boneuil,
according to the common opinion, opened a wide field for the conquests of
liberty; it supported in the heart of the slave a hope which urged him to seek
and put into operation the means of obtaining his ransom, and it placed his
liberty within the power of any one who, touched with his unhappy lot, was
willing to pay or lend the necessary sum. Let us remember what we have said
of the ardent zeal which was awakened in so many hearts for works of this
kind; let us call to mind that the property of the Church was always considered
as well employed when it was used for the succor of the unfortunate, and we
shall understand the incalculable influence of the regulation which we have just
mentioned. We shall see that it was to close one of the most abundant sources
of slavery, and prepare a wide path to universal emancipation.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XVIII" id="CHAPTER_XVIII">CHAPTER XVIII.</a><br />

<small>CONTINUATION OF THE SAME SUBJECT</small>.</h2>


<p>The conduct of the Church with respect to the Jews also contributed to the
abolition of slavery. This singular people, who bear on their forehead the mark
of proscription, and are found dispersed among all nations, like fragments of
insoluble matter floating in a liquid, seek to console themselves in their misfortune
by accumulating treasures, and appear to wish to avenge themselves for
the contemptuous neglect in which they are left by other nations, by gaining
possession of their wealth by means of insatiable usury. In times when revolutions
and so many calamities must necessarily have produced distress, the
odious vice of unfeeling avarice must have had a fatal influence. The harsh<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span>ness
and cruelty of ancient laws and manners concerning debtors were not
effaced, liberty was far from being estimated at its just value, and examples of
persons who sold it to relieve their necessities were not wanting; it was therefore
important to prevent the power of the wealthy Jews from reaching an
exorbitant extent, to the detriment of the liberty of Christians. The unhappy
notoriety which, after so many centuries, attaches to the Jews in this matter,
proves that this danger was not imaginary; and facts of which we are now
witnesses are a confirmation of what we advance. The celebrated Herder, in his
<cite>Adrastus</cite>, ventures to prognosticate that the children of Israel, from their systematic
and calculating conduct, will in time make slaves of all Christians. If
this extraordinary and extravagant apprehension could enter the head of a distinguished
man, in circumstances which are certainly infinitely less favorable to
the Jews, what was to be feared from this people in the unhappy times of which
we speak? From these considerations, every impartial observer, every man who
is not under the influence of the wretched desire of taking the part of every
kind of sect, in order to have the pleasure of accusing the Catholic Church,
even at the risk of speaking against the interests of humanity; every observer
who is not one of those who are less alarmed by an irruption of Caffres than
by any regulation by which the ecclesiastical power appears in the smallest
degree to extend the circle of its prerogative; every man, I say, who is neither
thus bitter, little, nor pitiful, will see, not only without being scandalized, but
even with pleasure, that the Church, with prudent vigilance, watched the progress
of the Jews, and lost no opportunity of favoring their Christian slaves,
until they were no longer allowed to have any.</p>

<p>The third Council of Orleans, held in 538, by its 13th canon, forbids Jews to
compel Christian slaves to do things contrary to the religion of Jesus Christ.
This regulation, which guarantied the liberty of the slave in the sanctuary of
conscience, rendered him respectable even in the eyes of his master: it was
besides a solemn proclamation of the dignity of man, it was a declaration that
slavery could not extend its dominion over the sacred region of the mind. Yet
this was not enough; it was proper also that the recovery of their liberty should
be facilitated to the slaves of Jews. Three years only pass away; a fourth
Council is held at Orleans; let us observe the progress which the question had
made in so short a time. This Council, by its 30th canon, allows the Christian
slaves who shall take refuge in the church to be ransomed, on paying to their
Jewish master the proper price. If we pay attention, we shall see that such a
regulation must have produced abundant results in favor of liberty, as it gave
Christian slaves the opportunity of flying to the churches, and there imploring,
with more effect, the charity of their brethren, to gain the price of their ransom.
The same Council, in its 31st canon, ordains that the Jew who shall pervert
a Christian slave shall be condemned to lose all his slaves; a new sanction
given to the security of the slave's conscience&mdash;a new way opened to liberty.
The Church constantly advanced with that unity of plan&mdash;that admirable consistency&mdash;which
even her enemies have acknowledged in her. In the short
interval between the period alluded to and the latter part of the same century,
her progress was more perceptible. We observe, in the canonical regulations
of the latter period, a wider scope, and, if we may so speak, greater boldness.
In the Council of Mâcon, held in 581 or 582, canon 16, Jews are expressly
forbidden to have Christian slaves; and it is allowed to ransom those
who are in their possession for twelve sous. We find the same prohibition in
the 14th canon of the Council of Toledo, held in 589; so that at this time the
Church shows what her desire is; she is unwilling that a Christian should be in
any way the slave of a Jew. Constant in her design, she checked the evil by
all the means in her power; if it was necessary, limiting the right of selling
slaves, when there was danger of their falling into the hands of Jews.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span>
Thus we see that, by the 9th canon of the Council of Châlons, held in 650, it
is forbidden to sell slaves out of the kingdom of Clovis, lest they should fall
into the power of Jews. Yet the intention of the Church on this point was not
understood by all, and her views were not seconded as they ought to have been;
but she did not cease to repeat and inculcate them. In the middle of the seventh
century there were found clergy and laity who sold their Christian slaves to
Jews. The Church labored to check this abuse. The tenth Council of Toledo,
held in 657, by its 7th canon, forbids Christians, and especially clerics, to sell
their slaves to Jews; the Council adds these noble words: "They cannot be
ignorant that these slaves have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ;
wherefore they ought rather to buy than sell them."</p>

<p>This ineffable goodness of a God made man, who had shed His blood for the
redemption of all men, was the powerful motive which urged the Church to
interest herself with so much zeal in the enfranchisement of slaves; and, indeed,
was it not enough to inspire horror for so degrading an inequality, to
think that these same men, reduced to the level of brutes, had been, as well as
their masters, as well as the most powerful monarchs upon earth, the objects
of the merciful intentions of the Most High? "Since our Redeemer, the
Creator of all things," said Pope S. Gregory, "has deigned, in His goodness,
to assume the flesh of man, in order to restore to us our pristine liberty, by
breaking, through the means of His Divine grace, the bonds of servitude, which
held us captives, it is a salutary deed to restore to men, by enfranchisement,
their native liberty; for, in the beginning, nature made them all free, and they
have only been subjected to the yoke of servitude by the law of nations."
(L. 5, lett. 72.)</p>

<p>During all times the Church has considered it very necessary to limit, as
much as possible, the alienation of her property; and it may be said that the
general rule of her conduct in this point was to trust very little to the discretion
of any one of her ministers individually; she thus endeavored to prevent dilapidations,
which otherwise would have been frequent. As her possessions were
dispersed on all sides, and intrusted to ministers chosen from all classes of the
people, and exposed to the various influences which the relations of blood, friendship,
and a thousand other circumstances, the effects of difference of character,
knowledge, prudence, and even of times and places, always exercise, the Church
showed herself very watchful in giving her sanction to the power of alienation;
and, when requisite, she knew how to act with salutary rigor against those ministers
who, neglecting their duty, wasted the funds confided to them. We
have seen that, in spite of all this, she was not stopped by any consideration
when the ransom of captives was in question; it may be also shown that, with
respect to property in slaves, she saw things in a different light, and changed
her rigor into indulgence. When slaves had faithfully served the Church, the
Bishops could grant them their liberty, and add a gift to assist them in maintaining
themselves. This judgment as to the merit of slaves appears to have
been confided to the discretion of the Bishops; and it is evident that such a
regulation opened a wide door to their charity; at the same time, it stimulated
the slaves to behave themselves, so as to deserve so precious a recompense. As
it might happen that the succeeding Bishop might raise doubts as to the sufficiency
of the motives which induced his predecessor to give liberty to a slave,
and attempt afterwards to call it in question, it was ordained that they should
respect the appointments of their predecessors on this point, and leave to the
enfranchised not only their liberty, but also the gratuity which had been given
to them in lands, vineyards, or houses: this is prescribed in the 7th canon of
the Council of Agde in Languedoc, held in the year 506. Let it not be objected
that manumission is forbidden by the canons of this Council in other
places; they speak only in general terms, and allude not to cases where slaves<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span>
had merited well. Alienations or mortgages made by a Bishop who left no property
were to be revoked. This regulation itself shows that it alludes to cases
in which the Bishops had acted against the canons. Yet if he had given liberty
to any slaves, the rigor of the law was mitigated in their favor, and it was
ordained that the enfranchised should continue to enjoy their liberty. This is
ordained by the 9th canon of the Council of Orleans, held in 541. This canon
only imposes on the enfranchised the obligation of lending their services to the
Church; services which were evidently only those of the enfranchised. On the
other hand, she recompensed them with the protection which she always granted
to men in this condition.</p>

<p>As another proof of the indulgence of the Church with respect to slaves,
may be cited the 10th canon of the Council of Celchite, in England, held in
816, the result of which must have been to enfranchise, in a few years, all the
English slaves of the Churches existing in the countries where the Council was
observed. Indeed, this canon ordained that, at the death of a Bishop, all his
English slaves should be set at liberty; it added, that each of the other Bishops
and Abbots might enfranchise three slaves on the occasion, by giving each of
them three sous. Such regulations smoothed the way more and more, and prepared
circumstances and men's minds, so that, some time later, was witnessed
that noble scene, where, at the Council of Armagh, in 1172, liberty was given
to all the English who were slaves in Ireland.</p>

<p>The advantageous conditions enjoyed by the slaves of the Church were so
much the more valuable, because a regulation newly introduced prevented their
losing them. If they could have passed into the hands of other masters, in this
case they would have lost the benefits which they derived from living under the
rule of so kind a mistress. But happily, it was forbidden to exchange them for
others; and if they left the power of the Church, it was for freedom. We have
a positive proof of this regulation in the decretals of Gregory IX. (l. 3, t. 19,
chaps. 3 and 4). It should be observed that in this document the slaves of the
Church are regarded as consecrated to God; thereon is founded the regulation
which prevents their passing into other hands and leaving the Church, except as
freemen. We also see there that the faithful, for the good of their souls, had
the custom of offering their slaves to God and the Saints. By placing them
thus in the power of the Church, they put them out of common dealing and
prevented their again falling into profane servitude. It is useless to enlarge on
the salutary effect which must have been produced by these ideas and manners,
in which we see religion so intimately allied with the cause of humanity; it is
enough to observe, that the spirit of that age was highly religious, and that
which was attached to the cause of religion was sure to ride in safety.</p>

<p>Religious ideas, by constantly developing their strength and directing their
action to all branches, were intended in a special manner to relieve men by all
possible means from the yoke of slavery. On this subject we may be allowed
to remark a canonical regulation of the time of Gregory the Great. In a Council
at Rome, held in 595, and presided over by that Pope, a new means of
escaping from their degraded state was offered to slaves, by deciding that liberty
should be given to all those who desired to embrace the monastic life. The
words of the holy Pope are worthy of attention; they show the ascendency of
religious motives, and how much these motives preponderated over considerations
and interests of a worldly nature. This important document is found
in the letters of St. Gregory; it may be read in the notes at the end of the
volume.</p>

<p>To imagine that such regulations would remain barren, is to mistake the spirit
of those times: on the contrary, they produced the most important effects. We
may form an idea of them by reading in the decree of Gratian (<cite>Distin.</cite> 54, c. 12),
that they led to scandal; slaves fled from the houses of their masters and took<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span>
refuge in monasteries, under pretext of religion. It was necessary to check this
abuse, against which complaints arose on all sides. Without waiting to consider
what these abuses themselves indicate, is it difficult to imagine that these
regulations of the Church must have had valuable results? They not only
gained liberty for a great many slaves, but also raised them very much in the
eyes of the world, for they placed them in a state which every day gained importance
and acquired an immense prestige and a powerful influence. We may
form an idea of the profound change which took place every day in the organization
of society, thanks to these various means, by fixing our attention for a
moment on what resulted with respect to the ordination of slaves. The discipline
of the Church on this point was in accordance with her doctrines. The
slave was a man like other men, and he could be ordained as well as the greatest
noble. Yet while he was subject to the power of his master, he was devoid of
the independence necessary for the dignity of the sacred ministry; therefore it
was required that he should not be ordained until he had been previously set at
liberty. Nothing could be more just, reasonable, and prudent, than the limit
thus placed on a discipline otherwise so noble and generous&mdash;a discipline which
was in itself an eloquent protest in favor of the dignity of man. The Church
solemnly declared that the misfortune of being a slave did not reduce him below
the level of other men, for she did not think it unworthy of her to choose her
ministers from among those who had been in servitude. By placing in so honorable
a sphere those who had been slaves, she labored with lofty generosity
to disperse the prejudices which existed against those who were placed in that
unhappy condition, and created strong and effective ties between them and the
most venerated class of freemen. The abuse which then crept in of conferring
orders on slaves, without the consent of their masters, is above all worthy of our
attention; an abuse, it is true, altogether contrary to the sacred canons, and
which was checked by the Church with praiseworthy zeal, but which is not the
less useful in enabling the observer duly to appreciate the profound effect of
religious ideas and institutions. Without attempting in any way to excuse what
was blamable therein, we may very well make use of the abuse itself, by considering
that it frequently happens that abuses are only exaggerations of a good
principle. Religious ideas accord but ill with slavery, although supported by
laws; thence the incessant struggle, repeated under different aspects, but always
directed towards the same end, viz. universal emancipation. It appears to us
that we may now the more confidently avail ourselves of this kind of argument,
as we have seen the most dreadful attempts at revolution treated with indulgence,
on account of the principles with which the revolutionists were imbued
and the objects which they had in view; objects which, as every one knows,
were nothing less than an entire change in the organization of society. The
abuse to which we have alluded, is attested by the curious documents which are
found collected in the decree of Gratian (<cite>Dist.</cite> 54, c. 9, 10, 11, 12). When we
examine these documents with attention, we find, 1st, that the number of slaves
thus freed was very considerable, since the complaints on this subject were
almost universal: 2d, that the Bishops were generally in favor of the slaves;
that they carried their protection very far; that they labored in all ways to
realize these doctrines of equality; indeed, it is affirmed in these documents
that there was hardly a Bishop who could not be charged with this reprehensible
compliance: 3d, that slaves were aware of this spirit of protection, and were
eager to throw off their chains and cast themselves into the arms of the Church:
4th, that this combination of circumstances must have produced in men's minds
a movement very favorable to liberty; and that this affectionate communication
established between slaves and the Church, then so powerful and influential,
must soon have weakened slavery, and rapidly have promoted the advance of
nations towards that liberty which completely triumphed a few centuries later.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span>
The Church of Spain, whose civilizing influence has received so many eulogiums
from men certainly but little attached to Catholicity, equally displays her lofty
views and consummate prudence on this point. Charitable zeal in favor of
slaves was so ardent, the tendency to raise them to the sacred ministry so decided,
that it was necessary to allow free scope to this generous impulse, while
reconciling it as much as possible with the sacredness of the ministry. Such
was the twofold object of the discipline introduced into Spain, by virtue of
which it was allowed to confer sacred orders on the slaves of the Church, on
their being previously enfranchised. This is ordered by the 74th canon of the
fourth Council of Toledo, held in 633; it is also inferred from the 11th canon
of the ninth Council of Toledo, which ordains that Bishops shall not introduce
the slaves of the Church among the clergy without having previously given
them their liberty.</p>

<p>It is remarkable that this regulation was extended by the 18th canon of the
Council of Merida, in 666, which gives to parish-priests the right of selecting
clerks among the slaves of their own church, with the obligation of maintaining
them according to their means. This wise discipline prevented, without any
injustice, all the difficulties that might have ensued from the ordination of
slaves; while it was a very mild way of effecting the most beneficent results,
since in conferring orders on the slaves of the Church, it was easy to choose
from among them such as were most deserving by their intellectual and moral
qualifications. At the same time, it was affording the Church a most favorable
and honorable mode of liberating her slaves, by enrolling them among her ministers.
Finally, the Church by her generous conduct towards slaves, gave a
salutary example to the laity. We have seen that she allowed the parochial
clergy, as well as the bishops, the privilege of setting them free; and this must
have rendered it less painful for laymen to emancipate their slaves, when circumstances
seemed to call the latter to the sacred ministry.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XIX" id="CHAPTER_XIX">CHAPTER XIX.</a><br />

<small>DOCTRINES OF S. AUGUSTINE AND S. THOMAS AQUINAS ON THE SUBJECT OF
SLAVERY.&mdash;RÉSUMÉ OF THE SUBJECT</small>.</h2>


<p>Thus did the Church, by a variety of means, break the chains of slavery,
without ever exceeding the limits marked out by justice and prudence: thus
did she banish from among Christians that degrading condition, so contrary to
their exalted ideas on the dignity of man, and their generous feelings of fraternity
and love. Wherever Christianity shall be introduced, chains of iron shall
be turned into gentle ties, and humiliated men shall raise their ennobled heads.
With what pleasure do we read the remarks of one of the greatest men of
Christianity, S. Augustine, on this point (<cite>De Civit. Dei</cite>, l. xix. c. 14, 15, 16).
He establishes in a few words the obligation incumbent upon all who rule&mdash;fathers,
husbands, and masters&mdash;to watch over the good of those who are under
them: he lays down the advantage of those who obey, as one of the foundations
for obedience; he says that the just do not rule from ambition or pride,
but from duty and the desire of doing good to their subjects: "Neque enim
dominandi cupiditate imperant, sed officio consulendi, nec principandi superbia,
sed providendi misericordia;" and by these noble maxims he proscribes all
opinions which tend to tyranny, or found obedience on any degrading notions;
but on a sudden, as if this great mind apprehended some reply in violation of
human dignity, he grows warm, he boldly faces the question; he rises to his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span>
full height, and, giving free scope to the noble thoughts that ferment in his
mind, he invokes the idea of nature and the will of God in favor of the dignity
of man thus menaced. He says: "Thus wills the order of nature; thus has
man been created by God. He has given him to rule over the fishes of the sea,
the birds of the air, and the reptiles that crawl on the face of the earth. <em>He
has ordained that reasoning creatures, made according to His own image, shall
rule only over creatures devoid of reason. He has not established the dominion
of man over man, but that of man over the brute.</em>" This passage of S. Augustine
is one of those bold features which shine forth in writers of genius, when
grieved by the sight of a painful object, they allow their generous ideas and
feelings to have free scope, and cease to restrain their daring energies. Struck
by the force of the expression, the reader, in suspense and breathless, hastens
to read the succeeding lines; he fears that the author may be mistaken, seduced
by the nobleness of his heart, and carried away by the force of his genius.
But, with inexpressible pleasure, he finds that the writer has in no degree departed
from the path of true doctrine, when, like a brave champion, he has
descended into the arena to defend the cause of justice and humanity. Thus
does S. Augustine now appear to us: the sight of so many unfortunate beings
groaning in slavery, victims of the violence and caprice of their masters,
afflicted his generous mind. By the light of reason and the doctrines of Christianity,
he saw no reason why so considerable a portion of the human race
should be condemned to live in such debasement; wherefore, when proclaiming
the doctrines of submission and obedience, he labors to discover the cause of
such ignominy; and not being able to find it in the nature of man, he seeks for
it in sin, in malediction. "The primitive just men," says he, "were rather
established as pastors over their flocks, than as kings over other men; whereby
God gives us to understand what was called for by the order of creation, and
what was required by the punishment of sin; for the condition of slavery has,
with reason, been imposed on the sinner. Thus we do not find the word slave
in the Scriptures before the day when the just man, Noah, gave it as a punishment
to his guilty son; whence it follows that this word came from sin, and not
from nature." This manner of considering slavery as the offspring of sin, as
the fruit of the Divine malediction, was of the highest importance. By protecting
the dignity of human nature, that doctrine completely destroyed all the
prejudices of natural superiority which the pride of free men could entertain.
Thereby also, slavery was deprived of all its supposed value as a political principle
or means of government: it could only be regarded as one of the numberless
scourges inflicted on the human race by the anger of the Most High.
Henceforth slaves had a motive for resignation, while the absolute power of
masters was checked, and the compassion of all free men was powerfully excited.
All were born in sin, all might have been in a state of slavery. To make a
boast of liberty would have been like the conduct of a man who, during an epidemic,
should boast of having preserved his health, and imagine that on that
account he had a right to insult the unhappy sick. In a word, the state of slavery
was a scourge, nothing more; like pestilence, war, famine, or any thing
else of the kind. The duty of all men was to labor to remedy and abolish it.
Such doctrines did not remain sterile. Proclaimed in the face of day, they were
heard in all parts of the Catholic world; and not only were they put in practice,
as we have seen by numberless examples, but they were carefully preserved
as a precious theory, throughout the confusion of the times. After the lapse
of eight centuries, we see them repeated by one of the brightest lights of the
Catholic Church, S. Thomas Aquinas (I. p. q. xcvi. art. 4). That great man
does not see in slavery either difference of race or imaginary inferiority or means
of government; he only considers it as a scourge inflicted on humanity by the
sins of the first man.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span></p>

<p>Such is the repugnance with which Christians have looked upon slavery: we
see from this, how false is the assertion of M. Guizot: "It does not seem that
Christian society was surprised or much offended by it." It is true there was
not that blind disturbance and irritation which, despising all barriers and paying
no attention to the rules of justice or the counsels of prudence, ran with
foolish haste to efface the mark of degradation and ignominy. But if that disturbance
and irritation are meant which are caused by the sight of oppression
and outrages committed against man, sentiments which can well accord with
longanimity and holy resignation, and which, without checking for a moment
the action of charitable zeal, nevertheless avoid precipitating events, preferring
mature arrangement in order to secure a complete result; how can this perturbation
of mind and holy indignation be better proved to have existed in the
bosom of the Church than by the facts and doctrines which we have just quoted?
What more eloquent protest against the continuance of slavery can you have
than the doctrine of these two illustrious doctors? They declare it, as we have
just seen, to be the fruit of malediction, the chastisement of the prevarication
of the human race; and they only acknowledge its existence by considering it
as one of the great scourges that afflict humanity.</p>

<p>I have explained, with sufficient evidence, the profound reasons which induced
the Church to recommend obedience to slaves, and she cannot be reproached
on that account with forgetting the rights of humanity. We must
not suppose on that account that Christian society was wanting in the boldness
necessary for telling the whole truth; but it told only the pure and wholesome
truth. What took place with respect to the marriages of slaves is a proof of
what I advance. We know that their union was not regarded as a real marriage,
and that even that union, such as it was, could not be contracted without
the consent of their masters, under pain of being considered as void. Here
was a flagrant violation of reason and justice. What did the Church do? She
directly reprobated so gross a violation of the rights of nature. Let us hear
what Pope Adrian I. said on this subject: "According to the words of the
Apostles, as in Jesus Christ we ought not to deprive either slaves or freemen of
the sacraments of the Church, so it is not allowed in any way to prevent the
marriage of slaves; and if their marriages have been contracted in spite of the
opposition and repugnance of their masters, nevertheless they ought not to be
dissolved in any way." (<cite>De Conju. Serv.</cite>, lib. iv. tom. 9, c. 1.) And let it not
be supposed that this regulation, which secured the liberty of slaves on one of
the most important points, was restricted to particular circumstances; no, it
was something more; it was a proclamation of their freedom in this matter.
The Church was unwilling to allow that man, reduced to the level of the brute,
should be forced to obey the caprice or the interest of another, without regard
to the feelings of his heart. St. Thomas was of the same opinion, for he openly
maintains that, with respect to the contracting of marriage, slaves are not obliged
to obey their masters (2<sup>a</sup>. 2, q. 104, art. 5).</p>

<p>In the hasty sketch which I have given, I believe that I have kept the promise
which I made at the beginning, not to advance any proposition without
supporting it by undeniable documents, and not to allow myself to be misled
by enthusiasm in favor of Catholicity, so as to concede to it that to which it is
not entitled. By passing, rapidly it is true, the course of ages, we have shown,
by convincing proofs, which have been furnished by times and places the most
various, that it was Catholicity that abolished slavery, in spite of ideas, manners,
interests, and laws, which opposed obstacles apparently invincible; and that it
has done so without injustice, without violence, without revolutions,&mdash;with the
most exquisite prudence and the most admirable moderation. We have seen
the Catholic Church make so extensive, so varied, and so efficacious an attack on
slavery, that that odious chain was broken without a single violent stroke.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span>
Exposed to the action of the most powerful agents, it gradually relaxed and
fell to pieces. Her proceedings may be thus recapitulated:&mdash;</p>

<p>First, she loudly teaches the truth concerning the dignity of man; she defines
the obligations of masters and slaves; she declares them equal before God, and
thus completely destroys the degrading theories which stain the writings even
of the greatest philosophers of antiquity. She then comes to the application
of her doctrines: she labors to improve the treatment of slaves; she struggles
against the atrocious right of life and death; she opens her temples to them as
asylums, and when they depart thence, prevents their being ill-treated; she
labors to substitute public tribunals for private vengeance. At the same time
that the Church guarantees the liberty of the enfranchised, by connecting it
with religious motives, she defends that of those born free; she labors to close
the sources of slavery, by displaying the most active zeal for the redemption of
captives, by opposing the avarice of the Jews, by procuring for men who were
sold, easy means of recovering their liberty. The Church gives an example of
mildness and disinterestedness; she facilitates emancipation, by admitting slaves
into monasteries and the ecclesiastical state; she facilitates it by all the other
means that charity suggests; and thus it is that, in spite of the deep roots of
slavery in ancient society&mdash;in spite of the perturbation caused by the irruptions
of the barbarians&mdash;in spite of so many wars and calamities of every kind, which
in great measure paralyzed the effect of all regulating and beneficent action&mdash;yet
we see slavery, that dishonor and leprosy of ancient civilization, rapidly diminish
among Christians, until it finally disappears. Surely in all this we do
not discover a plan conceived and concerted by men. But we do observe therein,
in the absence of that plan, such unity of tendencies, such a perfect identity
of views, and such similarity in the means, that we have the clearest demonstration
of the civilizing and liberating spirit contained in Catholicity. Accurate
observers will no doubt be gratified in beholding, in the picture which I have
just exhibited, the admirable concord with which the period of the empire, that
of the irruption of the barbarians, and that of feudality, all tended towards the
same end. They will not regret the poor regularity which distinguishes the
exclusive work of man; they will love, I repeat it, to collect all the facts scattered
in the seeming disorder, from the forests of Germany to the fields of
Bœotia&mdash;from the banks of the Thames to those of the Tiber. I have not invented
these facts; I have pointed out the periods, and cited the Councils. The
reader will find, at the end of the volume, in the original and in full, the texts
of which I have just given an abstract&mdash;a <i lang="fr">résumé:</i> thus he may fully convince
himself that I have not deceived him. If such had been my intention, surely
I should have avoided descending to the level ground of facts; I should have
preferred the vague regions of theory; I should have called to my aid high
sounding and seductive language, and all the means the most likely to enchant
the imagination and excite the feelings; in fine, I should have placed myself in
one of those positions where a writer can suppose at his pleasure things which
have never existed, and made the best use of the resources of imagination and
invention. The task which I have undertaken is rather more difficult, perhaps
less brilliant, but certainly more useful.</p>

<p>We may now inquire of M. Guizot what were the <em>other causes</em>, the <em>other ideas</em>,
the <em>other principles of civilization</em>, the great development of which, to avail myself
of his words, was necessary "to abolish this evil of evils, this iniquity of iniquities."
Ought he not to explain, or at least point out, these causes, ideas,
and principles of civilization, which, according to him, assisted the Church in
the abolition of slavery, in order to save the reader the trouble of seeking or
divining them? If they did not arise in the bosom of the Church, <em>where</em> did
they arise? Were they found in the ruins of ancient civilization? But could
these remains of a scattered and almost annihilated civilization effect what that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span>
same civilization, in all its vigor, power, and splendor, never did or thought of
doing?&mdash;Were they in the <em>individual independence of the barbarians</em>? But
that individuality, the inseparable companion of violence, must consequently
have been the source of oppression and slavery. Were they found in the <em>military
patronage</em> introduced, according to M. Guizot, by the barbarians themselves;
patronage which laid the foundation of that aristocratical organization which
was converted at a later period into feudality? But what could this patronage&mdash;an
institution likely, on the contrary, to perpetuate slavery among the indigent
in conquered countries, and to extend it to a considerable portion of the
conquerors themselves&mdash;what could this patronage do for the abolition of slavery?
Where, then, is the idea, the custom, the institution, which, born out
of Christianity, contributed to the abolition of slavery? Let any one point out
to us the epoch of its formation, the time of its development; let him show us
that it had not its origin in Christianity, and we will then confess that the latter
cannot exclusively lay claim to the glorious title of having abolished that degraded
condition; and he may be sure that this shall not prevent our exalting
that idea, custom, or institution which took part in the great and noble enterprise
of liberating the human race.</p>

<p>We may be allowed, in conclusion, to inquire of the Protestant churches, of
those ungrateful daughters who, after having quitted the bosom of their mother,
attempt to calumniate and dishonor her, where were you when the Catholic
Church accomplished in Europe the immense work of the abolition of slavery?
and how can you venture to reproach her with sympathizing with servitude, degrading
man, and usurping his rights? Can you, then, present any such claim
entitling you to the gratitude of the human race? What part can you claim
in that great work which prepared the way for the development and grandeur
of European civilization? Catholicity alone, without your concurrence, completed
the work; and she alone would have conducted Europe to its lofty
destinies, if you had not come to interrupt the majestic march of its mighty
nations, by urging them into a path bordered by precipices,&mdash;a path the end
of which is concealed by darkness which the eye of God alone can pierce.<a href="#Note_15" class="fnanchor">15</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XX" id="CHAPTER_XX">CHAPTER XX.</a><br />

<small>CONTRAST BETWEEN TWO ORDERS OF CIVILIZATION</small>.</h2>


<p>WE have seen that European civilization owes to the Catholic Church its
finest ornament, its most valuable victory in the cause of humanity, the abolition
of slavery. It was the Church that, by her doctrines, as beneficent as elevated,
by a system as efficacious as prudent, by her unbounded generosity, her
indefatigable zeal, her invincible firmness, abolished slavery in Europe; that is
to say, she took the first step towards the regeneration of humanity, and laid
the first stone for the wide and deep foundation of European civilization; we
mean the emancipation of slaves, the abolition for ever of so degrading a state,&mdash;universal
liberty. It was impossible to create and organize a civilization full
of grandeur and dignity, without raising man from his state of abjection, and
placing him above the level of animals. Whenever we see him crouching at
another's feet, awaiting with anxiety the orders of his master or trembling at
the lash; whenever he is sold like a beast, or a price is set upon his powers and
his life, civilization will never have its proper development, it will always be
weak, sickly, and broken; for thus humanity bears a mark of ignominy on its
forehead.</p>

<p>After having shown that it was Catholicity that removed that obstacle to all
social progress, by, as it were, cleansing Europe of the disgusting leprosy with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span>
which it was infected from head to foot, let us examine what it has done towards
creating and erecting the magnificent edifice of European civilization. If we
seriously reflect on the vitality and fruitfulness of this civilization, we shall find
therein new and powerful claims on the part of the Catholic Church to the
gratitude of nations. In the first place, it is proper to glance at the vast and
interesting picture which European civilization presents to us, and to sum up in a
few words its principal perfections; thereby we shall be enabled the more easily
to account to ourselves for the admiration and enthusiasm with which it
inspires us.</p>

<p>The individual animated by a lively sense of his own dignity, abounding in
activity, perseverance, energy, and the simultaneous development of all his
faculties; woman elevated to the rank of the consort of man, and, as it were,
recompensed for the duty of obedience by the respectful regards lavished upon
her; the gentleness and constancy of family ties, protected by the powerful
guarantees of good order and justice; an admirable public conscience, rich in
maxims of sublime morality, in laws of justice and equity, in sentiments of
honor and dignity; a conscience which survives the shipwreck of private morality,
and does not allow unblushing corruption to reach the height which it did
in antiquity; a general mildness of manners, which in war prevents great excesses,
and in peace renders life more tranquil and pleasing; a profound respect
for man, and all that belongs to him, which makes private acts of violence very
uncommon, and in all political constitutions serves as a salutary check on governments;
an ardent desire of perfection in all departments; an irresistible
tendency, sometimes ill-directed, but always active, to improve the condition of
the many; a secret impulse to protect the weak, to succour the unfortunate&mdash;an
impulse which sometimes pursues its course with generous ardor, and which,
whenever it is unable to develop itself, remains in the heart of society, and produces
there the uneasiness and disquietude of remorse; a cosmopolitan spirit
of universality, of propagandism, an inexhaustible fund of resources to grow
young again without danger of perishing, and for self-preservation in the most
important junctures; a generous impatience, which longs to anticipate the
future, and produces an incessant movement and agitation, sometimes dangerous,
but which are generally the germs of great benefits, and the symptoms of a
strong principle of life; such are the great characteristics which distinguish
European civilization; such are the features which place it in a rank immensely
superior to that of all other civilizations, ancient and modern.</p>

<p>Read the history of antiquity; extend your view over the whole world;
wherever Christianity does not reign, and where the barbarous or savage life no
longer prevails, you will find a civilization which in nothing resembles our own,
and which cannot be compared with it for a moment. In some of these states
of civilization, you will perhaps find a certain degree of regularity and some
marks of power, for they have endured for centuries; but how have they endured?
Without movement, without progress; they are devoid of life; their
regularity and duration are those of a marble statue, which, motionless itself,
sees the waves of generations pass by. There have also been nations whose
civilization displayed motion and activity; but what motion and what activity?
Some, ruled by the mercantile spirit, never succeeded in establishing their
internal happiness on a firm basis; their only object was to invade new countries
which tempted their cupidity, to pour into their colonies their superabundant
population, and establish numerous factories in new lands: others, continually
contending and fighting for a few measures of political freedom, forgot their
social organization, took no care of their civil liberty, and acted in the narrowest
circle of time and space; they would not be even worthy of having their
names preserved for posterity, if the genius of the beautiful had not shone there
with indescribable charm, and if the monuments of their knowledge, like a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span>
mirror, had not preserved the bright rays of Eastern learning: others, great
and terrible, it is true, but troubled by intestine dissensions, bear inscribed upon
their front the formidable destiny of conquest; this destiny they fulfilled by
subjugating the world, and immediately their rapid and inevitable ruin approached:
others, in fine, excited by violent fanaticism, raged like the waves of
ocean in a storm; they threw themselves upon other nations like a devastating
torrent, and threatened to involve Christian civilization itself in their deafening
uproar; but their efforts were vain; their waves broke against insurmountable
barriers; they repeated their attempts, but, always compelled to retire, they fell
back again, and spread themselves on the beach with a sullen roar: and now
look at the Eastern nations; behold them like an impure pool, which the heat
of the sun is about to dry up; see the sons and successors of Mahomet and
Omar on their knees at the feet of the European powers, begging a protection,
which policy sometimes affords them, but only with disdain. Such is the picture
presented to us by every civilization, ancient and modern, except that of
Europe, that is, the Christian. It alone at once embraces every thing great and
noble in the others; it alone survives the most thorough revolutions; it alone
extends itself to all races and climates, and accommodates itself to forms of
government the most various; it alone, in fine, unites itself with all kinds of
institutions, whenever, by circulating in them its fertile sap, it can produce its
sweet and salutary fruits for the good of humanity. And whence comes the
immense superiority of European civilization over all others? How has it become
so noble, so rich, so varied, so fruitful; with the stamp of dignity, of
nobility, and of loftiness; without castes, without slaves, without eunuchs, without
any of those miseries which prey upon other ancient and modern nations?
It often happens that we Europeans complain and lament more than the most
unfortunate portion of the human race ever did; and we forget that we are the
privileged children of Providence, and that our evils, our share of the unavoidable
patrimony of humanity, are very slight, are nothing in comparison with
those which have been, and still are, suffered by other nations. Even the extent
of our good fortune itself renders us difficult to please, and exceedingly fastidious.
We are like a man of high rank, accustomed to live respected and
esteemed in the midst of ease and pleasure, who is indignant at a slighting word,
is filled with disquietude and affliction at the most trifling contradiction, and
forgets the multitude of men who are plunged in misery, whose nakedness is
covered with a few rags, and who meet with a thousand insults and refusals before
they can obtain a morsel of bread to satisfy the cravings of hunger.</p>

<p>The mind, when contemplating European civilization, experiences so many
different impressions, is attracted by so many objects that at the same time
claim its attention and preference, that, charmed by the magnificent spectacle,
it is dazzled, and knows not where to commence the examination. The best
way in such a case is to simplify, to decompose the complex object, and reduce
it to its simplest elements. <em>The individual, the family, and society</em>; these we
have thoroughly to examine, and these ought to be the subjects of our inquiries.
If we succeed in fully understanding these three elements, as they really
are in themselves, and apart from the slight variations which do not affect their
essence, European civilization, with all its riches and all its secrets, will be
presented to our view, like a fertile and beautiful landscape lit up by the morning
sun.</p>

<p>European civilization is in possession of the principal truths with respect to
the individual, to the family, and to society; it is to this that it owes all that
it is and all that it has. Nowhere have the true nature, the true relations and
object of these three things been better understood than in Europe; with respect
to them we have ideas, sentiments, and views which have been wanting in other
civilizations. Now, these ideas and feelings, strongly marked on the face of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span>
European nations, have inoculated their laws, manners, institutions, customs,
and language; they are inhaled with the air, for they have impregnated the
whole atmosphere with their vivifying aroma. To what is this owing? To the
fact, that Europe, for many centuries, has had within its bosom a powerful principle
which preserves, propagates, and fructifies the truth; and it was especially
in those times of difficulty, when the disorganized society had to assume a new
form, that this regenerating principle had the greatest influence and ascendency.
Time has passed away, great changes have taken place, Catholicity has undergone
vast vicissitudes in its power and influence on society; but civilization, its
work, was too strong to be easily destroyed; the impulse which had been given
to Europe was too powerful and well secured to be easily diverted from its
course. Europe was like a young man gifted with a strong constitution, and
full of health and vigor; the excesses of labor or of dissipation reduce him
and make him grow pale; but soon the hue of health returns to his countenance,
and his limbs recover their suppleness and vigor.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXI" id="CHAPTER_XXI">CHAPTER XXI.</a><br />


<small>OF THE INDIVIDUAL&mdash;OF THE FEELING OF INDIVIDUAL INDEPENDENCE
ACCORDING TO M. GUIZOT</small>.</h2>


<p>THE individual is the first and simplest element of society. If the individual
is not well constituted, if he is ill understood and ill appreciated, there
will always be an obstacle to the progress of real civilization. First of all, we
must observe, that we speak here only of the individual, of man as he is in
himself, apart from the numerous relations which surround him when we come
to consider him as a member of society. But let it not be imagined from this,
that I wish to consider him in a state of absolute isolation, to carry him to the
desert, to reduce him to the savage state, and analyze the individuality as it
appears to us in a few wandering hordes, a monstrous exception, which is only
the result of the degradation of our nature. Equally useless would it be to
revive the theory of Rousseau, that pure Utopianism which can only lead to
error and extravagance. We may separately examine the pieces of a machine,
for the better understanding of its particular construction; but we must take
care not to forget the purpose for which they are intended, and not lose sight
of the whole, of which they form a part. Without that, the judgment we
should form of them would certainly be erroneous. The most wonderful and
sublime picture would be only a ridiculous monstrosity, if its groups and figures
were considered in a state of isolation from its other parts; in this way, the
prodigies of Michael Angelo and Raffael might be taken for the dreams of a
madman. Man is not alone in the world, nor is he born to live alone. Besides
what is he in himself, he is a part of the great scheme of the Universe. Besides
the destiny which belongs to him in the vast plan of creation, he is raised,
by the bounty of his Maker, to another sphere, above all earthly thoughts.
Good philosophy requires that we should forget nothing of all this. It now
remains for us to consider the individual and individuality.</p>

<p>In considering man, we may abstract from his quality of citizen,&mdash;an abstraction
which, far from leading to any extravagant paradoxes, is likely to make us
thoroughly understand a remarkable peculiarity of European civilization, one
of the distinctive characteristics, which will be alone sufficient to enable us to
avoid confounding it with others. All will readily understand that there is a
distinction to be made between the man and the citizen, and that these two
aspects lead to very different considerations; but it is more difficult to say how
far the limits of this distinction should extend; to what extent the feeling of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</a></span>
independence should be admitted; what is the sphere which ought to be assigned
to purely individual development; in fine, whatever is peculiar to our civilization
on this point. We must justly estimate the difference which we find herein
between our state of society and that of others; we must point out its source,
and its result; we must carefully weigh its real influence on the advance of
civilization. This task is difficult; I repeat it,&mdash;for we have here various questions,
great and important, it is true, but delicate and profound, and very easily
mistaken,&mdash;it is not without much trouble that we can fix our eyes with certainty
on these vague, indeterminate, and floating objects, which are connected
together by no perceptible ties.</p>

<p>We here meet with the famous <em>personal independence</em>, which, according to
M. Guizot, was brought by the barbarians from the North, and played so important
a part, that we ought to look upon it as one of the chief and most productive
principles of European civilization. This celebrated publicist, analyzing
the elements of this civilization, and pointing out the share which the Roman
empire and the Church had therein, in his opinion, finds a remarkable principle
of productiveness in the feeling of individuality, which the Germans brought
with them, and inoculated into the manners of Europe. It will not be useless
to discuss the opinion of M. Guizot on this important and delicate matter. By
thus explaining the state of the question, we shall remove the important errors
of some persons, errors produced by the authority of this writer, whose talent
and eloquence have unfortunately given plausibility and semblance of truth to
what is in reality only a paradox. The first care we ought to take, in combating
the opinions of this writer, is not to attribute to him what he has not really
said; besides, as the matter we are treating of is liable to many mistakes, we
shall do well to transcribe the words of M. Guizot at length. "What we require
to know," he says, "is the general condition of society among the barbarians.
Now it is very difficult, now-a-days, to give an account of it. We can understand,
without too much trouble, the municipal system of Rome, and the Christian
Church; their influence has continued down to our times; we find traces
of them in many institutions and existing facts. We have a thousand means
of recognising and explaining them. The manners, the social condition of the
barbarians, have entirely perished; we are compelled to divine them, by the
most ancient historical documents, or by an effort of imagination."</p>

<p>What has been preserved to us of the manners of the barbarians is, indeed,
little; this is an assertion which I will not deny. I will not dispute with M.
Guizot about the authority which ought to belong to facts which require to be
filled up by an effort of the imagination, and which compel us to have recourse
to the dangerous expedient of divining. As for the rest, I am aware of the
nature of these questions; and the reflections which I have just made, as well
as the terms which I have used, prove that I do not think it possible to proceed
with rule and compass in such an examination. Nevertheless, I have thought
it proper to warn the reader on this point, and combat the delusion into which
he might be led by a doctrine which, when fully examined, is, I repeat it, only
a brilliant paradox. "There is a feeling, a fact," continues M. Guizot, "which
it is above all necessary to understand well, in order to represent to ourselves
with truth what a barbarian was: this is, the pleasure of individual independence&mdash;the
pleasure of playing amid the chances of the world and of life, with
power and liberty; the joys of activity without labor; the taste for an adventurous
destiny, full of surprises, vicissitudes, and perils. Such was the ruling
feeling of the barbarian state, the moral necessity which put these masses of
men in motion. To-day, in the regular society in which we live, it is difficult
to represent to one's self this feeling, with all the influence which it exercised
over the barbarians of the fourth and fifth centuries. There is only one work,
in my opinion, in which this character of barbarism is described with all its<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span>
force, viz. <cite>The History of the Conquest of England by the Normans</cite>, of M.
Thierry&mdash;the only book where the motives, the inclinations, the impulses which
actuate man in a social state bordering on barbarism, are felt and described with
a truth really Homeric. Nowhere do we see so clearly what a barbarian was,
and what was his life. We also find something of this, although in a very inferior
degree, in my opinion, in a manner much less simple, much less true, in
the romances of Mr. Cooper on the American savages. There is in the life of
the savages of America, in the relations and feelings which exist in those forests,
something which reminds one, to a certain extent, of the manners of the ancient
Germans. No doubt these pictures are a little ideal, a little poetical; the unfavorable
side of barbarian life and manners is not displayed in all its crudity.
I do not speak merely of the evils which these manners produce in the individual
social condition of the barbarian himself. In this passionate love of personal
independence, there was something more rude and coarse than one would
imagine from the work of M. Thierry; there was a degree of brutality, of indolence,
of apathy, which is not always faithfully described in his pictures.
Nevertheless, when one examines the thing to the bottom, in spite of brutality,
coarseness, and this stupid <em>egotism</em>, the taste for individual independence is a
noble moral feeling, which draws its power from the moral nature of man: it is
the pleasure of feeling himself a man&mdash;the sentiment of personality, of spontaneous
action in his free development. Gentlemen, it was by the German
barbarians that this feeling was introduced into the civilization of Europe; it
was unknown to the Roman world, unknown to the Christian Church, unknown
to almost all the ancient civilizations:&mdash;when you find liberty in the ancient
civilizations, it is political liberty, the liberty of the citizen. It is not with his
personal liberty that the man is prepossessed, but with his liberty as a citizen.
He belongs to an association&mdash;he is devoted to an association&mdash;he is ready to
sacrifice himself for an association. It was the same with the Christian Church:
there prevailed a feeling of great attachment to the Christian corporation&mdash;of
devotion to its laws&mdash;a strong desire of extending its empire; the religious feeling
produced a reaction on the man himself&mdash;on his soul&mdash;an internal struggle
to subdue his own will, and make it submit to the demands of his faith. But
the feeling of personal independence, the taste for liberty showing itself at any
hazard, with hardly any other object than its own satisfaction&mdash;this feeling, I
repeat, was unknown to the Roman and Christian society. It was brought in
by the barbarians, and placed in the cradle of modern civilization. It has
played so great a part, it has produced such noble results, that it is impossible
not to bring it to light as one of the fundamental elements thereof." (<cite>Histoire
Générale de la Civilisation en Europe</cite>, leçon 2.) This feeling of personal independence,
exclusively attributed to a nation&mdash;this vague, undefinable feeling&mdash;a
singular mixture of nobleness and brutality, of barbarism and civilization&mdash;is
in some degree poetical, and is very likely to seduce the fancy; but, unfortunately,
there is in the contrast, intended to increase the effect of the picture,
something extraordinary, I will even say contradictory, which excites the suspicion
of cool reason that there is some hidden error which compels it to be on its
guard. If it be true that this phenomenon ever existed, what was its origin?
Will it be said that it was the result of climate? But how can it be imagined
that the snows of the north protected what was not found in the ardent south?
How comes it that the feeling of personal independence was wanting precisely
in those southern countries of Europe, where the feeling of political independence
was developed with so much force? and would it not be a strange thing,
not to say an absurdity, if these different climates had divided these two kinds
of liberty between them, like an inheritance? It will be said, perhaps, that
this feeling arose from the social state. But in that case, it cannot be made
the characteristic mark of one nation: it must be said, in general terms, that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span>
the feeling belonged to all the nations who were in the same social condition as
the Germans. Besides, even according to this hypothesis, how could that which
was peculiar to barbarism have been a germ, a fruitful principle of civilization?
This feeling, which must have been effaced by civilization, could not even preserve
itself in the midst thereof, much less contribute to its development. If
its perpetuation in some form was absolutely necessary, why did not the same
thing take place in the bosom of other civilizations? Surely the Germans were
not the only people who passed from barbarism to civilization. But I do not
pretend to say that the barbarians of the north did not present some remarkable
peculiarity in this point of view; and I do not deny that we find in European
civilization a feeling of personality, if I may so speak, unknown to other civilizations.
But what I venture to affirm is, that it is little philosophical to have
recourse to mysteries and enigmas to explain the <em>individuality</em> of the Germans,
and that it is useless to seek in their barbarism the cause of the superiority
which European civilization possesses in this respect. To form a clear idea of
this question, which is as complicated as it is important, it is first of all necessary
to specify, in the best way we can, the real nature of the barbarian <em>individuality</em>.
In a pamphlet which I published some time ago, called <cite>Observations
Sociales, Politiques, et Economiques, sur les Biens du Clergé</cite>, I have incidentally
touched upon this individuality, and attempted to give clear ideas on this point.
As I have not changed my opinion since that time, but, on the contrary, as it
has been confirmed, I will transcribe what I then said, as follows: "What was
this feeling? Was it peculiar to those nations? Was it the result of the influence
of climate, of a social position? Was it perchance a feeling formed in all
places and at all times, but which is here modified by particular circumstances?
What was its force, its tendency? How far was it just or unjust, noble or
degrading, profitable or injurious? What benefits did it confer on society;
what evils? How were these evils combated, by whom, by what means, and
with what result? These questions are numerous, but they are not so complicated
as they appear at first sight; when once the fundamental idea shall be
cleared up, the others will be understood without difficulty, and the theory,
when simplified, will immediately be confirmed and supported by history. There
is a strong, active, an indestructible feeling in the human heart which urges
men to self-preservation, to avoid evils, and to attain to their well-being and
happiness. Whether you call it self-love, instinct of preservation, desire of
happiness or of perfection, egotism, <em>individuality</em>, or whatever name you give
to it, this feeling exists; we have it within us. We cannot doubt of its existence;
it accompanies us at every step, in all our actions, from the time when
we first see the light till we descend into the tomb. This feeling, if you will
observe its origin, its nature, and its object, is nothing but a great law of all
beings applied to man; a law which, being a guarantee for the preservation and
perfecting of individuals, admirably contributes to the harmony of the universe.
It is clear that such a feeling must naturally incline us to hate oppression, and
to suffer with impatience what tends to limit and fetter the use of our faculties.
The cause is easily found; all this gives us uneasiness, to which our nature is
repugnant; even the tenderest infant bears with impatience the tie that fastens
him in his cradle; he is uneasy, he is disturbed, he cries.</p>

<p>"On the other hand, the individual, when he is not totally devoid of knowledge
of himself, when his intellectual faculties are at all developed, will feel
another sentiment arise in his mind which has nothing in common with the
instinct of self-preservation with which all beings are animated, a sentiment
which belongs exclusively to intelligence; I mean, the feeling of dignity, of
value of ourselves, of that fire which, enkindled in our hearts in our earliest
years, is nourished, extended, and supported by the aliment afforded to it by
time, and acquires that immense power, that expansion which makes us so rest<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span>less,
active, and agitated during all periods of our life. The subjection of one
man to another wounds this feeling of dignity; for even supposing it to be
reconciled with all possible freedom and mildness, with the most perfect respect
for the person subjected, this subjection reveals a weakness or a necessity which
compels him in some degree to limit the free use of his faculties. Such is the
second origin of the feeling of personal independence. It follows from what I
have just said, that man always bears within himself a certain love of independence,
that this feeling is necessarily common to all times and countries, for
we have found its roots in the two most natural feelings of man&mdash;viz. <em>the desire
of well-being and the consciousness of his own dignity</em>. It is evident that these
feelings may be modified and varied indefinitely, on account of the infinity of
situations in which the individual may be placed, morally and physically. Without
leaving the sphere which is marked out for them by their very essence, these
feelings may vary as to strength or weakness on the most extensive scale; they
may be moral or immoral, just or unjust, noble or vile, advantageous or injurious.
Consequently they may contribute to the individual the greatest variety
of inclinations, of habits, of manners; and thereby give very different features
to the physiognomy of nations, according to the particular and characteristic
manner in which they affect the individual. These notions being once cleared
up by a real knowledge of the constitution of the heart of man, we see how all
questions which relate to the feeling of individuality must be resolved; we also
see that it is useless to have recourse to mysterious language or poetical explanations,
for in all this there is nothing that can be submitted to a rigorous
analysis. The ideas which man forms of his own well-being and dignity, the
means which he employs to promote the one and preserve the other, these are
what will settle the degrees of energy, will determine the nature and signalize
the tendency of all these feelings; that is to say, all will depend on the physical
and moral state of society and the individual. Now, supposing all other
circumstances to be equal, give a man true ideas of his own well-being and
dignity, such as reason and above all the Christian religion teach, and you will
form a good citizen; give false, exaggerated, absurd ideas, such as are entertained
by perverted schools and promulgated by agitators at all times and in
all countries, and you spread the fruitful seeds of disturbance and disorder.</p>

<p>"In order to complete the clearing up of the important point which we have
undertaken to explain, we must apply this doctrine to the particular fact which
now occupies us. If we fix our attention on the nations who invaded and overturned
the Roman empire, confining ourselves to the facts which history has
preserved of them, to the conjectures which are authorized by the circumstances
in which they were placed, and to the general data which modern science has
been able to collect from the immediate observation of the different tribes
of America, we shall be able to form an idea of what was the state of society
and of the individual among the invading barbarians. In their native countries,
among their mountains, in their forests covered with frost and snow, they had
their family ties, their relationships, their religion, traditions, customs, manners,
attachment to their hereditary soil, their love of national independence, their
enthusiasm for the great deeds of their ancestors, and for the glory acquired in
battle; in fine, their desire of perpetuating in their children a race strong,
valiant, and free; they had their distinctions of family, their division into
tribes, their priests, chiefs, and government. Without discussing the character
of their forms of government, and laying aside all that might be said of their
monarchy, their public assemblies, and other similar points, questions which are
foreign to our subject, and which besides are always in some degree hypothetical
and imaginary, I shall content myself with making a remark which none of my
readers will deny, viz. that among them the organization of society was such as
might have been expected from rude and superstitious ideas, gross habits, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span>
ferocious manners; that is to say, that their social condition did not rise above
the level which had naturally been marked out for it by two imperious necessities:
first, that complete anarchy should not prevail in their forests; and second,
that in war they should have some one to lead their confused hordes. Born in
rigorous climates, crowding on each other by their rapid increase, and on that
account obtaining with difficulty even the means of subsistence, these nations
saw before their eyes the abundance and the luxuries of ample and well-cultivated
regions; they were at the same time urged on by extreme want, and
strongly excited by the presence of plunder. There was nothing to oppose them
but the feeble legions of an effeminate and decaying civilization; their own
bodies were strong, their minds full of courage and audacity; their numbers
augmented their boldness; they left their native soil without pain; a spirit of
adventure and enterprise developed itself in their minds, and they threw themselves
on the Empire like a torrent which falls from the mountains, and inundates
the neighboring plains. However imperfect was their social condition,
and however rude were its ties, it sufficed, nevertheless, in their native soil, and
amid their ancient manners; if the barbarians had remained in their forests, it
may be said that that form of government, which answered its purpose in its
way, would have been perpetuated; for it was born of necessity, it was adapted
to circumstances, it was rooted in their habits, sanctioned by time, and connected
with traditions and recollections of every kind. But these ties were too weak
to be transported without being broken. These forms of government were, as
we have just seen, so suited to the state of barbarism, and consequently so circumscribed
and limited, that they could not be applied without difficulty to the new
situation in which these nations found themselves almost suddenly placed. Let
us imagine these savage children of the forest precipitated on the south; their
fierce chiefs precede them, and they are followed by crowds of women and children;
they take with them their flocks and rude baggage; they cut to pieces
numerous legions on their way; they form intrenchments, cross ditches, scale
ramparts, ravage the country, destroy forests, burn populous cities, and take
with them immense numbers of slaves captured on the way. They overturn
every thing that opposes their fury, and drive before them multitudes who flee
to avoid fire and sword. In a short time see these same men, elated with victory,
enriched by immense booty, inured by so many battles, fires, sackings, and massacres,
transported, as if by enchantment, into a new climate, under another
sky, and swimming in abundance, in pleasure, in new enjoyments of every kind.
A confused mixture of idolatry and Christianity, of truth and falsehood, is
become their religion; their principal chiefs are dead in battle; families are
confounded in disorder, races mixed, old manners and customs altered and lost.
These nations, in fine, are spread over immense countries, in the midst of other
nations, differing in language, ideas, manners, and usages; imagine, if you can,
this disorder, this confusion, this chaos, and tell me whether the ties which
formed the society of these nations are not destroyed and broken into a thousand
pieces, and whether you do not see barbarian and civilized society disappear
together, and all antiquity vanish without any thing new taking its place? And
at this moment, fix your eyes upon the gloomy child of the North, when he
feels all the ties that bound him to society suddenly loosened, when all the
chains that restrained his ferocity break; when he finds himself alone, isolated,
in a position so new, so singular, so extraordinary, with an obscure recollection
of his late country and without affection for that which he has just occupied;
without respect for law, fear of man, or attachment to custom. Do you not see
him, in his impetuous ferocity, indulge without limit his habits of violence,
wandering, plunder, and massacre? He confides in his strong arm and activity
of foot, and led by a heart full of fire and courage, by an imagination excited
by the view of so many different countries and by the hazards of so many travels<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span>
and combats, he rashly undertakes all enterprises, rejects all subjection, throws
off all restraint, and delights in the dangers of fresh struggles and adventures.
Do you not find here the mysterious individuality, the feeling of personal independence,
in all its philosophical reality and all the truth which is assigned to
it by history? This brutal individuality, this fierce feeling of independence,
which was not reconcileable with the well-being or with the true dignity of the
individual, contained a principle of eternal war and a continually wandering
mode of life, and must necessarily produce the degradation of man and the
complete dissolution of society. Far from containing the germ of civilization,
it was this that was best adapted to reduce Europe to the savage state; it stifled
society in its cradle; it destroyed every attempt made to reorganize it, and completed
the annihilation of all that remained of the ancient civilization."</p>

<p>The observations which have just been made may be more or less well founded,
more or less happy, but at least they do not present the inexplicable inconsistency,
not to say contradiction, of allying barbarism and brutality with civilization
and refinement; they do not give the name of an eminent and fruitful
principle of European civilization to that which a little further on is pointed
out as one of the strongest obstacles to the progress of social organization. As
M. Guizot, on this last point, agrees with the opinion which I have just stated,
and shows the incoherence of his own doctrines, the reader will allow me to
quote his own words. "It is clear," he says, "that if men have no ideas
extending beyond their own existence, if their intellectual horizon is limited to
themselves, if they give themselves up to the caprices of their own passions and
wills, if they have not among them a certain number of common notions and
feelings, around which they rally; it is clear, I say, that no society can be possible
among them; that such individual, when he enters into any association,
will be a principle of disturbance and dissolution. Whenever individuality
almost absolutely prevails, or man only considers himself, or his ideas do not
extend beyond himself, or he obeys only his own passions, society, I mean one
with any thing of extent or permanency, becomes almost impossible. Now
such was the moral condition of the conquerors of Europe at the period of which
we speak. I have pointed out, in the last lecture, that we owe the energetic
feeling of individual liberty and humanity to the Germans. Now, in a state
of extreme rudeness and ignorance, this feeling is egotism in all its brutality,
in all its unsociability. From the fifth to the eighth century, such was the case
among the Germans. They consulted only their own interests, their own passions,
their own wills; how could this accord with the social state? It was
attempted to make them enter it; they attempted it themselves; they soon left
it from some sudden act, some sally of passion or misunderstanding. Every
moment we see society attempted to be formed; every moment we see it broken
by the act of man, by the want of the moral conditions necessary for its subsistence.
Such, gentlemen, were the two prevailing causes of the state of barbarism.
As long as they lasted, barbarism continued." (<cite>Histoire Générale de
la Civilisation en Europe</cite>, leçon 3.)</p>

<p>With respect to his theory of <em>individuality</em>, M. Guizot has met with the common
fate of men of great talents. They are forcibly struck by a singular phenomenon,
they conceive an ardent desire of finding its cause, and they fall into
frequent errors, led away by a secret tendency always to point out a new, unexpected,
astonishing origin. In his vast and penetrating view of European civilization,
in his parallel between this and the most distinguished ones of antiquity,
he discovered a very remarkable difference between the individuals of the former
and of the latter. He saw in the man of modern Europe, something nobler,
more independent than in the Greek or Roman; it was necessary to point out
the origin of this difference. Now this was not an easy task, considering the
peculiar situation in which the philosophical historian found himself. From<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span>
the first glance which he took at the elements of European civilization, the
Church presented herself to him as one of the most powerful and the most influential
agents on the organization of society; and he saw issue from her the
impulse which was most capable of leading the world to a great and happy
future. He had already expressly acknowledged this, and had paid homage to
the truth in magnificent language; in order to explain this phenomenon, should
he again have recourse to Christianity, to the Church? This would have been
conceding to her the whole of the great work of civilization; and M. Guizot
was desirous, at all hazards, of giving her coadjutors. Therefore, fixing his
eyes upon the barbarian hordes, he expects to discover in the swarthy brows,
the savage countenances, and the menacing looks of these children of the forest,
a type, somewhat rude but still very just, of the noble independence, the elevation,
and dignity which the European bears in his features.</p>

<p>After having explained the mysterious personality of the Germans, and
shown that, far from being an element of civilization, it was a source of disorder
and barbarism; it is besides necessary to examine the difference which exists
between the civilization of Europe and other civilizations, with respect to the
feeling of dignity; it is necessary to determine with precision what modifications
have been undergone by a feeling, which, considered by itself, is, as we
have seen, common to all men. In the first place, there is no foundation for
this assertion of M. Guizot, <em>that the feeling of personal independence, the taste
for liberty, displaying itself at all hazards, with scarcely any other object than
its own satisfaction, was unknown to Roman society</em>. It is clear that in such a
comparison, it is not meant to allude to the feeling of independence in the savage
state, in the state of barbarism; for as well might it be said that civilized
nations could not have the distinctive character of barbarism. But laying aside
that circumstance of ferocity, we will say that the feeling was very active, not
only among the Romans, but also among the other most celebrated nations of
antiquity. "When you find in ancient civilization," says M. Guizot, "liberty,
it is political liberty, the liberty of the citizen. It is not with his personal
liberty that the man is prepossessed, it is with his liberty as a citizen; he belongs
to an association, he is devoted to an association, he is ready to sacrifice
himself for an association." I will not deny that this spirit of sacrifice for the
benefit of an association did exist among ancient nations; I acknowledge also
that it was accompanied by remarkable peculiarities, which I intend to explain
further on; yet it may be doubted whether <em>the taste for liberty, with scarcely
any other object than its own satisfaction</em>, was not more active with ancient
nations than with us. Indeed, what was the object of the Phœnicians, the
Greeks of the Archipelago and of Asia Minor, the Carthaginians, when they
undertook those voyages which, for such remote times, were as bold and perilous
as those of our most intrepid sailors? Was it, indeed, to sacrifice themselves
for an association that they sought new territories with so much ardour, in order
to amass there money, gold, and all kinds of articles of value? Were they
not led by the desire of acquiring <em>to gratify themselves</em>? Where, then, is the
association? Where do you find it here? Do you see any thing but the individual,
with his passions and tastes, and his ardour in satisfying them? And
the Greeks&mdash;those Greeks so enervated, so voluptuous, so spoiled by pleasures,
had they not the most lively feeling of personal independence, the most ardent
desire of living with perfect freedom, with no other object but to gratify themselves?
Their poets singing of nectar and of love; their free courtesans receiving
the homage of the most illustrious citizens, and making sages forget their
philosophical moderation and gravity; and the people celebrating their festivals
amid the most fearful dissoluteness; did they also only sacrifice on the altars
of association? Had they not the desire of gratifying themselves? With
respect to the Romans, perhaps it would not be so easy to demonstrate this, if<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span>
we had to speak of what are called the glorious times of the Republic; but we
have to deal with the Romans of the empire, with those who lived at the time
of the irruption of the barbarians; with those Romans, greedy of pleasures, and
devoured by that thirst for excess of which history has preserved such shameful
pictures. Their superb palaces, their magnificent villas, their delicious
baths, their splendid festive halls, their tables loaded with riches, their effeminate
dresses, their voluptuous dissipation; do they not show us individuals
who, without thinking of the association to which they belonged, only thought
of gratifying their own passions and caprices; lived in the greatest luxury,
with every delicacy and all imaginable splendour; had no care but to enjoy
society, to lull themselves asleep in pleasure, to gratify all their passions, and
give way to a burning love of their own satisfactions and amusements?</p>

<p>It is not easy, then, to imagine why M. Guizot exclusively attributes to the
barbarians <em>the pleasure of feeling themselves men, the feeling of personality, of
human spontaneousness in its free development</em>. Can we believe that such sentiments
were unknown to the victors of Marathon and Platæa, to those nations
who have immortalized their names by so many monuments? When, in the
fine arts, in the sciences, in eloquence, in poetry, the noblest traits of genius
shone forth on all sides, had they not among them the pleasure of feeling themselves
men, the feeling and the power of the free development of all their
faculties? and in a society where glory was so passionately loved, as we see it
was among the Romans, in a society which shows us men like Cicero and Virgil,
and which produced a Tacitus, who still, after nineteen centuries, makes every
generous heart thrill with emotion, <em>was there no pleasure in feeling themselves
men, no pride in appreciating their own dignity? Was there no feeling of the
spontaneousness of man in his own free development?</em> How can we imagine
that the barbarians of the north surpassed the Greeks and Romans in this
respect? Why, then, these paradoxes, this confusion of ideas? Of what avail
are these brilliant expressions meaning nothing? Of what use are these observations,
of a false delicacy, where the mind at first sight discovers vagueness
and inexactitude; and where it finds, after a complete examination, nothing
but incoherency and revery?</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXII" id="CHAPTER_XXII">CHAPTER XXII.</a><br />

<small>HOW THE INDIVIDUAL WAS ABSORBED BY ANCIENT SOCIETY</small>.</h2>


<p>IF we profoundly study this question, without suffering ourselves to be led
into error and extravagance, by the desire of passing for deep observers; if we
call to our aid a just and cool philosophy, supported by the facts of history, we
shall see that the principal difference between the ancient civilizations and our
own with respect to the individual is, that, in antiquity, <em>man, considered as
man, was not properly esteemed</em>. Ancient nations did not want either <em>the feeling
of personal independence, or the pleasure of feeling themselves men</em>; the
fault was not in the heart, but in the head. What they wanted was the comprehension
of the dignity of man; the high idea which Christianity has given us
of ourselves, while, at the same time, with admirable wisdom, it has shown us
our infirmities. What ancient societies wanted, what all those, where Christianity
does not prevail, have wanted, and will continue to want, is the respect
and the consideration which surround every individual, <em>every man, inasmuch as
he is a man</em>. Among the Greeks the Greeks are every thing; strangers, barbarians,
are nothing: in Rome, the title of Roman citizen makes the man; he
who wants this is nothing. In Christian countries, the infant who is born
deformed, or deprived of some member, excites compassion, and becomes an<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span>
object of the tenderest solicitude; it is enough that he is man, and unfortunate.
Among the ancients, this human being was regarded as useless and contemptible;
in certain cities, as for example at Lacedæmon, it was forbidden to nourish
him, and, by command of the magistrates charged with the regulation of births,
horrible to relate! he was thrown into a ditch. He was a <em>human being</em>; but
what matter? He was a human being who would be of no use; and society,
without compassion, did not wish to undertake the charge of his support. If
you read Plato and Aristotle, you will see the horrible doctrine which they professed
on the subject of abortion and infanticide; you will see the means which
these philosophers imagined, in order to prevent the excess of population; and
you will be sensible of the immense progress which society has made, under
the influence of Christianity, in all that relates to man. Are not the public
games, those horrible scenes where hundreds of men were slaughtered to amuse
an inhuman multitude, an eloquent testimony to the little value attached to
man, when he was sacrificed with so much barbarism for reasons so frivolous?</p>

<p>The right of the strongest was exercised among the ancients in a horrible
manner; and this is one of the causes to which must be attributed the state
of annihilation, so to speak, in which we see the individual with respect to
society. Society was strong, the individual was weak; society absorbed the
individual, and arrogated to itself all imaginable rights over him; and if ever
he made opposition to society, he was sure to be crushed by it with an iron
hand. When we read the explanation which M. Guizot gives us of this peculiarity
of ancient civilizations, we might suppose that there existed among them
a patriotism unknown to us; a patriotism which, carried to exaggeration, and
stripped of the feeling of personal independence, produced a kind of annihilation
of the individual in presence of society. If he had reflected deeply on
the matter, M. Guizot would have seen that the difference is not in the feelings
of antiquity, but in the immense fundamental revolution which has taken place
in ideas; hence he would easily have concluded, that the difference observed
in their feelings must have been owing to the differences in the ideas themselves.
Indeed, it is not strange that the individual, seeing the little esteem
in which he was held, and the unlimited power which society arrogated to itself
over his independence and his life, (for it went so far as to grind him to
powder, when he opposed it,) on his side formed an exaggerated idea of society
and the public authority, so as to annihilate himself in his own heart before
this fearful colossus. Far from considering himself as a member of an association
the object of which was the safety and happiness of every individual, the
benefits of which required from him some sacrifices in return, he regarded himself
as a thing devoted to this association, and compelled, without hesitation,
to offer himself as a holocaust on its altars. Such is the condition of man;
when a power acts upon him, for a long time, unlimitedly, his indignation is
excited against it, and he rejects it with violence; or else he humbles, he
debases, he annihilates himself before the strong influence which binds and
prostrates him. Let us see if this be not the contrast which ancient societies
constantly afford us; the blindest submission and annihilation on the one hand,
and, on the other, the spirit of insubordination, of resistance, showing itself
in terrible explosions. It is thus, and thus only, that it is possible to understand
how societies, whose normal condition was confusion and agitation, present
us with such astonishing examples as Leonidas with his three hundred
Spartans perishing at Thermopylæ, Sævola thrusting his hand into the fire,
Regulus returning to Carthage to suffer and die, and Marcus Curtius, all armed,
leaping into the chasm which had opened in the midst of Rome. All these
phenomena, which at first sight appear inexplicable, are explained when we
compare them with what has taken place in the revolutions of modern times.
Terrible revolutions have thrown some nations into confusion; the struggle of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span>
ideas and interests, inflaming their passions, has made them forget their true
social relations, during intervals of greater or less duration. What has happened?
At the same time that unlimited freedom was proclaimed, and the
rights of individuals were incessantly extolled, there arose in the midst of
society a cruel power, which, concentrating in its own hands all public authority,
inflicted on them the severest blows. At such periods, when the formidable
maxim of the ancients, the <i lang="la">salus populi</i>, that pretext for so many frightful
attempts was in full force, there arose, on the other hand, that mad and ferocious
patriotism which superficial men admire in the citizens of ancient republics.</p>

<p>Some writers have lavished eulogiums on the ancients, and, above all, on the
Romans. It seemed as if, to gratify their ardent wishes, modern civilization
must be moulded according to the ancient. They made absurd attempts; they
attacked the existing social system with unexampled violence; they labored
to destroy, or at least to stifle, Christian ideas concerning the individual and
society, and they sought their inspiration from the shades of the ancient Romans.
It is remarkable that, during the short time that the attempt lasted,
there were seen, as in ancient Rome, admirable traits of strength, of valor,
of patriotism, in fearful contrast with cruelties and crimes without example.
In the midst of a great and generous nation there appeared again, to affright
the human race, the bloody spectres of Marius and Sylla; so true it is that
man is everywhere the same, and that the same order of ideas in the end produces
the same order of events. Let the Christian ideas disappear, let old
ones regain their force, and you will see that the modern world will resemble
the ancient one. Happily for humanity, this is impossible. All the attempts
hitherto made to produce such a result have been necessarily of short continuance,
and such will be the case in future. But the bloody page which these
criminal attempts have left in history offers an abundant subject for reflection
to the philosopher who desires to become thoroughly acquainted with the intimate
and delicate relations between ideas and facts. There he will see fully
exhibited the vast scheme of social organization, and he will be able to appreciate
at its just value the beneficial or injurious influence of the various religious
and the different philosophical systems.</p>

<p>The periods of revolutions, that is to say, those stormy times when governments
are swallowed up one after another like edifices built upon a volcanic
soil, have all this distinctive character, <em>the tyranny of the interests of public
authority over private interests</em>. Never is this power feebler, or less lasting; but
never is it more violent, more mad. Every thing is sacrificed to its safety or
its vengeance; the shade of its enemies pursues it and makes it continually
tremble; its own conscience torments it and leaves it no repose; the weakness
of its organization, its instable position, warn it at every step of its approaching
fall, and in its impotent despair it makes the convulsive efforts of one dying
in agony. What, then, in its eyes are the lives of citizens, if they excite the
slightest, the most remote suspicion? If the blood of thousands of victims could
procure for it a moment of security, and add a few days to its existence, "Perish
my enemies," it says; "this is required for the safety of the state, that is, for
mine!" Why this frenzy, this cruelty? It is because the ancient government,
having been overturned by force, and the new having been enthroned
in the same way, the idea of right has disappeared from the sphere of power.
Legitimacy does not protect it, even its novelty betrays its little value; every
thing forebodes its short existence. Stripped of the reason and justice which
it is obliged to invoke in its own support, it seeks for both in the <em>very necessity
of power</em>, a social necessity, which is always visible, and it proclaims that the
safety of the people is the supreme care. Then the property and lives of individuals
are nothing; they are annihilated in the presence of the bloody spectre
which arises in the midst of society; armed with force, and surrounded by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span>
guards and scaffolds, it says, "I am the public power; to me is confided the
safety of the people; it is I who watch over the interests of society."</p>

<p>Now, do you know what is the result of this absolute want of respect for the
individual, of this complete annihilation of man in presence of the alarming power
which claims to represent society? It is that the feeling of association reappears
in different directions; no longer a feeling directed by reason, foresight, and
beneficence, but a blind, instinctive feeling, which urges man not to remain alone,
without defence, in the midst of a society which is converted into a field of battle
and a vast conspiracy; men then unite either to sustain power, when, influenced
by the whirlwind of revolution, they are identified with it, and regard it
as their only rampart, or to overturn it, if, some motive having urged them into
the opposite ranks, they see their most terrible enemy in the existing power,
and a sword continually suspended over their heads. These men belong to an
association, are devoted to an association, are ready to sacrifice themselves for
it, for they cannot live alone; they know, they comprehend, at least instinctively,
that the individual is nothing; for as the restraints that maintain social
order have been broken, the individual no longer has a tranquil sphere where
he can live in peace and independence, confident that a power founded on legitimacy
and guided by reason and justice watches over the preservation of public
order and the respect due to individual rights. Then timid men are alarmed
and humbled, and begin to represent that first scene of servitude where the
oppressed is seen to kiss the hand of the oppressor, and the victim to reverence
the executioner. Daring men resist and contend, or rather, conspiring in the dark,
they prepare terrible explosions. No one then belongs to himself; the individual
is absorbed on all sides, either by the force which oppresses or by that
which conspires. The tutelary divinity of individuals is justice; when justice
vanishes, they are no more than imperceptible grains of dust carried away by
the wind, or drops of water in the stormy waves of ocean. Imagine to yourself
societies where this passing frenzy does not prevail, it is true, but which are
yet devoid of true ideas on the rights and duties of individuals, and of those
of public authority; societies where there are some wandering, uncertain,
obscure, imperfect notions thereon, stifled by a thousand prejudices and errors;
societies under which, nevertheless, public authority is organized under one
form or another, and has become consolidated, thanks to the force of habit, and
the absence of all other government better calculated to satisfy urgent necessities;
you will then have an idea of the ancient societies, we should rather say,
societies without Christianity, and you will understand the annihilation of the
individual before the force of public power, either under an Asiatic despotism
or the turbulent democracy of the ancient republics. And what you will then
see will be precisely what you have observed in modern societies at times of
revolution, only with this difference, that in these the evil is transitory and
noisy, like the ravages of the tempest, while among the ancients it was the normal
state, like the vitiated atmosphere which injures and corrupts all that
breathe it.</p>

<p>Let us examine the cause of these two opposite phenomena, the lofty patriotism
of the Greeks and Romans, and the state of prostration and political degradation
in which other nations lay, and in which those still lie who are not under
the influence of Christianity; what is the cause of this individual abnegation
which is found at the bottom of two feelings so contrary? and why do we not
find among any of those nations that individual development which is observed
in Europe, and which with us is connected with a reasonable patriotism, from
which the feeling of a legitimate personal independence is not excluded? It
is because in antiquity man did not know himself, or what he was; it is
because his true relations with society were viewed through a thousand prejudices
and errors, and consequently were very ill understood. This will show<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span>
that admiration for the patriotism, disinterestedness, and heroic self-denial of
the ancients has been sometimes carried too far, and that these qualities, far
from revealing in the men of antiquity a greater perfection of the individual, a
superior elevation of mind to that of the men of modern times, rather indicate
ideas less elevated and feelings less independent than our own. Perhaps some
blind admirers of the ancients will be astonished at these assertions. Let them
consider the women of India throwing themselves on the funeral-pile after the
death of their husbands, and slaves putting themselves to death because they
could not survive their masters, and they will see that personal self-denial is
not an infallible sign of elevation of mind. Sometimes man does not understand
his own dignity; he considers himself devoted to another being, absorbed
by him, and then he regards his own existence only as a secondary thing, which
has no object but to minister to the existence of another. We do not wish to
underrate the merit which rightly belongs to the ancients; we do not wish to
lower their heroism, as far as it is just and laudable, any more than we wish to
attribute to the moderns an egotistical individuality, which prevents their sacrificing
themselves for their country: our only object is to assign to every thing
its place, by dissipating prejudices which are excusable up to a certain point,
but do lamentable mischief by falsifying the principal features of ancient and
modern history.</p>

<p>This annihilation of the individual among the ancients arose also from the
weakness and imperfection of his moral development, and from his want of a
rule for his own guidance, which compelled society to interfere in all that concerned
him, as if public reason was called upon to supply the defect of private
reason. If we pay attention, we shall observe that in countries where political
liberty was the most cherished, civil liberty was almost unknown. While the
citizens flattered themselves that they were very free, because they took part in
the public deliberations, they wanted that liberty which is most important
to man, that which we now call civil liberty. We may form an idea of the
thoughts and manners of the ancients on this point, by reading one of their
most celebrated writers, Aristotle. In the eyes of this philosopher, the only
title which renders a man worthy of the name of citizen, seems to be the participation
in the government of the republic; and these ideas, apparently very
democratic and calculated to extend the rights of the most numerous class, far
from proceeding, as one would suppose, from an exaggeration of the dignity of
man, was connected in his mind with a profound contempt for man himself.
His system was to reserve all honor and consideration for a very limited number;
the classes of citizens who were thus condemned to degradation and nullity
were all laborers, artisans, and tradesmen. (<cite>Pol.</cite> l. vii. c. 9, 12; l. viii. c. 1, 2;
l. iii. c. 1.) This theory supposed, as may be seen, very curious ideas on individuals
and society, and is an additional confirmation of what I have said
respecting the eccentricities, not to say monstrosities, which we see in the
ancient republics. Let us never forget that one of the principal causes of the
evil was the want of an intimate knowledge of man; it was the little value
which was placed upon his dignity as man; the individual, deprived of guides
to direct him, could not conciliate esteem; in a word, there was wanting the
light of Christianity, which was alone capable of illuminating the chaos.</p>

<p>The feeling of the dignity of man is deeply engraven on the heart of modern
society; we find everywhere, written in striking characters, this truth, that
man, by virtue of his title of man, is respectable and worthy of high consideration;
hence it is that all the schools of modern times that have foolishly
undertaken to exalt the individual, at the imminent risk of producing fearful
perturbations in society, have adopted as the constant theme of their instructions,
this dignity and nobility of man. They thus distinguish themselves in
the most decided manner from the democrats of antiquity; the latter acted in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</a></span>
a narrow sphere, without departing from a certain order of things, without looking
beyond the limits of their own country; in the spirit of modern democrats,
on the contrary, we find a tendency to invade all branches, an ardent propagandism
which embraces the whole world. They never invoke mean ideas;
<em>man, his reason, his imprescriptible rights</em>, these are their perpetual theme.
Ask them what is their design, and they will tell you that they desire to level
all things, to avenge the sacred cause of humanity. This exaggeration of ideas,
the pretext and motive for so many crimes, shows us a valuable fact, viz. the
immense progress which Christianity has given to ideas with relation to the
dignity of our nature. When they have to mislead societies which owe their
civilization to Christianity, they find no better means than to invoke the dignity
of human nature. The Christian religion, the enemy of all that is criminal,
could not consent to see society overturned, under the pretence of defending
and raising the dignity of man; this is the reason why a great number of the
most ardent democrats have indulged in insults and sarcasms against religion.
On the other hand, as history loudly proclaims that all our knowledge and feeling
of what is true, just, and reasonable on this point, is due to the Christian
religion, it has been recently attempted to make a monstrous alliance between
Christian ideas and the most extravagant of democratic theories. A celebrated
man has undertaken this enterprise; but true Christianity, that is, Catholicity,
rejects these adulterous alliances; it ceases to acknowledge its most eminent
apologists when they have quitted the path of eternal truth. De Lamennais
now wanders in the darkness of error, embracing a deceitful shadow of Christianity;
and the voice of the supreme Pastor of the Church has warned the
faithful against being dazzled by the illusion of a name illustrious by so many
titles.<a href="#Note_16" class="fnanchor">16</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXIII" id="CHAPTER_XXIII">CHAPTER XXIII.</a><br />

<small>THE PROGRESS OF INDIVIDUALITY UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY</small>.</h2>


<p>IF we give a just and legitimate meaning to the word individuality, taking
the feeling of personal independence in an acceptation which is not repugnant
to the perfection of the individual, and does not oppose the constitutive principles
of all society; moreover, if we seek the various causes which have influenced
the development of this feeling, without speaking of that which we have
already pointed out as one of the most important, viz. the true notion of man,
and his connections with his fellows, we shall find many of them which are
quite worthy of attention in Catholicity. M. Guizot was greatly deceived
when, putting the faithful of the Church in the same rank with the ancient
Romans, he asserted that both were equally wanting in the feeling of personal
independence. He describes the faithful as absorbed by the association of the
Church, entirely devoted to her, ready to sacrifice themselves for her; so that,
according to him, it was the interests of the association which induced them to
act. There is an error here; but as this error has originated in a truth, it is
our duty to distinguish the ideas and the facts with much attention.</p>

<p>There is no doubt that from the cradle of Christianity the faithful have had
an extreme attachment to the Church, and it was always well understood among
them, that they could not leave the communion of the Church without ceasing
to be numbered among the true disciples of Jesus Christ. It is equally undeniable
that, in the words of M. Guizot, "There prevailed in the Christian
Church a feeling of strong attachment to the Christian corporation, of devotion
to its laws, and an ardent desire to extend its empire;" but it is not true that
the origin and source of all these feelings was the spirit of association alone, to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</a></span>
the exclusion of all development of real individuality. The Christian belonged
to an association, but that association was regarded by him as a means of obtaining
eternal happiness, as the ship in which he was embarked, amid the tempests
of the world, to arrive safe in the port of eternity: and although he believed
it impossible to be saved out of the Church, he did not understand from that
that he was devoted to the Church, but to God. The Roman was ready to
sacrifice himself for his country; the Christian, for his faith. When the Roman
died, he died for his country; the faithful did not die for the Church, but for
God. If we open the monuments of Church history, and read the acts of the
martyrs, we shall then see what passed in that terrible moment, when the Christian,
fully arousing himself, showed in the presence of the instruments of torture,
burning piles, and the most horrible punishments, the true principle which
acted on his mind. The judge asks his name; he declares it, and adds, "I am
a Christian." He is asked to sacrifice to the gods. "We only sacrifice to one
God, the Creator of heaven and earth." He is reproached with the disgrace
of following a man who has been nailed to the cross; for him the ignominy of
the cross is a glory, and he loudly proclaims that the Crucified is his Saviour
and his God. He is threatened with tortures; he despises them, for they are
passing, and rejoices in being able to suffer something for his Master. The
cross of punishment is already prepared, the pile is lighted before his eyes, the
executioner raises the fatal axe to strike off his head; what does it matter to
him? all this is but for a moment, and after that moment comes a new life of
ineffable and endless happiness. We thus see what influenced his heart; it
was the love of his God and the interest of his eternal happiness. Consequently,
it is utterly false that the Christian, like men of the ancient republics,
destroyed his individuality in the association to which he belonged, allowing
himself to be absorbed in that association like a drop of water in the immensity
of ocean. The Christian belonged to an association which gave him the rule
of his faith and conduct; he regarded that association as founded and directed
by God himself; but his mind and his heart were raised to God, and when following
the voice of the Church, he believed that he was engaged with his own
individual affair, which was nothing less than his eternal happiness. This distinction
is quite necessary in an affair which has relations so various and delicate
that the slightest confusion may produce considerable errors. Here a
hidden fact reveals itself to us, which is infinitely precious, and throws much
light upon the development and perfecting of the individual in Christian civilization.
It is absolutely necessary that there should be a social order to which
the individual must submit; but it is also proper that he should not be absorbed
by society to such an extent that he cannot be conceived but as forming part
of it, and remains deprived of his own sphere of action. If this were the case,
never would true civilization be completely developed; as it consists in the
simultaneous perfecting of the individual and of society, it is necessary, for its
existence, that both should have a well determined sphere, where their peculiar
and respective movements may not check and embarrass each other.</p>

<p>After these reflections, to which I especially call the attention of all thinking
men, I will point out a thing which has, perhaps, not yet been remarked; it is,
that Christianity has eminently contributed to create that individual sphere in
which man, without breaking the ties which connect him with society, is free
to develop all his peculiar faculties. From the mouth of an Apostle went forth
that generous expression which strictly limits political power: "We ought to
obey God rather than man." (Acts v. 29.) "Obedire oportet Deo magis quam
hominibus." The Apostle thereby proclaims that the individual should cease
to acknowledge power, when power exacts from him what he believes to be contrary
to his conscience. It was among Christians that this great example was
witnessed for the first time; individuals of all countries, of all ages, of both<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span>
sexes, of all conditions, braving the anger of authority, and all the fury of
popular passions, rather than pronounce a single word contrary to the principles
which they professed in the sanctuary of conscience; and this, not with arms
in their hands, in the midst of popular commotions, where their impetuous
passions are excited, which communicate to the mind temporary energy, but in
the solitude and obscurity of dungeons, amid the fearful calmness of the tribunals,
that is, in that situation where man, alone and isolated, cannot show force
and dignity without revealing the elevation of his ideas, the nobleness of his
feelings, the unalterable firmness of his conscience, and the greatness of his
soul. Christianity engraved this truth deeply on the heart of man, that individuals
have duties to perform, even when the whole world is aroused against
them; that they have an immense destiny to fulfil, and that it is entirely their
own affair, the responsibility of which rests upon their own free will. This
important truth, unceasingly inculcated by Christianity at all times, to both
sexes, to all conditions, must have powerfully contributed to excite in man an
active and ardent feeling of personality. This feeling, with all its sublimity,
combining with the other inspirations of Christianity, all full of dignity and
grandeur, has raised the human mind from the dust, where ignorance and rude
superstitions, and systems of violence, which oppressed it on all sides, had
placed and retained it. How strange and surprising to the ears of Pagans must
have been those energetic words of Justin, which nevertheless expressed the
disposition of mind of the majority of the faithful, when, in his Apology,
addressed to Antoninus Pius, he said, "As we have not placed our hopes on
present things, we contemn those who kill us, death being, moreover, a thing
which cannot be avoided."</p>

<p>This full and entire self-consciousness, this heroic contempt of death, this
calm spirit of a man who, supported by the testimony of intimate feeling, sets
at defiance all the powers of earth, must have tended the more to enlarge the
mind, as they did not emanate from that cold stoical impassibility, the constant
effort of which was to struggle against the nature of things without any solid
motive. The Christian feeling had its origin in a sublime freedom from all
that is earthly, in a profound conviction of the holiness of duty, and in that
undeniable maxim, that man, in spite of all the obstacles which the world places
in his way, should walk with a firm step towards the destiny which is marked
out for him by his Creator. These ideas and feelings together communicated
to the soul a strong and vigorous temper, which, without reaching in any thing
the savage harshness of the ancients, raised man to all his dignity, nobleness,
and grandeur. It must be observed that these precious effects were not confined
to a small number of privileged individuals, but that, in conformity with the
genius of the Christian religion, they extended to all classes; for one of the
noblest characters of that divine religion is the unlimited expansion which it
gives to all that is good; it knows no distinction of persons, and makes its voice
penetrate the obscurest places of society. It was not only to the elevated
classes and philosophers, but to the generality of the faithful, that St. Cyprian,
the light of Africa, addressed himself, when, summing up in a few words all
the grandeur of man, he marked with a bold hand the sublime position where
our soul ought to maintain itself with constancy. "Never," he says, "never
will he who feels himself to be the child of God admire the words of man. <em>He
falls from his noblest state who can admire any thing but God.</em>" (<cite>De Spectaculis.</cite>)
Sublime words, which make us boldly raise our heads, and fill our hearts with
noble feelings; words which, diffusing themselves over all classes, like a fertilizing
warmth, were capable of inspiring the humblest of men with what previously
seemed exclusively reserved for the transports of the poet:</p>

<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza">
<div class="verse">Os homini sublime dedit, cœlumque tueri<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Jussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere cultus.<br /></div>
</div></div></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span></p>
<p>The development of the moral life, the interior life, that life in which man,
reflecting on himself, is accustomed to render a circumstantial account of all his
actions, of the motives which actuate him, of the goodness or the wickedness of
those motives, and the object to which they tend, is principally due to Christianity,
to its unceasing influence on man in all his conditions, in all situations,
in all moments of his life. Such a progress of the individual life in all that it
has most intimate, most active, and most interesting for the heart of man, was
incompatible with that absorption of the individual by society, with that blind
self-denial, in which man forgot himself, to think only of the association of
which he formed a part. This moral and interior life was unknown to the
ancients, because they wanted principles for supporting, rules for guiding, and
inspirations for exciting and nourishing it. Thus at Rome, where the political
element tries its ascendency over minds, when enthusiasm becomes extinguished
by the effect of intestine dissensions, when every generous feeling becomes
stifled by the insupportable despotism which succeeds to the last agitations of
the republic, we see baseness and corruption develop themselves with fearful
rapidity. The activity of mind which before occupied itself in debates of the
Forum and the glorious exploits of war, no longer finding food, gave itself up
to sensual pleasures with an abandonment which we can hardly imagine now-a-days,
in spite of the looseness of morals which we so justly deplore. Thus we
see among the ancients only these two extremes, either the most exalted patriotism,
or the complete prostration of the faculties of the soul, which abandons
itself without reserve to the dictates of its irregular passions; there man was
the slave either of his own passions, of another man, or of society.</p>

<p>Since the moral tie which united men to Catholic society has been broken,
since religious belief has been weakened, in consequence of the individual independence
which Protestantism has proclaimed in religious matters, it has unhappily
become possible for us to conceive, by means of examples found in European
civilization, what man still deprived of real knowledge of himself, his
origin and destiny, must have been. We will indicate in another place the
points of resemblance which are found between ancient and modern society in
the countries where the influence of religious ideas is enfeebled. It is enough
now to remark, that if Europe had completely lost Christianity, according to
the insane desires of some men, a generation would not have passed away without
there being revived among us the individual and society such as they
were among the ancients, except the modifications which the difference of the
material state of the two civilizations would necessarily produce.</p>

<p>The doctrine of free will, so loudly proclaimed by Catholicity, and sustained
by her with such vigour, not only against the old Pagan teaching, but particularly
against sectarians at all times, and especially against the founders of the
pretended Reformation, has also contributed more than is imagined to develop
and perfect the individual, to raise his ideas of independence, nobleness, and
dignity. When man comes to consider himself as constrained by the irresistible
force of destiny, and attached to a chain of events over which he has no
control&mdash;when he comes to suppose that the operations of his mind, those active
proofs of his freedom, are but vain illusions&mdash;he soon annihilates himself; he
feels himself assimilated to the brute; he ceases to be the prince of living
beings, the ruler of the earth; he is nothing more than a machine fixed in its
place, which is compelled to perform its part in the great system of the universe.
The social order ceases to exist; merit and demerit, praise and blame,
reward and punishment, are only unmeaning words. If man enjoys or suffers,
it is only in the same way as a shrub, which is sometimes breathed upon softly
by the zephyrs, and sometimes blasted by the north wind. How different it is
when man is conscious of his liberty! Then he is master of his destiny;
good and evil, life and death, are before his eyes; he can choose, and nothing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span>
can violate the sanctuary of his conscience. There the soul is enthroned, there
she is seated, full of dignity, and the whole world raging against her, the universe
falling upon her fragile body, cannot force her will. The moral order is
displayed before us in all its grandeur; we see good in all its beauty, and evil
in all its deformity; the desire of doing well stimulates, and the fear of doing
ill restrains us; the sight of the recompense which can be obtained by an effort
of free will, and which appears at the end of the path of virtue, renders that
path more sweet and peaceful, and communicates activity and energy to the
soul. If man is free, there remains something great and terrible, even in his
crime, in his punishment, and even in the despair of hell. What is man deprived
of liberty and yet punished? What is the meaning of this absurd proposition,
a chief dogma of the founders of Protestantism? This man is a weak
and miserable victim, in whose torture a cruel omnipotence delights; a God
who has created him in order to see him suffer; a tyrant with infinite power,
that is, the most dreadful of monsters. But if man is free, when he suffers,
he suffers because he has deserved it; and if we contemplate him in the midst
of despair, plunged into an ocean of horrors, his brow furrowed by the just
lightnings of the Eternal, we seem to hear him still pronounce those terrible
words with a haughty bearing and proud look, <em>non serviam, I will not obey</em>.</p>

<p>In man, as in the universe, all is wonderfully united; all the faculties of
man have delicate and intimate relations with each other, and the movement
of one chord in the soul makes all the others vibrate. It is necessary to call
attention to this reciprocal dependence of all our faculties on each other, in
order to anticipate an objection which may be made. We shall be told, all that
has been said only proves that Catholicity has developed the individual in a
mystical sense. No, the observations which I have made show something
more than this; they prove that we owe to Catholicity the clear idea and lively
feeling of moral order in all its greatness and beauty; they prove that we owe
her the real strength of what we call conscience, and that if the individual
believes himself to be called to a mighty destiny, confided to his own free will,
and the care of which belongs entirely to him, it is to Catholicity he owes that
belief; they prove that Catholicity has given man the true knowledge which he
has of himself, the appreciation of his dignity, the respect which is paid to him
as man; they prove that she has developed in our souls the germs of the noblest
and most generous feelings; for she has raised our thoughts by the loftiest conceptions,
dilated our hearts by the assurance of a liberty which nothing can
take away, by the promise of an infinite reward, eternal happiness, while she
leaves in our hands life and death, and makes us in a certain manner the arbiters
of our own destiny. In all this there is more than mere mysticism; it is nothing
less than the development of the entire man; nothing less than the true,
the only noble, just, and reasonable individuality; nothing less than the collected
powerful impulses which urge the individual towards perfection in every sense;
it is nothing less than the first, the most indispensable, the most fruitful element
of real civilization.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXIV" id="CHAPTER_XXIV">CHAPTER XXIV.</a><br />

<small>OF THE FAMILY.&mdash;MONOGAMY.&mdash;INDISSOLUBILITY OF THE CONJUGAL TIE</small>.</h2>


<p>WE have seen what the individual owes to Catholicity; let us now see what
the family owes her. It is clear that the individual, being the first element of
the family, if it is Catholicity which has tended to perfect him, the improvement
of the family will thus have been very much her work; but without insisting
on this inference, I wish to consider the conjugal tie in itself, for which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span>
purpose it is necessary to call attention to woman. I will not repeat here what
she was among the Romans, and what she is still among the nations who are
not Christians; history, and still more the literature of Greece and Rome, afford
us sad or rather shameful proofs on this subject; and all the nations of the
earth offer us too many evidences of the truth and exactness of the observation
of Buchanan, viz. that wherever Christianity does not prevail, there is
a tendency to the degradation of woman. Perhaps on this point Protestantism
will be unwilling to give way to Catholicity; it will assert that in all that
affects woman the Reformation has in no degree prejudiced the civilization of
Europe. We will not now inquire what evils Protestantism has occasioned
in this respect; this question will be discussed in another part of the work;
but it cannot be doubted, that when Protestantism appeared, the Catholic religion
had already completed its task as far as woman is concerned. No one, indeed,
is ignorant that the respect and consideration which are given to women, and
the influence which they exercise on society, date further back than the first
part of the 16th century. Hence it follows that Catholicity cannot have had
Protestantism as a coadjutor; it acted entirely alone in this point, one of the
most important of all true civilization; and if it is generally acknowledged that
Christianity has placed woman in the rank which properly belongs to her, and
which is most conducive to the good of the family and of society, this is a homage
paid to Catholicity; for at the time when woman was raised from abjection,
when it was attempted to restore her to the rank of companion of man, as worthy
of him, those dissenting sects that also called themselves Christians did not
exist, and there was no other Christianity than the Catholic Church.</p>

<p>It has been already remarked in the course of this work, that when I give
titles and honours to Catholicity, I avoid having recourse to vague generalities,
and endeavour to support my assertions by facts. The reader will naturally
expect me to do the same here, and to point out to him what are the means
which Catholicity has employed to give respect and dignity to woman; he shall
not be deceived in his expectation. First, and before descending to details, we
must observe that the grand ideas of Christianity with respect to humanity
must have contributed, in an extraordinary manner, to the improvement of the
lot of woman. These ideas, which applied without any difference to woman as
well as to man, were an energetic protest against the state of degradation in
which one-half of the human race was placed. The Christian doctrine made
the existing prejudices against woman vanish for ever; it made her equal to
man by unity of origin and destiny, and in the participation of the heavenly
gifts; it enrolled her in the universal brotherhood of man, with his fellows
and with Jesus Christ; it considered her as the child of God, the coheiress of
Jesus Christ; as the companion of man, and no longer as a slave and the vile
instrument of pleasure. Henceforth that philosophy which had attempted to
degrade her, was silenced; that unblushing literature which treated women
with so much insolence found a check in the Christian precepts, and a reprimand
no less eloquent than severe in the dignified manner in which all the
ecclesiastical writers, in imitation of the Scriptures, expressed themselves on
woman. Yet, in spite of the beneficent influence which the Christian doctrines
must have exercised by themselves, the desired end would not have been completely
attained, had not the Church undertaken, with the warmest energy, to
accomplish a work the most necessary, the most indispensable for the good
organization of the family and society, I mean the reformation of marriage.
The Christian doctrine on this point is very simple: <em>one with one exclusively,
and for ever</em>. But the doctrine would have been powerless, if the Church had
not undertaken to apply it, and if she had not carried on this task with invincible
firmness; for the passions, above all those of man, rebel against such a
doctrine; and they would undoubtedly have trodden it under foot, if they had<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span>
not met with an insurmountable barrier, which did not leave them the most
distant hope of triumph. Can Protestantism, which applauded with such senseless
joy the scandal of Henry VIII., and accommodated itself so basely to the
desires of the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, boast of having contributed to
strengthen that barrier? What a surprising difference! During many centuries,
amid circumstances the most various, and sometimes the most terrible,
the Catholic Church struggles with intrepidity against the passions of potentates,
to maintain unsullied the sanctity of marriage. Neither promises nor
threats could move Rome; no means could obtain from her any thing contrary
to the instructions of her Divine Master: Protestantism, at the first shock, or
rather at the first shadow of the slightest embarrassment, at the mere fear of
displeasing a prince who certainly was not very powerful, yields, humbles itself,
consents to polygamy, betrays its own conscience, opens a wide door to the passions,
and gives up to them the sanctity of marriage, the first pledge for the
good of the family, the foundation-stone of true civilization.</p>

<p>Protestant society on this point, wiser than the miscalled reformers who
attempted to guide it, with admirable good sense repudiated the consequences
of the conduct of its chiefs; although it did not preserve the doctrines of Catholicity,
it at least followed the salutary impulse which it had received from them,
and polygamy was not established in Europe. But history records facts which
show the weakness of the pretended reformation, and the vivifying power of
Catholicity. It tells us to whom it is owing that the law of marriage, that palladium
of society, was not falsified, perverted, destroyed, amid the barbarous
ages, amid the most fearful corruption, violence, and ferocity, which prevailed
everywhere, as well at the time when invading nations passed pell-mell over
Europe, as in that of feudality, and when the power of kings had already been
preponderant,&mdash;history will tell what tutelary force prevented the torrent of
sensuality from overflowing with all its violence, with all its caprices, from
bringing about the most profound disorganization, from corrupting the character
of European civilization, and precipitating it into that fearful abyss in which
the nations of Asia have been for so many centuries.</p>

<p>Prejudiced writers have carefully searched the annals of ecclesiastical history
for the differences between popes and kings, and have taken occasion therein to
reproach the Court of Rome with its intolerant obstinacy respecting the sanctity
of marriage; if the spirit of party had not blinded them, they would have
understood that, if this intolerant obstinacy had been relaxed for a moment, if
the Roman Pontiff had given way one step before the impetuosity of the passions,
this first step once made, the descent into the abyss would have been
rapid; they would have admired the spirit of truth, the deep conviction, the
lively faith with which that august see is animated; no consideration, no fear,
has been able to silence her, when she had occasion to remind all, and especially
kings and potentates, of this commandment: "They shall be two in one
flesh; man shall not separate what God has joined." By showing themselves
inflexible on this point, even at the risk of the anger of kings, not only have
the popes performed the sacred duty which was imposed on them by their
august character as chiefs of Christianity, but they have executed a political
<i lang="fr">chef d'œuvre</i>, and greatly contributed to the repose and well-being of nations.
"For," says Voltaire, "the marriages of princes in Europe decide the destiny
of nations; and never has there been a court entirely devoted to debauchery,
without producing revolutions and rebellions." (<cite>Essai sur l'Histoire générale</cite>,
t. iii. c. 101.)</p>

<p>This correct remark of Voltaire will suffice to vindicate the pope, together
with Catholicity, from the calumnies of their wretched detractors: it becomes
still more valuable, and acquires an immense importance, if it is extended beyond
the limits of the political order to the social. The imagination is affrighted<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span>
at the thought of what would have happened, if these barbarous kings, in whom
the splendor of the purple ill disguised the sons of the forest, if those haughty
seigneurs, fortified in their castles, clothed in mail, and surrounded by their
timid vassals, had not found a check in the authority of the Church; if at the
first glance at a new beauty, if at the first passion which, when enkindled in their
hearts, would have inspired them with a disgust for their legitimate spouses,
they had not had the always-present recollection of an inflexible authority.
They could, it is true, load a bishop with vexations; they could silence him
with threats or promises; they might control the votes of a particular Council
by violence, by intrigue, by subornation; but, in the distance, the power of
the Vatican, the shadow of the Sovereign Pontiff, appeared to them like an
alarming vision; they then lost all hope; all struggles became useless; the
most violent endeavors would never have given them the victory; the most
astute intrigues, the most humble entreaties, would have obtained the same
reply: "One with one only, and for ever."</p>

<p>If we read but the history of the middle ages, of that immense scene of violence,
where the barbarian, striving to break the bonds which civilization
attempted to impose on him, appears so vividly; if we recollect that the Church
was obliged to keep guard incessantly and vigilantly, not only to prevent the
ties of a marriage from being broken, but even to preserve virgins (and even
those who were dedicated to God) from violence; we shall clearly see that, if
she had not opposed herself, as a wall of brass, to the torrent of sensuality, the
palaces of kings and the castles of seigneurs would have speedily become their
seraglios and harems. What would have happened in the other classes?
They would have followed the same course; and the women of Europe would
have remained in the state of degradation in which the Mussulman women still
are. As I have mentioned the followers of Mohammed, I will reply in passing
to those who pretend to explain monogamy and polygamy by climate alone.
Christians and Mohammedans have been for a long time under the same sky,
and their religions have been established, by the vicissitudes of the two races,
sometimes in cold and sometimes in mild and temperate climates; and yet we
have not seen the religions accommodate themselves to the climates; but rather,
the climates have been, as it were, forced to bend to the religions. European
nations owe eternal gratitude to Catholicity, which has preserved monogamy
for them, one of the causes which undoubtedly have contributed the most to
the good organization of the family, and the exaltation of woman. What would
now be the condition of Europe, what respect would woman now enjoy, if
Luther, the founder of Protestantism, had succeeded in inspiring society with
the indifference which he shows on this point in his commentary on Genesis?
"As to whether we may have several wives," says Luther, "the authority of
the patriarchs leaves us completely free." He afterwards adds that "<em>it is a
thing neither permitted nor prohibited, and that he does not decide any thing
thereupon</em>." Unhappy Europe! if a man, who had whole nations as followers,
had uttered such words some centuries earlier, at the time when civilization had
not yet received an impulse strong enough to make it take a decided line on
the most important points, in spite of false doctrines. Unhappy Europe! if at
the time when Luther wrote, manners had not been already formed, if the good
organization given to the family by Catholicity had not been too deeply rooted
to be torn up by the hand of man. Certainly the scandal of the Landgrave
of Hesse-Cassel would not then have remained an isolated example, and the
culpable compliance of the Lutheran doctors would have produced bitter fruits.
What would that vacillating faith, that uncertainty, that cowardice with which
the Protestant Church was seen to tremble at the mere demand of such a prince
as the Landgrave, have availed, to control the fierce impetuosity of barbarous
and corrupted nations? How would a struggle, lasting for ages, have been<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span>
sustained by those who, at the first menace of battle, gave way, and were routed
before the shock?</p>

<p>Besides monogamy, it may be said that there is nothing more important than
the indissolubility of marriage. Those who, departing from the doctrine of the
Church, think that it is useful in certain cases to allow divorce, so as to dissolve
the conjugal tie, and permit each of the parties to marry again, still will
not deny that they regard divorce as a dangerous remedy, which the legislator
only avails himself of with regret, and only on account of crime or faithlessness;
they will see, also, that a great number of divorces would produce very
great evils, and that in order to prevent these in countries where the civil laws
allow the abuse of divorce, it is necessary to surround this permission with all
imaginable precaution; they will consequently grant that the most efficacious
manner of preventing corruption of manners, of guarantying the tranquillity
of families, and of opposing a firm barrier to the torrent of evils which is ready
to inundate society, is to establish the indissolubility of marriage as a moral
principle, to base it upon motives which exercise a powerful ascendency over the
heart, and to keep a constant restraint on the passions, to prevent them from
slipping down so dangerous a declivity. It is clear that there is no work more
worthy of being the object of the care and zeal of the true religion. Now,
what religion but the Catholic has fulfilled this duty? What other religion has
more perfectly accomplished so salutary and difficult a task? Certainly not
Protestantism, for it did not even know how to penetrate the depth of the
reasons which guided the conduct of the Church on this point. I have taken
care to do justice in another place to the wisdom which Protestant society has
displayed in not giving itself up entirely to the impulse which its chiefs wished
to communicate to it. But it must not be supposed from this that Protestant
doctrines have not had lamentable consequences in countries calling themselves
reformed. Let us hear what a Protestant lady, Madame de Staël, says in her
book on Germany, speaking of a country which she loves and admires: "Love,"
she says, "is a religion in Germany, but a poetical religion which tolerates very
freely all that sensibility can excuse. It cannot be denied that in the Protestant
provinces the facility of divorce is injurious to the sanctity of marriage.
<em>They change husbands as quietly as if they were arranging the incidents of a
drama</em>: the good nature of the man and woman prevents the mixture of any
bitterness with their easy ruptures; and as there is among the Germans more
imagination than real passion, the most curious events take place with singular
tranquillity. Yet it is thus that manners and characters lose all consistency;
the paradoxical spirit destroys the most sacred institutions, and there are no
well established rules on any subject." (<cite>De l'Allemagne</cite>, p. 1, c. 3.) Misled
by their hatred against the Roman Church, and excited by their rage for innovation
in all things, the Protestants thought they had made a great reform in
secularizing marriage, if I may so speak, and in rejecting the Catholic doctrine,
which declared it a real sacrament. This is not the place to enter upon a dogmatical
discussion of this matter; I shall content myself with observing, that
by depriving marriage of the august seal of a sacrament, Protestantism showed
that it had little knowledge of the human heart. To consider marriage, not as
a simple civil contract, but as a real sacrament, was to place it under the august
shade of religion, and to raise it above the stormy atmosphere of the passions;
and who can doubt that this was absolutely necessary to restrain the most active,
capricious, and violent passion of the heart of man? The civil laws are insufficient
to produce such an effect. Motives are required, which, being drawn
from a higher source, exert a more efficacious influence. The Protestant doctrine
overturned the power of the Church with respect to marriage, and gave
up matters of this kind exclusively to the civil power. Some one will perhaps
think that the increase of the secular power on this point could not but serve<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span>
the cause of civilization, and that to drive the ecclesiastical authority from this
ground was a magnificent triumph gained over exploded prejudices, a valuable
victory over unjust usurpation. Deluded man! If your mind possessed any
lofty thought, if your heart felt the vibration of those harmonious chords which
display the passions of man with so much delicacy and exactness, and teach the
best means of directing them, you would see, you would feel, that to place
marriage under the mantle of religion, and to withdraw it as much as possible
from profane interference, was to purify, to embellish, and to surround it with
the most enchanting beauty; for thus is that precious treasure, which is blasted
by a look, and tarnished by the slightest breath, inviolably preserved. Would
you not wish to have the nuptial bed veiled and strictly guarded by religion?</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXV" id="CHAPTER_XXV">CHAPTER XXV.</a><br />

<small><small>OF THE PASSION OF LOVE</small></small>.</h2>


<p>But it will be said to Catholics, "Do you not see that your doctrines are
too hard and rigorous? They do not consider the weakness and inconstancy of
the human heart, and require sacrifices above its strength. Is it not cruel to
attempt to subject the most tender affections, the most delicate feelings, to the
rigor of a principle? Cruel doctrine, which endeavors to hold together, bound
to each other by a fatal tie, those who no longer love, who feel a mutual disgust,
who perhaps hate each other with a profound hatred! When you answer these
two beings who long to be separated, who would rather die than remain united,
with an eternal Never, showing them the divine seal which was placed upon
their union at the solemn moment, do you not forget all the rules of prudence?
Is not this to provoke despair? Protestantism, accommodating itself to our
infirmity, accedes more easily to the demands, sometimes of caprice, but often
also of weakness; its indulgence is a thousand times preferable to your rigor."
This requires an answer; it is necessary to remove the delusion which produces
these arguments, too apt, unhappily, to mislead the judgment, because they
begin by seducing the heart. In the first place, it is an exaggeration to say
that the Catholic system reduces unhappy couples to the extremity of despair.
There are cases in which prudence requires that they should separate, and then
neither the doctrines nor the practice of the Catholic Church oppose the separation.
It is true that this does not dissolve the conjugal tie, and that neither of
the parties can marry again. But it cannot be said that one of them is subject
to tyranny; they are not compelled to live together, consequently they do not
suffer the intolerable torment of remaining united when they abhor each other.
Very well, we shall be told, the separation being pronounced, the parties are
freed from the punishment of living together; but they cannot contract new
ties, consequently they are forbidden to gratify another passion which, perhaps,
their heart conceals, and which may have been the cause of the disgust or the
hatred whence arose the unhappiness or discord of their first union. Why not
consider the marriage as altogether dissolved? Why should not the parties
become entirely free? Permit them to obey the feelings of their hearts, which,
newly fixed on another object, already foresee happier days. Here, no doubt,
the answer seems difficult, and the force of the difficulty becomes urgent; but,
nevertheless, it is here that Catholicity obtains the most signal triumph; it is
here it clearly shows how profound is its knowledge of the heart of man, how
prudent its doctrines, and how wise and provident its conduct. Its rigor, which
seems excessive, is only necessary severity; this conduct, far from meriting the
reproach of cruelty, is a guarantee for the repose and well-being of man. But
it is a thing which it is difficult to understand at first sight; thus we are com<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span>pelled
to develop this matter by entering into a profound examination of the
principles which justify by the light of reason the conduct pursued by the
Catholic Church; let us examine this conduct, not only in respect to marriage,
but in all that relates to the direction of the heart of man.</p>

<p>In the direction of the passions there are two systems, the one of compliance,
the other of resistance. In the first of these they are yielded to as they advance;
an invincible obstacle is never opposed to them; they are never left without
hope. A line is traced around them which, it is true, prevents them from exceeding
a certain boundary; but they are given to understand that if they come
to place their foot upon this limit, it will retire a little further; so that the
compliance is in proportion to the energy and obstinacy of their demands. In
the second system, a line is equally marked out to the passions which they
cannot pass; but it is a line fixed, immovable, and everywhere guarded by a
wall of brass. In vain do they attempt to pass it; they have not even the
shadow of hope; the principle which resists them will never change, will never
consent to any kind of compromise. Therefore, no resource remains but to take
that course which is always open to man, that of sin. The first system allows
the fire to break out, to prevent an explosion; the second hinders the beginning
of it, in the fear of being compelled to arrest its progress. In the first, the
passions are feared and regulated at their birth, and hopes of restraining them
when they have grown up are entertained; in the second, it is thought that, if
it is difficult to restrain them when they are feeble, it will be still more so when
they are strengthened. In the one, they act on the supposition that the passions
are weakened by indulgence; in the other, it is believed that gratification,
far from satiating, only renders them every day more devouring.</p>

<p>It may be said, generally speaking, that Catholicity follows the second of
these systems; that is to say, with respect to the passions, her constant rule is
to check them at the first step, to deprive them of all hope from the first, and
to stifle them, if possible, in their cradle. It must be observed, that we speak
here of the severity with respect to the passions themselves, not with respect to
man, who is their prey; it is very consistent to give no truce to passion, and to
be indulgent towards the person under its influence; to be inexorable towards
the offence, and to treat the offender with extreme mildness. With respect to
marriage, this system has been acted on by Catholicity with astonishing firmness;
Protestantism has taken the opposite course. Both are agreed on this
point, that divorce, followed by the dissolution of the conjugal tie, is a very
great evil; but there is this difference between them, that the Catholic system
does not leave even the hope of a conjuncture in which this dissolution will be
permitted; it forbids it absolutely, without any restriction; it declares it impossible:
the Protestant system, on the contrary, consents to it in certain cases.
Protestantism does not possess the divine seal which guaranties the perpetuity
of marriage, and renders it sacred and inviolable; Catholicity does possess this
seal, impresses it on the mysterious tie, and from that moment marriage remains
under the shadow of an august symbol. Which of the two religions is the most
prudent in this point? Which acts with the most wisdom? To answer this
question, let us lay aside the dogmatical reasons, and the intrinsical morality of
the human actions which form the subject of the laws which we are now examining;
and let us see which of the two systems is the most conducive to the
difficult task of managing and directing the passions. After having considered
the nature of the human heart, and consulted the experience of every day, it
may be affirmed that the best way to repress a passion is to leave it without
hope; to comply with it, to allow it continual indulgences, is to excite it more
and more; it is to play with fire amid a heap of combustibles, by allowing the
flame to be lit, from time to time, in the vain confidence of being always able
to put out the conflagration. Let us take a rapid glance at the most violent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span>
passions of the heart of man, and observe what is their ordinary course, according
to the system which is pursued in their regard. Look at the gambler, who
is ruled by an indefinable restlessness, which is made up of an insatiable cupidity
and an unbounded prodigality, at the same time. The most enormous fortune
will not satisfy him; and yet he risks all, without hesitation, to the hazard
of a moment. The man who still dreams of immense treasures amid the most
fearful misery, restlessly pursues an object which resembles gold, but which is
not it, for the possession thereof does not satisfy him. His heart can only exist
amid uncertainty, chances, and perils. Suspended between hope and fear, he
seems to be pleased with the rapid succession of lively emotions which unceasingly
agitate and torment him. What remedy will cure this malady&mdash;this devouring
fever? Will you recommend to him a system of compliance? will you
tell him to gamble, but only to a certain amount, at certain times, and in certain
places? What will you gain by this? Nothing at all. If these means
were good for any thing, there would be no gambler in the world who would
not be cured of his passion; for there is no one who has not often marked out
for himself these limits, and often said to himself, "You shall only play till
such an hour, in such a place, and to such an amount." What is the effect of
these palliations&mdash;of these impotent precautions&mdash;on the unhappy gambler?
That he miserably deceives himself. The passion consents, only in order to
gain strength, and the better to secure the victory: thus it gains ground; it constantly
enlarges its sphere; and leads its victim again into the same, or into
greater excesses. Do you wish to make a radical cure? If there be a remedy,
it must be to abstain completely; a remedy which may appear difficult at first,
but will be found the easiest in practice. When the passion finds itself deprived
of all hope, it will begin to diminish, and in the end will disappear.
No man of experience will raise the least doubt as to the truth of what I have
said; every one will agree with me, that the only way to destroy the formidable
passion of gambling is to deprive it at once of all food, to leave it without hope.</p>

<p>Let us pass to another example, more analogous to the subject which I intend
to explain. Let us suppose a man under the influence of love. Do you believe
that the best way to cure his passion will be to give him opportunities, even
though very rare, of seeing the object of his passion? Do you think that it will
be salutary to authorize him to <em>continue</em>, while you forbid him to <em>multiply</em>, these
dangerous interviews? Will such a precaution quench the flame which burns
in his heart? You may be sure that it will not. The limits will even augment
its force. If you allow it any food, even with the most parsimonious hand,
if you permit it the least success, you see it constantly increase, until it upset
every thing that opposes it. But take away all hope, send the lover on a long
journey, or place before him an impediment which precludes the probability, or
even the possibility, of success; then, except in very rare cases, you will obtain
at first distraction, and then forgetfulness. Is not this the daily teaching of
experience? Is it not the remedy which necessity every day suggests to the
fathers of families? The passions resemble fire. They are extinguished by a
large quantity of water; but a few drops only render them more ardent. Let
us raise our thoughts still higher; let us observe the passions acting in a wider
field, in more extended regions. Whence comes it that so many strong passions
are awakened at times of public disturbance? It is, because then they
all hope to be gratified; it is, because the highest ranks, the oldest and most
powerful institutions, having been overturned, and replaced by others, which
were hitherto imperceptible, all the passions see a road open before them, amid
the tempest and confusion; the barriers apparently insurmountable, the sight of
which prevented their existence, or strangled them in the cradle, do not exist;
as all is then unprotected and defenceless, it is only required to have boldness
and intrepidity enough to stand amid the ruins of all that was old.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span></p>

<p>Regarding things in the abstract, there is nothing more strikingly absurd
than hereditary monarchy, the succession secured to a family which may at any
time place on the throne a child, a fool, or a wretch: and yet in practice there
is nothing more wise, prudent, and provident. This has been taught by the
long experience of ages, it has been shown by reason, and proved by the sad
warnings of those nations who have tried elective monarchy. Now, what is the
cause of this? It is what we are endeavoring to explain. Hereditary monarchy
precludes all the hopes of irregular ambition; without that, society always
contains a germ of trouble, a principle of revolt, which is nourished by those
who conceive a hope of one day obtaining the command. In quiet times, and
under an hereditary monarchy, a subject, however rich, however distinguished
he may be for his talent or his valour, cannot, without madness, hope to be
king; and such a thought never enters his head. But change the circumstances,&mdash;admit,
I will not say, the probability, but the possibility of such an event,
and you will see that there will immediately be ardent candidates.</p>

<p>It would be easy to develop this doctrine more at length, and apply it to all
the passions of man; but enough has been said to show that the first thing to
be done when you have to subdue a passion, is to oppose to it an insurmountable
barrier, which it can have no hope of passing. Then the passion rages for a
little time, it rebels against the obstacle that resists it; but when it finds that
to be immovable, it recedes, it is cast down, and, like the waves of the sea, it
falls back murmuring to the level which has been marked out for it.</p>

<p>There is a passion in the heart of man, a passion which exerts a powerful
influence on the destinies of his life, and too often, by its deceitful illusions,
forms a long chain of sadness and misfortune. This passion, which has for its
necessary object the preservation of the human race, is found, in some form, in
all the beings of nature; but, inasmuch as it resides in the soul of an intelligent
being, it assumes a peculiar character in man. In brutes, it is only an
instinct, limited to the preservation of the species; in man, the instinct becomes
a passion; and that passion, enlivened by the fire of imagination, rendered subtile
by the powers of the mind, inconstant and capricious, because it is guided by a
free will, which can indulge in as many whims as there are different impressions
for the senses and the heart, is changed into a vague, fickle feeling, which is
never contented, and which nothing can satisfy. Sometimes it is the restlessness
of a man in a fever; sometimes the frenzy of a madman; sometimes a
dream, which ravishes the soul into regions of bliss; sometimes the anguish
and the convulsions of agony. Who can describe the variety of forms under
which this deceitful passion presents itself? Who can tell the number of snares
which it lays for the steps of unhappy mortals? Observe it at its birth, follow
it in its career, up to the moment when it dies out like an expiring lamp.
Hardly has the down appeared on the face of man, when there arises in his
heart a mysterious feeling, which fills him with trouble and uneasiness, without
his being aware of the cause. A pleasing melancholy glides into his heart,
thoughts before unknown enter his mind, seductive images pervade his imagination,
a secret attraction acts on his soul, unusual gravity appears in his
features, all his inclinations take a new direction. The games of childhood no
longer please him; every thing shows a new life, less innocent, less tranquil;
the tempest does not yet rage, the sky is not darkened, but clouds, tinged with
fire, are the sad presage of what is to come. When he becomes adolescent, that
which was hitherto a feeling, vague, mysterious, incomprehensible, even to himself,
becomes, from that time, more decided; objects are seen more clearly, they
appear in their real nature; the passion sees, and seizes on them. But do not
imagine that it becomes more constant on that account. It is as vain, as
changeable, as capricious as the multitude of objects which by turns present
themselves to it. It is constantly deluded, it pursues fleeting shadows, seeks a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span>
satisfaction which it never finds, and awaits a happiness which it never attains.
With an excited imagination, a burning heart, with his whole soul transported,
and all his faculties subdued, the ardent young man is surrounded by a brilliant
chain of illusions; he communicates these to all that environs him; he gives
greater splendor to the light of heaven, he clothes the earth with richer verdure
and more brilliant coloring, he sheds on all the reflection of his own enchantment.</p>

<p>In manhood, when the thoughts are more grave and fixed, when the heart is
more constant, the will more firm, and resolutions more lasting; when the conduct
which governs the destinies of life is subjected to rule, and, as it were,
confirmed in its faith, this mysterious passion continues to agitate the heart of
man, and it torments him with unceasing disquietude. We only observe that
the passion is become stronger and more energetic, owing to the development
of the physical organization; the pride which inspires man with independence
of life, the feeling of greater strength, and the abundance of new powers, render
him more decided, bold, and violent; while the warnings and lessons of experience
have made him more provident and crafty. We no longer see the candor
of his earlier years. He now knows how to calculate; he is able to approach
his object by covert ways, and to choose the surest means. Woe to the man
who does not provide in time against such an enemy! His existence will be
consumed by a fever of agitation; amid disquietudes and torments, if he does
not die in the flower of his age, he will grow old still ruled by this fatal passion;
it will accompany him to the tomb, surrounding him, in his last days,
with those repulsive and hideous forms which are exhibited in a countenance
furrowed by years, and in eyes which are already veiled by the shades of
death.</p>

<p>What plan should be adopted to restrain this passion, to confine it within just
limits, and prevent its bringing misfortune to individuals, disorder to families,
and confusion to society? The invariable rule of Catholicity, in the morality
which she teaches, as well as in the institutions which she establishes, is repression;
Catholicism does not allow a desire she declares to be culpable in the eyes of
God; even a look, when accompanied by an impure thought. Why this severity?
For two reasons; on account of the intrinsic morality which there is in this
prohibition; and also, because there is profound wisdom in stifling the evil at
its birth. It is certainly easier to prevent a man's consenting to evil desires,
than it is to hinder his gratifying them when he has allowed them to enter his
inflamed heart. There is profound reason in securing tranquillity to the soul,
by not allowing it to remain, like Tantalus, with the water at his burning lips.
"Quid vis videre, quod non licet habere?" Why do you wish to see that which
you are forbidden to possess? is the wise observation of the author of the admirable
Imitation of Christ; thus summing up, in a few words, all the prudence
which is contained in the holy severity of the Christian doctrine.</p>

<p>The ties of marriage, by assigning a legitimate object to the passions, still do
not dry up the source of agitation and the capricious restlessness which the
heart conceals. Possession cloys and disgusts, beauty fades and decays, the
illusions vanish, and the charms disappear; man, in the presence of a reality
which is far from reaching the beauty of the dreams inspired by his ardent
imagination, feels new desires arise in his heart; tired with what he possesses,
he entertains new illusions; he seeks elsewhere the ideal happiness which he
thought he had found, and quits the unpleasing reality which thus deceives his
brightest hopes.</p>

<p>Give, then, the reins to the passions of man; allow him in any way to entertain
the illusion that he can make himself any new ties; permit him to believe
that he is not attached for ever, and without recall, to the companion of his life;
and you will see that disgust will soon take possession of him, that discord will<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span>
be more violent and striking, that the ties will begin to wear out before they
are contracted, and will break at the first shock. Proclaim, on the contrary, a
law which makes no exception of poor or rich, weak or powerful, vassals or
kings, which makes no allowance for difference of situation, of character, health,
or any of those numberless motives which, in the hands of passions, and especially
those of powerful men, are easily changed into pretexts; proclaim that
this law is from heaven, show a divine seal on the marriage tie, tell the murmuring
passions that if they will gratify themselves they must do so by immorality;
tell them that the power which is charged with the preservation of this
divine law will never make criminal compliances, that it will never dispense
with the infraction of the divine law, and that the crime will never be without
remorse; you will then see the passions become calm and resigned; the law
will be diffused and strengthened, will take root in customs; you will have
secured the good order and tranquillity of families for ever, and society will be
indebted to you for an immense benefit. Now this is exactly what Catholicity
has done, by efforts which lasted for ages; it is what Protestantism would have
destroyed, if Europe had generally followed its doctrine and example, if the
people had not been wiser than their deceitful guides.</p>

<p>Protestants and false philosophers, examining the doctrines and institutions
of the Catholic Church through their prejudices and animosity, have not understood
the admirable power of the two characteristics impressed at all times and
in all places on the ideas and works of Catholicity, viz. <em>unity and fixity</em>; <em>unity</em>
in doctrines, and <em>fixity</em> in conduct. Catholicity points out an object, and wishes
us to pursue it straight forward. It is a reproach to philosophers and Protestants,
that after having declaimed against unity of doctrine, they also declaimed
against fixity of conduct. If they had reflected on man, they would have understood
that this fixity is the secret of guiding and ruling him, and, when desirable
of restraining his passions, of exalting his mind when necessary, and of rendering
him capable of great sacrifices and heroic actions. There is nothing worse
for man than uncertainty and indecision; nothing that weakens and tends more to
make him useless. Indecision is to the will what skepticism is to the mind.
Give a man a definite object, and if he will devote himself to it, he will attain it.
Let him hesitate between two different ways, without a fixed rule to guide his conduct;
let him be ignorant of his intention; let him not know whither he is going,
and you will see his energy relax, his strength diminish, and he will stop. Do
you know by what secret great minds govern the world? Do you know what renders
them capable of heroic actions? And how all those who surround them are
rendered so? It is that they have a fixed object, both for themselves and for
others; it is that they see that object clearly, desire it ardently, strive after it
directly, with firm hope and lively faith, without allowing any hesitation in themselves
or in others. Alexander, Cæsar, Napoleon, and the other heroes of ancient
and modern times, no doubt exercised a fascinating influence by the ascendency
of their genius; but the secret of this ascendency, the secret of their power, and
of that force of impulse by which they surmounted all, was the unity of thought,
the fixity of plan, which produced in them that invincible, irresistible character
which gave them an immense superiority over other men. Thus Alexander
passed the Granicus, undertook and completed his wonderful conquest of Asia;
thus Cæsar passed the Rubicon, put Pompey to flight, triumphed at Pharsalia,
and made himself master of the world; thus did Napoleon disperse those who
parleyed about the fate of France, conquered his enemies at Marengo, obtained
the crown of Charlemagne, alarmed and astonished the world by the victories
of Austerlitz and Jena.</p>

<p>Without unity there is no order, without fixity there is no stability; and in
the moral as in the physical world, without order and stability nothing prospers.
Protestantism, which has pretended to advance the individual and society by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span>
destroying religious unity, has introduced into creeds and institutions the multiplicity
and fickleness of private judgment; it has everywhere spread confusion
and disorder, and has altered the nature of European civilization by inoculating
it with a disastrous principle which has caused and will continue to cause lamentable
evils. And let it not be supposed, that Catholicity, on account of the
unity of her doctrines and the fixity of her conduct, is opposed to the progress
of ages. There is nothing to prevent that which is <em>one</em> from advancing, and
there may be movement in a system which has some fixed points. The universe
whose grandeur astonishes us, whose prodigies fill us with admiration,
whose beauty and variety enchant us, is united, is ruled by laws constant and
fixed. Behold some of the reasons which justify the strictness of Catholicity,
behold why she has not been able to comply with the demands of a passion
which, once let loose, has no boundary or barrier, introduces trouble into hearts,
disorder into families, takes away the dignity of manners, dishonors the modesty
of women, and lowers them from the noble rank of the companions of men. I
do not deny that Catholicity is strict on this point; but she could not give up
this strictness without renouncing at the same time the sublime functions of the
depository of sound morality, the vigilant sentinel which guards the destinies
of humanity.<a href="#Note_17" class="fnanchor">17</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXVI" id="CHAPTER_XXVI">CHAPTER XXVI.</a><br />

<small>VIRGINITY IN ITS SOCIAL ASPECT</small>.</h2>


<p>We have seen, in the fifteenth chapter, with what jealousy Catholicity endeavors
to veil the secrets of modesty; with what perseverance she imposes the
restraint of morality on the most impetuous passion of the human heart. She
shows us all the importance which belongs to the contrary virtue, by crowning
with peerless splendor the total abstinence from sensual pleasure, viz. virginity.
Frivolous minds, and principally those who are inspired by a voluptuous heart,
do not understand how much Catholicity has thus contributed to the elevation of
woman; but such will not be the case with reflecting men who are capable of seeing
that all that tends to raise to the highest degree of delicacy the feeling of modesty,
all that fortifies morality, all that contributes to make a considerable number of
women models of the most heroic virtue, equally tends to place women above
the atmosphere of gross passion. Woman then ceases to be presented to the
eyes of man as the mere instrument of pleasure; none of the attractions with
which nature has endowed her are lost or diminished, and she has no longer to
dread becoming an object of contempt and disgust, after having been the unhappy
victim of profligacy.</p>

<p>The Catholic Church is profoundly acquainted with these truths; and while
she watched over the sanctity of the conjugal tie, while she created in the bosom
of the family this admirable dignity of the matron, she covered with a mysterious
veil the countenance of the Christian virgin, and she carefully guarded
the spouses of the Lord in the seclusion of the sanctuary. It was reserved for
Luther, the gross profaner of Catharine de Boré, to act in defiance of the profound
and delicate wisdom of the Church on this point. After the apostate
monk had violated the sacred seal set by religion on the nuptial bed, his was
the unchaste hand to tear away the sacred veil of virgins consecrated to God:
it was worthy of his hard heart to excite the cupidity of princes, to induce them
to seize upon the possessions of these defenceless virgins, and expel them from
their abodes. See him everywhere excite the flame of sensuality, and break
through all control. What will become of virgins devoted to the sanctuary?
Like timid doves, will they not fall into the snares of the libertine? Is this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span>
the way to increase the respect paid to the female sex? Is this the way to
increase the feeling of modesty and to advance humanity? Was this the way
in which Luther gave a generous impulse to future generations, perfected the
human mind, and gave vigor and splendor to refinement and civilization? What
man with a tender and sensitive heart can endure the shameless declamation
of Luther, especially if he has read the Cyprians, the Ambroses, the Jeromes,
and the other shining lights of the Catholic Church, on the sublime honor of
the Christian virgin? Who, then, will object to see, during ages when the
most savage barbarism prevailed, those secluded dwellings where the spouses of
the Lord secured themselves from the dangers of the world, incessantly employed
in raising their hands to heaven, to draw down upon the earth the dews
of divine mercy? In times and countries the most civilized, how sad is the
contrast between the asylums of the purest and loftiest virtue, and the ocean of
dissipation and profligacy! Were these abodes a remnant of ignorance, a monument
of fanaticism, which the coryphæi of Protestantism did well to sweep
from the earth? If this be so, let us protest against all that is noble and disinterested;
let us stifle in our hearts all enthusiasm for virtue; let every thing
be reduced to the grossest sensuality; let the painter throw away his pencil, the
poet his lyre; let us forget our greatness and our dignity; let us degrade ourselves,
saying, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die!"</p>

<p>No; true civilization can never forgive Protestantism for this immoral and
impious work; true civilization can never forgive it for having violated the
sanctuary of modesty and innocence, for having employed all its efforts to
destroy respect for virginity; thus treading under foot a doctrine professed by
all the human race. It did not respect what was venerated by the Greeks in
the priestesses of Ceres, by the Romans in their vestals, by the Gauls in their
druidesses, by the Germans in their prophetesses. It has carried the want of
respect for modesty farther than was ever done by the dissolute nations of Asia,
and the barbarians of the new world. It is certainly a disgrace for Europe to
have attacked what was respected in all parts of the world, to have treated as a
mistaken prejudice the universal belief of the human race, sanctioned, moreover,
by Christianity. What invasion of barbarians was equal to this attack
of Protestantism on all that ought to be most inviolable among men? It has
set the fatal example in modern revolutions of the crimes which have been committed.</p>

<p>When we see, in warlike rage, the barbarity of the conquerors remove all
restraint from a licentious soldiery, and let them loose against the abodes of
virgins consecrated to God, there is nothing but what may be conceived. But
when these holy institutions are persecuted by system, when the passions of the
populace are excited against them, by grossly assailing their origin and object,
this is more than brutal and inhuman. It is a thing which cannot be described,
when those who act in this way boast of being Reformers, followers of the pure
Gospel, and proclaim themselves the disciples of Him who, in His sublime
councils, has pointed out virginity as one of the noblest virtues that can adorn
the Christian's crown. Now, who is ignorant that this was one of the works to
which Protestantism devoted itself with the greatest ardor?</p>

<p>Woman without modesty will be an incentive to sensuality, but will never
attract the soul by the mysterious feeling which is called love. It is very remarkable,
that although the most urgent desire of the heart of woman is to
please, yet as soon as she forgets modesty she becomes displeasing and disgusting.
Thus it is wisely ordained that what wounds her heart the most sharply,
becomes the punishment of her fault. Hence, every thing that maintains in
woman the delicate feeling of modesty, elevates her, adorns her, gives her greater
ascendency over the heart of man, and creates for her a distinguished place in
the domestic as well as in the social order. These truths were not understood<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span>
by Protestantism when it condemned virginity. It is true this virtue is not a
necessary condition of modesty, but it is its <i lang="fr">beau idéal</i> and type of perfection;
and certainly we cannot destroy this model, by denying its beauty, by condemning
its imitation as injurious, without doing great injury to modesty itself, which,
continually struggling against the most powerful passion of the heart of man,
cannot be preserved in all its purity, unless it be accompanied by the greatest
precautions. Like a flower of infinite delicacy, of ravishing colours, of the
sweetest perfume, it can scarcely support the slightest breath of wind; its beauty
is destroyed with extreme facility, and its perfume readily evaporates.</p>

<p>But you will perhaps urge against virginity the injury which it does to population;
you will consider the offerings which are made on the altar by this virtue
as so much taken from the multiplication of the human race. Fortunately
the observations of the most distinguished political economists have destroyed
this delusion, originated by Protestantism, and supported by the incredulous
philosophy of the 18th century. Facts have shown, in a convincing manner,
two truths of equal importance in vindicating Catholic doctrines and institutions;
1, that the happiness of nations is not necessarily in proportion to the
increase of their population; 2, that the augmentation and diminution of the
population depend on many concurrent causes; that religious celibacy, if it be
among them, has an insignificant influence.</p>

<p>A false religion and an illegitimate and egotistical philosophy have attempted
to assimilate the secrets of this increase of the human race to that of other living
beings. All idea of religion has been taken away; they have seen in
humanity only a vast field where nothing was to be left sterile. Thus they have
prepared the way for the doctrine which considers individuals as machines from
which all possible profit should be drawn. No more was thought of charity, or
the sublime instructions of religion with respect to the dignity and destinies of
man; thus industry has become cruel, and the organization of labor, established
on a basis purely material, increases the present, but fearfully menaces the
future well-being of the rich.</p>

<p>How profound are the designs of Providence! The nation which has carried
these fatal principles to the fullest extent now finds itself overcharged with men
and products. Frightful misery devours her most numerous classes, and all the
ability of her rulers will not be able to avoid the rock she is running on, urged
by the power of the elements to which she has abandoned herself. The eminent
professors of Oxford who, it seems, begin to see the radical vices of Protestantism,
would find here a rich subject for meditation, if they would examine
how far the pretended reformers of the 16th century have contributed, in preparing
the critical situation in which England finds herself, in spite of her immense
progress.</p>

<p>In the physical world all is disposed by number, weight, and measure; the
laws of the universe show infinite calculation&mdash;infinite geometry; but let us
not imagine that we can express all by our imperfect signs, and include every
thing in our limited combinations; let us, above all, avoid the foolish error of
assimilating too much the moral and the physical world&mdash;of applying indiscriminately
to the first what only belongs to the second, and of upsetting by our pride
the mysterious harmony of the creation. Man is not born simply for multiplication
of his species; this is not the only part which he is intended to perform
in the great machine of the universe; he is a being according to the image and
likeness of God&mdash;a being who has his proper destiny&mdash;a destiny superior to all
that surrounds him on earth. Do not debase him, do not level him with the
earth, by inspiring him with earthly thoughts alone; do not oppress his heart,
by depriving him of noble and elevated sentiments&mdash;by leaving him no taste
for any but material enjoyments. If religious thoughts lead him to an austere
life&mdash;if the inclination to sacrifice the pleasures of this life on the altar of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span>
God whom he adores takes possession of his heart&mdash;why should you hinder
him? What right have you to despise a feeling which certainly requires greater
strength of mind than is necessary for abandoning one's self to pleasure?</p>

<p>These considerations, which affect both sexes, have still greater force when
they are applied to the female. With her lively imagination, her feeling heart,
and ardent mind, she has greater need than man of serious inspiration, of grave,
solemn thoughts, to counterbalance the activity with which she flies from object
to object, receiving with extreme facility impressions of every thing she touches,
and, like a magnetic agent, communicating them in her turn to all that surrounds
her. Allow, then, a portion of that sex to devote itself to a life of contemplation
and austerity; allow young girls and matrons to have always before
their eyes a model of all the virtues&mdash;a sublime type of their noblest ornament,
which is modesty. This will certainly not be without utility. Be assured, these
virgins are not taken away from their families, nor from society&mdash;both will
recover with usury what you imagine they have lost.</p>

<p>In fact, who can measure the salutary influence which the sacred ceremonies
with which the Catholic Church celebrates the consecration of a virgin to God,
must have exercised on female morals! Who can calculate the holy thoughts,
the chaste inspirations which have gone forth from those silent abodes of modesty,
erected sometimes in solitary places, and sometimes in crowded cities! Do you
not believe that the virgin whose heart begins to be agitated by an ardent passion,
that the matron who has allowed dangerous feelings to enter her soul, have
not often found their passions restrained by the remembrance of a sister, a relative,
a friend, who, in one of these silent abodes, raises her pure heart to
Heaven, offering as a holocaust to the Divine Son of the blessed Virgin all the
enchantments of youth and beauty? All this cannot be calculated, it is true;
but this, at least, is certain, that no thought of levity, no inclination to sensuality
has arisen therefrom. All this cannot be estimated; but can we estimate
the salutary influence exercised by the morning dew upon plants? can we estimate
the vivifying effect of light upon nature? and can we understand how the
water which filters through the bowels of the earth fertilizes it by producing
fruits and flowers?</p>

<p>There is, then, an infinity of causes of which we cannot deny the existence
and the power, but which it is nevertheless impossible to submit to rigorous
examination. The cause of the impotence of every work exclusively emanating
from the mind of man is, that his mind is incapable of embracing the <em>ensemble</em>
of the relations which exist in facts of this kind; it is impossible for him
to appreciate properly the indirect influences&mdash;sometimes hidden, sometimes
imperceptible&mdash;which act there with an infinite delicacy. This is the reason why
time dispels so many illusions, belies so many prognostics, proves the weakness
of what was reckoned strong, and the strength of what was considered weak.
Indeed, time brings to light a thousand relations, the existence of which was
not suspected, and puts into action a thousand causes which were either unknown
or despised: the results advance in their development, appearing every day in
a more evident manner, until at length we find ourselves in such a situation
that we can no longer shut our eyes to the evidence of facts, or any longer evade
their force.</p>

<p>One of the greatest mistakes made by the opponents of Catholicity is this.
They can only see things under one aspect; they do not understand how a force
can act otherwise than in a straight line; they do not see that the moral world,
as well as the physical, is composed of relations infinitely varied, and of indirect
influences, sometimes acting with more force than if they were direct. All
form a system correlative and harmonious, the parts of which it is necessary to
avoid separating, more than is absolutely needful for becoming acquainted with
the hidden and delicate ties which connect the whole. It is necessary, more<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span>over,
to allow for the action of time, that indispensable element in all complete
development, in every lasting work.</p>

<p>I trust I shall be pardoned for this short digression, necessary for the inculcation
of the great truths which have not been sufficiently attended to in examining
the great institutions founded by Catholicity. Philosophy is now compelled
to withdraw propositions advanced too boldly, and to modify principles
applied too generally. It would have avoided this trouble and mortification by
being cautious and circumspect in its investigations. In league with Protestantism,
it declared deadly war against the great Catholic institutions; it loudly
appealed against moral and religious centralization. And now a unanimous
shout is raised from all quarters of the world in favour of the principle of unity.
The instinct of nations seeks for it; philosophers examine the secrets of science
to discover it. Vain efforts! No other foundation can be established than
that which is already laid; duration depends upon solidity.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXVII" id="CHAPTER_XXVII">CHAPTER XXVII.</a><br />

<small>OF CHIVALRY AND BARBARIAN MANNERS, IN THEIR INFLUENCE ON THE
CONDITION OF WOMEN</small>.</h2>


<p>An indefatigable zeal for the sanctity of marriage, and an anxious solicitude
to carry the principle of modesty to the highest degree of delicacy, are the two
rules which have guided Catholicity in her efforts for the elevation of woman.
These are the two great means she has employed in attaining her object, and
hence comes the influence and importance of women in Europe. M. Guizot is,
therefore, wrong in saying that "it is to the development, to the necessary preponderance
of domestic manners in the feudal system, that this change, this
improvement in their condition is chiefly owing." I will not discuss the greater
or less influence of the feudal system on the development of European manners.
Undoubtedly when the feudal lord "shall have his wife, his children,
and scarcely any others in his house, they alone will form his permanent society;
they alone will share his interests, his destiny. It is impossible for
domestic influence not to acquire great power." (<cite>Leçon 4.</cite>) But if the lord,
returning to his castle, found one wife there, and not many, to what was that
owing? Who forbade him to abuse his power by turning his house into a
harem? Who bridled his passions and prevented his making victims of his
timid vassals? Surely these were the doctrines and morals introduced into
Europe, and deeply rooted there by the Catholic Church; it was the strict laws
which she imposed as a barrier to the invasions of the passions; therefore, even
if we suppose that feudality did produce this good, it is still owing to the
Catholic Church.</p>

<p>That which has no doubt tended to exaggerate the influence of feudality in
all that raises and ennobles women, is a fact that appears very evidently at that
period, and is dazzling at first sight. This is the brilliant spirit of chivalry,
which, rising out of the bosom of the feudal system, and rapidly diffusing itself,
produced the most heroic actions, gave birth to a literature rich in imagination
and feeling, and contributed in great measure to soften and humanize the savage
manners of the feudal lords. This period is particularly distinguished for the
spirit of gallantry; not the gallantry which consists generally in the tender
relations of the two sexes, but a greatly exaggerated gallantry on the part of
man, combining, in a remarkable way, the most heroic courage with the most
lively faith and the most ardent religion. God and his lady; such is the constant
thought of the knight; this absorbs all his faculties, occupies all his time,
and fills up all his existence. As long as he can obtain a victory over the infi<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span>dels,
and is supported by the hope of offering at the feet of his lady the trophies
of his triumph, no sacrifice costs him any thing, no journey fatigues, no
danger affrights, no enterprise discourages him. His excited imagination transports
him into a world of fancy; his heart is on fire; he undertakes all, he
finishes all; and the man who has just fought like a lion on the plains of Spain,
or of Palestine, melts like wax at the name of the idol of his heart; then he
turns his eyes amorously towards his country, and is intoxicated with the idea
that one day, sighing under the castle of his beloved, he may obtain a pledge
of her affection, or a promise of love. Woe to any one who is bold enough to
dispute his treasure, or indiscreet enough to fix his eyes on those battlements.
The lioness who has been robbed of her cubs is not more terrible, the forest torn
to pieces by the hurricane is not more agitated than his heart; nothing can
stop his vengeance, <em>he must destroy his rival or die</em>. In examining this mixture
of mildness and ferocity, of religion and passion, which, no doubt, has been
exaggerated by the fancies of chroniclers and troubadours, but which must have
had a real type, we shall observe that it was very natural at that time, and that
it is not so contradictory as it appears at first sight. Indeed, nothing was more
natural than violent passions among men whose ancestors, not long before, had
come from the forests of the north to pitch their bloody tents on the site of
ruined cities; nothing was more natural than that there should be no other
judge than strength of arm among men whose only profession was war, and
who lived in an embryo society, where there was no public law strong enough
to restrain private passions. Nothing, too, was more natural to those men than
a lively sense of religion, for religion was the only power which they acknowledged;
she had enchanted their imaginations by the splendour and magnificence
of her temples, by the majesty and pomp of her worship. She had filled
them with astonishment, by placing before their eyes the most sublime virtue,
by addressing them in language as lofty as it was sweet and insinuating; language,
no doubt, imperfectly understood by them, but which, nevertheless, convinced
them of the holiness and divinity of the Christian mysteries and precepts,
inspired them with respect and admiration, and also exercising a powerful
influence on their minds, enkindled enthusiasm and produced heroism. Thus
we see that all that was good in this exalted sentiment emanated from religion;
if we take away faith, we shall find nothing but the barbarian, who knew no
other law than his spear, and no other rule of conduct than the inspirations of
his fiery soul.</p>

<p>The more we penetrate into the spirit of chivalry and examine in particular
the feelings which it professed towards women, the more we shall see that,
instead of raising them, it supposes them already raised and surrounded by
respect. Chivalry does not give a new place to women; it finds them already
honoured and respected; and indeed, if it were not so, how could it imagine a
gallantry so exaggerated, so fantastical? But if we imagine to ourselves the beauty
of a virgin covered by the veil of Christian modesty; if we imagine this charm increased
by illusion, we shall then understand the madness of the knight. If we
imagine, at the same time, the virtuous matron, the companion of man, the mother
of a family, the only woman in whom were concentrated all the affections of husband
and children, the Christian wife, we shall understand why the knight was
intoxicated at the mere idea of obtaining so much happiness, why his love was
more than a sensual feeling, it was a respect, a veneration, a worship.</p>

<p>It has been attempted to find the origin of this kind of worship in the manners
of the Germans; on the strength of some expressions of Tacitus, the
social amelioration of woman's lot has been attributed to the respect with which
the barbarians surrounded her. M. Guizot rejects this assertion, and justly
combats it by observing that what Tacitus tells us of the Germans was not exclusively
applicable to them, since "phrases similar to those of Tacitus, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</a></span>
sentiments and customs analogous to those of the ancient Germans, are met
with in the statements of many observers of savage or barbarous nations."
Yet in spite of this wise remark, the same opinion has been maintained: it is
necessary, then, to combat it again.</p>

<p>The passage of Tacitus is this: "Inesse quin etiam sanctum aliquid et providum
putant, nec aut consilia eorum aspernantur, aut responsa negligunt. Vidimus
sub Divo Vespasiano Velledam diu apud plerosque numinis loco habitare."
(<cite>De Mor. Germ.</cite>) "They go so far as to think that there is in women something
holy and prophetical; they do not despise their counsels, and they
listen to their predictions. In the time of the divine Vespasian, we have seen
the greater part of them for a long time regard Velleda as a goddess." It seems
to me that it is mistaking the passage of Tacitus, to extend its meaning to domestic
manners, and to see in it a trait of married life. If we attend to the
historian's words, we shall see that such an explanation is far from his idea.
His words only relate to the superstition which made the people attribute to
some women the prophetic character. Even the example chosen by Tacitus
serves to show the truth and justness of this observation. "Velleda," he says,
"was regarded as a goddess." In another part of his works, Tacitus explains
his idea by telling us, of this same Velleda, "that this girl of the nation of
Bructeres enjoyed great power, owing to an ancient custom among the Germans,
which made them look upon many women as prophetesses, and, in fine,
with the progress of superstition, as real divinities." "Ea virgo nationis Bructeræ
late imperitabat, vetere apud Germanos more quo plerasque fœminarum
fatidicas et augescente superstitione arbitrantur deas." (<cite>Hist. 4.</cite>) The text
which I have just quoted proves to demonstration that Tacitus speaks of superstition
and not of family regulations, very different things; as it might easily
happen that some women were regarded as divinities, while the rest of their sex
only occupied a place in society inferior to that which belonged to them. At
Athens, great importance was given to the priestesses of Ceres; at Rome to the
Vestals, the Pythonesses; and the history of the Sibyls shows that it was not
peculiar to the Germans to attribute the prophetical character to women. It is
not for me now to explain the cause of these facts; it is enough for my purpose
to state them; perhaps, on this point, physiology might throw light on the
philosophy of history.</p>

<p>When Tacitus, in the same work, describes the severity of the manners of the
Germans with respect to marriage, it is easy to observe that the order of superstition
and the order of the family were among them very different. We have
no longer here any thing of the <i lang="la">sanctum et providum</i>; we find only a jealous
austerity in maintaining the line of duty; and we see woman, instead of being
regarded as a goddess, given up to the vengeance of the husband, if she has
been unfaithful. This curious passage proves that the power of man over
woman was not much limited by the customs of the Germans. "Accisis crinibus,"
says Tacitus, "nudatam coram propinquis expellit domo maritus, ac per
omnem vicum verbere agit." "After having cut off her hair, the husband
drives her from his house in presence of her relations, and beats her with rods
ignominiously through the village." Certainly this punishment gives us an
idea of the infamy which was attached to adultery among the Germans; but it
was little calculated to increase the respect entertained for them publicly; this
would have been greater had they been stoned to death.</p>

<p>When we read in Tacitus the description of the social state of the Germans,
we must not forget that some traits of their manners are purposely embellished
by him, which is very natural for a writer of his sentiments. We must not
forget that Tacitus was indignant and afflicted at the sight of the fearful corruption
of manners at that time in Rome. He paints, it is true, in glowing
colours, the sanctity of marriage among the Germans; but who does not see<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</a></span>
that, when doing so, he had before his eyes matrons who, according to Seneca,
reckoned their years not by the succession of consuls, but by change of husbands,
and women without a shadow of modesty, given up to the greatest profligacy?
We can easily see to whom he alludes when he makes these severe
remarks: "Nemo enim illic vitia ridet, nec corrumpere et corrumpi sæculum
vocatur." "There vice is not laughed at, and corruption is not called the
fashion." A strong expression, which describes the age, and explains to us the
secret joy with which Tacitus cast in the face of Rome, so refined and so corrupted,
the pure image of German manners. That which sharpened the raillery
of Juvenal andenvenomed his bitter satires, excited the indignation of Tacitus,
and drew from his grave philosophy these severe reprimands. Other information
which we possess shows us that the pictures of Tacitus are embellished,
and that the manners of this people were far from being as pure as he wishes
to persuade us. Perhaps they may have been strict with respect to marriage;
but it is certain that polygamy was not unknown among them. Cæsar, an eye-witness,
relates, that the German king Ariovistus had two wives (<cite>De Bello Gallico</cite>,
l. i.); and this was not a solitary instance, for Tacitus himself tells us that
a few of them had several wives at once, not on account of sensuality, but for
distinction. "Exceptis admodum paucis, qui non libidine, sed ob nobilitatem,
pluribus nuptiis ambiuntur." This distinction, <i lang="la">non libidine sed ob nobilitatem</i>,
is amusing; but it is clear that the kings and nobles, under one pretence or
another, allowed themselves greater liberty than the severe historian would
have approved of.</p>

<p>Who can tell what was the state of morality among those forests? If we
may be allowed to conjecture by analogy, from the resemblance which may
naturally be supposed to exist among the different nations of the North, what
an idea might we conceive of it from certain customs of the Britons, who, in
bodies of ten or twelve, had their wives in common; chiefly brothers with
brothers, and fathers with sons; so that they were compelled to distinguish the
families conventionally, by giving the children to him who had first married
the woman! It is from Cæsar, an eye-witness, that we also learn this: "Uxores
habent (Britanni) deni duodenique inter se communes, et maxime fratres cum
fratribus et parentes cum liberis; sed si qui sunt ex his nati, eorum habentur
liberi a quibus primum virgines quæque ductæ sunt." (<cite>De Bello Gallico</cite>, l. v.)</p>

<p>However this may have been, it is at least certain that the principle of monogamy
was not so much respected among the Germans as people have been willing
to suppose; an exception was made in favour of the nobles, that is, of the
powerful; and that was enough to deprive the principle of all its force, and to
prepare its ruin. In such a matter, to establish an exception to the law in
favour of the powerful, is almost to abrogate it. It may be said, I admit, that
the powerful will never want means of violating it; but it is one thing for
the powerful to violate the law, and another for the law itself to retire before
them, leaving the way open: in the first case, the employment of force does
not destroy the law&mdash;the very shock which breaks it, makes its existence felt,
and visibly shows the wrong and injustice; in the second case, the law prostitutes
itself, if I may so speak; the passions have no need of force to open for
themselves a passage, the law itself opens the door for them. From that time
it remains degraded and disgraced; its own baseness has undermined the moral
principle on which it was founded; and, owing to its own fault, it becomes itself
the subject of animadversion to those who are still compelled to observe it.
Thus the right of polygamy, once recognised among the Germans in favour of
the great, must, with time, have become general among the other classes of the
people; and it is very probable that this was the case when the conquest of
more productive countries, the enjoyment of more genial climates, and some
improvement in their social condition furnished them more abundantly with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</a></span>
the means of gratifying their inclinations. An evil so great could only be withstood
by the inflexible severity of the Catholic Church. Nobles and kings still
had a strong inclination towards the privileges which we have seen their predecessors
enjoying before they embraced the Christian religion. Thence it came
that, in the first centuries after the irruption of the barbarians, the Church had
so much trouble in restraining their violent inclinations. Would not those who
have endeavored to find among the Germans so large a portion of the constitutive
elements of modern civilization have shown more wisdom, if they had
recognised, in the manners which we have been examining, one of the causes
which made the struggles between the secular princes and the Church so frequent?</p>

<p>I do not see why we should seek in the forests of the barbarians for the origin
of one of the finest attributes of our civilization, or why we should give to those
nations virtues of which they showed so little evidence when they invaded the
countries of the south.</p>

<p>Without monuments, without history&mdash;almost without any index as to their
social condition&mdash;it is difficult, not to say impossible, to know any thing certain
with respect to their manners; but I ask, what must have been their morality,
in the midst of such ignorance, such superstition, and such barbarism?</p>

<p>The little that we know about these nations has been necessarily taken from
the Roman historians; and unfortunately this is not one of the purest sources.
It almost always happens that observers, especially when they are conquerors,
only give some slight notions with regard to the political state of a people, and
are almost silent as to their social and domestic condition. In order to form an
idea of this part of the condition of a nation, it is necessary to mingle with
them, and be intimate with them; now this is generally prevented by their different
states of civilization, especially when the observers and the observed are
exasperated against each other by long years of war and slaughter. Add to
this, that, in such cases, the attention is particularly attracted by what favors
or opposes the designs of the conquerors, who for the most part attach no great
importance to moral subjects; this will show us how it is that nations who are
observed in this way are only superficially known, and why such statements
with respect to religion and manners are unworthy of much confidence.</p>

<p>The reader will judge whether these reflections are out of place in estimating
the value of what the Romans have told us about the state of the barbarians.
It is enough to fix our eyes on the scenes of blood and horror prevailing for
centuries, which show us, on the one hand, the ambition of Rome, which, not
content with the empire of the then known world, wished to extend its power
over the most distant forests of the North; and, on the other, the indomitable
spirit of barbarian independence, breaking in pieces the chains which were
attempted to be imposed upon them, and destroying, by their bold incursions,
the ramparts which the skill of the Roman generals labored to raise against
them. See, then, what we ought to think of barbarian society, as described by
Roman historians. What shall we think, if we consult the few traits which the
barbarians themselves have left us, of their manners and maxims with respect
to their social condition? It is always risking much to seek in barbarism for
the origin of one of the most beautiful results of civilization, and to attribute
to vague and superstitious feelings what, during centuries, forms the normal
state of the most advanced nations. If these noble sentiments, which are
represented to us as emanating from the barbarians, really existed among them,
how did they avoid perishing in the midst of their migrations and revolutions?
How did they alone remain, when every thing relating to the social condition
of the barbarians disappeared?</p>

<p>These sentiments would not have been preserved in a stationary state, but
we should have seen them stripped of their superstition and grossness, purified,
ennobled, and made reasonable, just, salutary, chivalrous, and worthy of civi<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</a></span>lized
nations. Such assertions have, from the first sight, the character of bold
paradoxes. Certainly, when we have to explain great phenomena in the social
order, it is rather more philosophical to seek for their origin in ideas which for
a long time have exercised a powerful influence on society, in manners and institutions
emanating from them, in laws, in fine, which have been recognised and
respected for many centuries as established by Divine power.</p>

<p>Why, then, attempt to explain the respect in which women are held in Europe,
by the superstitious veneration which barbarous nations offered in their
forests to Velleda, Aurinia, and Gauna? Reason and good sense tell us that
the real origin of this wonderful phenomenon is not to be found there, and that
we must seek elsewhere for the causes which have contributed to produce it.
History reveals to us these causes, and renders them palpable to us, by showing
us facts which leave no doubt as to the source whence this powerful and salutary
influence emanated. Before Christianity, woman, oppressed by the tyranny of
man, was scarcely raised above the rank of slavery; her weakness condemned
her to be the victim of the strong. The Christian religion, by its doctrines of
fraternity in Jesus Christ, and equality before God, destroys the evil in its root,
by teaching man that woman ought not to be his slave, but his companion.
From that moment the amelioration of woman's lot was felt wherever Christianity
was spread; and woman, as far as the degradation of ancient manners
allowed, began to gather the fruit of a doctrine which was to make a complete
change in her condition, by giving her a new existence. This is one of the
principal causes of the amelioration of woman's lot: a sensible, palpable cause,
which is easily shown without making any gratuitous supposition, a cause
which is not founded on conjecture, but which appears evident on the first
glance at the most notorious facts of history.</p>

<p>Moreover, Catholicity, by the severity of its morality, by the lofty protection
which it affords to the delicate feeling of modesty, corrected and purified manners;
thus it very much elevated woman, whose dignity is incompatible with
corruption and licentiousness. In fine, Catholicity itself, or the Catholic Church,
(and observe, I do not say Christianity,) by its firmness in establishing and preserving
monogamy and the indissolubility of the marriage tie, restrained the
caprices of man, and made him concentrate his affections on one wife, who could
not be divorced. Thus woman passed from a state of slavery to that of the
companion of man. The instrument of pleasure was changed into the mother
of a family, respected by her children and servants. Thus was created in the
family identity of interests; thus was guarantied the education of children,
which produced the close intimacy which among us unites husband and wife,
parents and children. The atrocious right of life and death was destroyed; the
father had not even the right to inflict punishments too severe; and all this
admirable system was strengthened by ties strong but mild, was based on the
principles of sound morality, sustained by prevailing manners, guarantied and
protected by the laws, fortified by reciprocal interests, sanctioned by time, and
endeared by love. This is the truly satisfactory explanation of the enigma;
this is the origin of the honor and dignity of woman in Europe; thence we
have derived the organization of the family,&mdash;an inestimable benefit which
Europeans possess without appreciating it, without being sufficiently acquainted
with it, and watching over its preservation as they ought.</p>

<p>In treating of this important matter, I have purposely distinguished between
Christianity and Catholicity, in order to avoid a confusion in words, which
would have entailed a confusion in things. In reality, the true, the only Christianity
is Catholicity; but, unfortunately, we cannot now employ these words
indiscriminately, not only on account of Protestantism, but also on account of
the monstrous philosophico-Christian nomenclature which ranks Christianity
among philosophical sects, as if it were nothing more than a system imagined<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</a></span>
by man. As the principle of charity plays a great part wherever the religion
of Jesus Christ is found, and as this principle is evident even to the eyes of the
incredulous, philosophers who have wished to persevere in their incredulity
without incurring the scandalous epithet of disciples of Voltaire, have adopted
the words fraternity and humanity, to make them the theme of their instructions;
they have consented to give to Christianity the chief glory of originating
its sublime ideas and generous sentiments: thus they appear not to contradict
the history of the past as the philosophy of the age gone by in its madness
did; but they pretend to accommodate all to the present time, and prepare the
way for a greater and happier future. For these philosophers Christianity is
not a divine religion; by no means. With them it is an idea, fortunate, magnificent,
and fruitful in grand results, but purely human; it is the result of long
and painful human labors. Polytheism, Judaism, the philosophy of the East,
of Egypt, of Greece, were all preparatory to that great work. Jesus Christ,
according to them, only moulded into form an idea which was in embryo in the
bosom of humanity. He fixed and developed it, and, by reducing it to practice,
made the human race to take a step of great importance in the path of progress
into which it has entered. But, He is always, in the eyes of these philosophers,
nothing more than a philosopher of Judea, as Socrates was of Greece, and
Seneca of Rome. Still we should rejoice that they grant to Him this human
existence, and do not transform Him into a mythological being, by considering
the Gospel narrative as a mere allegory.</p>

<p>Thus, at the present time, it is of the first importance to distinguish between
Christianity and Catholicity, whenever we have to bring to light and present to
the gratitude of mankind the unspeakable benefits for which they are indebted
to the Christian religion. It is necessary to show that what has regenerated the
world was not an idea thrown at hazard among all those who have struggled for
preference and pre-eminence; but that it was a collection of truths sent from
Heaven, transmitted to the human race by a God made Man, by means of a
society formed and authorized by Himself, in order to perpetuate to the end of
time the work which His word had established, which His miracles had sanctioned,
and which He had sealed with His blood. It is consequently necessary
to exhibit this society, that is, the Catholic Church, realizing in her laws and
institutions the inspirations and instructions of her Divine Master, and accomplishing
the lofty mission of leading men towards eternal happiness, while ameliorating
their condition here below, and consoling them in this land of misfortune.
In this way we form a correct idea of Christianity, if we may so speak,
or rather we show it as it really is, not as men vainly represent it. And observe,
that we ought never to fear for the truth, when the facts of history are fully
and searchingly examined. If in the vast field into which our investigations
lead us, we sometimes find ourselves in obscurity, walking for a long time in
dark vaults which the rays of the sun do not visit, and where the soil under
our feet threatens to swallow us up, let us fear nothing, let us advance with
courage and confidence; amid the darkest windings we shall discover at a distance
the light that shines upon the end of our journey; we shall see truth
seated on the threshold, placidly smiling at our terrors and anxieties.</p>

<p>To philosophers, as well as to Protestants, we would say, if Christianity
were not realized in a visible society, always in contact with man, and provided
with the authority necessary for teaching and guiding him, it would be only a
theory, like all others that have been and still are seen on the earth; consequently
it would be either altogether sterile, or at least unable to produce any
of those great works which endure unimpaired for ages. Now one of these is
undoubtedly Christian marriage, and the family organization which has been its
immediate consequence. It would have been vain to advance notions favorable
to the dignity of woman and tending to improve her lot, if the sanctity of mar<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</a></span>riage
had not been guarantied by a power generally acknowledged and revered.
That power is continually struggling against the passions which labor to overcome
it; what would have happened if they had had to contend with no other
obstacle than a philosophic theory, or a religious idea without reality in society,
and without power to obtain submission and obedience?</p>

<p>We have, then, no need of recurring to that extravagant philosophy which
seeks for light in the midst of darkness, and which, on seeing order arise out of
chaos, has conceived the singular notion of affirming that it was produced by it.
If we find in the doctrines, in the laws of the Catholic Church the origin of the
sanctity of marriage and the dignity of woman, why should we seek for it in
the manners of brutal barbarians, who had no veil for modesty and the privacy
of the nuptial couch? Let us hear Cæsar speaking of the Germans: "Nulla
est occultatio, quod et promiscui in fluminibus perluuntur, et pellibus aut
rhenorum tegumentis utuntur, magna corporis parte nuda." (<cite>De Bello
Gall.</cite>, l. vi.)</p>

<p>I have been obliged to oppose authority to authority; I was under the necessity
of destroying the fantastical systems into which men have been seduced by
an over love of subtilty, by the mania of finding extraordinary causes for phenomena,
the origin of which may easily be discovered when we have recourse,
in good faith and sincerity, to the concurring instructions of philosophy and
history. It was highly necessary, in order to clear up one of the most delicate
questions in the history of the human race, and to find the source of one of the
most fruitful elements of European civilization. My task was nothing less than
to explain the organization of families, that is, to fix one of the poles on which
the axis of society turns.</p>

<p>Let Protestantism boast of having introduced divorce, of having deprived
marriage of the beautiful and sublime character of a sacrament, of having withdrawn
from the care and protection of the Church the most important act of
human life; let it rejoice in having destroyed the sacred asylums of virgins
consecrated to God; let it declaim against the most angelic and heroic virtue;
let us, after having defended the doctrine and conduct of the Catholic Church
at the tribunal of philosophy and history, conclude by appealing to the judgment,
not indeed of high philosophy, but of good sense and feeling.<a href="#Note_18" class="fnanchor">18</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXVIII" id="CHAPTER_XXVIII">CHAPTER XXVIII.</a><br />

<small>OF THE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE IN GENERAL</small>.</h2>


<p>When enumerating, in the twentieth chapter, the characteristics which mark
European civilization, I pointed out, as one of them, "an admirable public
conscience, rich in sublime maxims of morality, in rules of justice and equity,
in sentiments of honor and dignity, a conscience which survives the shipwreck
of private morality, and does not allow the open corruption to go so far as it
did in ancient times." We must now explain more at length in what this
public conscience consists, what is its origin, what are its results, showing at
the same time what share Catholicity and Protestantism have had in its formation.
This delicate and important question is, I will venture to say, untouched;
at least I do not know that it has yet been attempted. Men constantly speak
of the excellence of Christian morality, and on this point all the sects, all the
schools of Europe are agreed; but they do not pay sufficient attention to the
way in which that morality has become predominant, by first destroying Pagan
corruption, then by maintaining itself for centuries in spite of the ravages of
infidelity, so as to form an admirable public conscience; a benefit which we
now enjoy without appreciating it as we ought, and without even thinking of it.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span>
In order fully to comprehend this matter, it is above all necessary to form a
clear idea of what is meant by conscience. Conscience in the general, or rather
ideological sense of the word, means the knowledge which each man has of his
own acts. Thus we say that the soul is conscious of its thoughts, of the acts
of its will, and of its sensations; so that the word conscience, taken in this
sense, expresses a perception of what we do and feel. Applied to the moral
order, this word signifies the judgment which we ourselves form of our actions
as good or evil. Thus, when we are about to perform an action, conscience
points it out to us as good or bad, and consequently lawful or unlawful; and it
thus directs our conduct. The action being performed, it tells us whether we
have done well or ill, it excuses or condemns us, it rewards us with peace of
mind, or punishes us with remorse.</p>

<p>This explanation being given, we shall easily understand what is meant by
public conscience; it is nothing but the judgment formed of their actions by
the generality of men. It results from this that, like private conscience, the
public conscience may be right or wrong, strict or relaxed; and that there must
be differences on this point among societies of men, the same as there are
among individuals; that is to say, that, as in the same society we find men
whose consciences are more or less right or wrong, more or less strict or
relaxed, we must also find societies superior to others in the justice of the
judgment which they form on actions, and in the delicacy of their moral appreciation.</p>

<p>If we observe closely, we shall see that individual conscience is the result of
widely different causes. It is an error to suppose that conscience resides solely
in the intelligence; it is also rooted in the heart. It is a judgment, it is true;
but we judge of things in a very different way according to the manner in
which we feel them. Add to this, that the feelings have an immense influence
on moral ideas and actions; the result is, that conscience is formed under the
influence of all the causes which forcibly act on our hearts. Communicate to
two children the same moral principles, by teaching them from the same book
and under the same master; but suppose that one in his own family sees what
he is taught constantly practised, while the other sees there nothing but
indifference to it; suppose, moreover, that these two children grow up with
the same moral and religious conviction, so that as far as the intellect is concerned
there is no difference between them; nevertheless, do you believe that
their judgment of the morality of actions will be the same? By no means;
and why? Because the one has only convictions, while the other has also feelings.
In the one, the doctrine enlightens the mind; while, in the other,
example engraves it constantly on the heart. Thus what one regards with
indifference, the other looks upon with horror; what the one does with negligence,
the other performs with the greatest care; and the same subject that to
one is of slight interest, is to the other of the highest importance.</p>

<p>Public conscience, which, in fact, is the sum of private consciences, is subject
to the same influences as they are; so that mere instruction is not enough for
it, and it requires the concurrence of other causes to act on the heart, as well as
the mind. When we compare Christian with pagan society, we instantly see
that the former must be infinitely superior to the latter on this point; not only
on account of the purity of its morality, and the strength of the principles and
motives sanctioning it, but also because it follows the wise course of continually
inculcating this morality, and impressing it strongly on the mind by constant
repetition. By this constant repetition of the same truths, Christianity has
done what other religions never could do; none of them, indeed, have ever succeeded
in organizing and putting into practice so important a system. But I
have said enough on this point in the fourteenth chapter; it is useless to repeat
it here; I pass on to some observations on the public conscience in Europe.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span></p>

<p>It cannot be denied that, generally speaking, reason and justice prevail in that
public conscience. If you examine laws and actions, you will not find those
shocking acts of injustice or those revolting immoralities which are to be met
with among other nations. There are certainly evils, and very grave ones, but
they are at least acknowledged, and called by their right names. We do not
hear good called evil, or evil good; that is to say, society, in certain things, is
like those persons of good principles and bad morals who are the first to acknowledge
that their conduct is blamable, and that their words and deeds contradict
each other. We often lament the corruption of morals, the profligacy of our
large towns; but what is all the corruption and profligacy of modern society
compared with the debauchery of the ancients? It certainly cannot be denied
that there is a fearful extent of dissoluteness in some of the capitals of Europe.
The records of the police, as well as those of the benevolent establishments
where the fruits of crime are received, show shocking demoralization. In the
highest classes dreadful ravages are caused by conjugal infidelity, and all sorts
of dissipation and disorder; yet these excesses are very far from reaching the
extent which they did among the best-governed nations of antiquity, the Greeks
and Romans. So that our society, which we so bitterly lament, would have appeared
to them a model of modesty and decorum. Need we call to mind the
infamous vices then so common and so public, and which have scarcely a name
among us now, whether it be because they are so rarely committed, or because
the fear of public conscience forces them to hide themselves in the dark places,
and, so to speak, in the bowels of the earth? Need we recall to mind the infamies
which stain the writings of the ancients as often as they describe the manners
of their times? Names illustrious in science and in arms have passed down
to posterity with stains so black that we cannot consent to describe them. Now,
how corrupt must have been the state of the other classes, when such degradation
was attributed to men who, by their elevated positions or other circumstances,
were the lights of society!</p>

<p>You talk of the avarice which is so prevalent now-a-days; but look at the
usurers of antiquity who sucked the blood of the people everywhere; read the
satirical poets, and you will see what was the state of manners on this point;
consult, in fine, the annals of the Church, and you will see what pains she took
to diminish the effects of this vice; read the history of ancient Rome, and you
will find the <em>cursed thirst for gold</em>, and lenders without mercy, who, after having
impudently robbed, carried in triumph the fruits of their rapine to live with
scandalous ostentation, and buy votes again to raise them to command. No, in
European civilization, among nations taught and elevated by Christianity, such
evils would not be long tolerated. If we suppose administrative disorder, tyranny,
and corruption of morals carried as far as you please, still public opinion would
raise its voice and frown on the oppressors. Partial injustice may be committed,
but rapine will never be formed into a shameless system, or be regarded as the
rule of government. Rely upon it, the words <em>justice</em>, <em>morality</em>, <em>humanity</em>, which
constantly resound in our midst, are not vain words; this language produces
great results; it destroys immense evils. These ideas impregnate the atmosphere
we breathe; they frequently restrain the arm of criminals, and resist with
incredible force materialistic and utilitarian doctrines; they continue to exert an
incalculable influence on society. We have among us a feeling of morality
which mollifies and governs all; which is so powerful that vice is compelled to
assume the appearance of virtue, and cover itself with many veils, in order to
escape becoming the subject of public execration.</p>

<p>Modern society, it would seem, ought to have inherited the corruption of the
old, since it was formed out of its ruins, at a time when its morals were most
dissolute. We must observe, that the irruption of the barbarians, far from improving
society, contributed, on the contrary, to make it worse; and this, not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</a></span>
only on account of the corruption belonging to their fierce and brutal manners,
but also on account of the disorder introduced among the nations they invaded,
by violating laws, throwing their manners and customs into confusion, and destroying
all authority. Whence it follows, that the improvement of public
opinion among modern nations is a very singular fact; and that this progress
can only be attributed to the influence of the active and energetic principle which
has existed in the bosom of Europe for so many centuries.</p>

<p>Let us observe the conduct of the Church on this point&mdash;it is perhaps one of
the most important facts in the history of the middle ages. Imagine an age
when corruption and injustice most unblushingly raised their heads, and you
will see that, however impure and disgusting the fact may be, the law is always
pure; that is to say, that reason and justice always found some one to proclaim
them, even when they appeared to be listened to by nobody. The state of ignorance
was the darkest, licentious passions were uncontrolled; but the instructions
and admonitions of the Church were never wanting; it is thus that, amidst
the darkest night, the lighthouse shines from afar, to guide the mariners in
safety.</p>

<p>When in reading the history of the Church we see on all sides assembled
councils proclaiming the principles of the gospel morality, while at every step
we meet with the most scandalous proceedings; when we constantly hear inculcated
the laws which are so often trodden under foot, it is natural to ask, of
what use was all this, and of what benefit were instructions thus unheeded?
Let us not believe that these proclamations were useless, nor lose courage if we
have to wait long for their fruits.</p>

<p>A principle which is proclaimed for a long time in society will in the end
acquire influence; if it is true, and consequently contains an element of life, it
will prevail in the end over all that opposes it, and will rule over all around it.
Allow, then, the truth to speak&mdash;allow it to protest continually; this will prevent
the prescription of vice. Thus vice will preserve its proper name; and
you will prevent misguided men from deifying their passions, and placing them
on their altars after having adored them in their hearts. Be confident that this
protest will not be useless. Truth in the end will be victorious and triumphant;
for the protests of truth are the voice of God condemning the usurpations of His
creatures. This is what really happened; Christian morality, first contending
with the corrupt manners of the empire, and afterwards with the brutality of
the barbarians, had for centuries rude shocks to sustain; but at last it triumphed
over all, and succeeded in governing legislation and public morals. We do not
mean to say that it succeeded in raising law and morals to the degree of perfection
which the purity of the gospel morality required, but at least it did
away the most shocking injustice; it banished the most savage customs; it
restrained the license of the most shameless manners; it everywhere gave vice
its proper name; it painted it in its real colors, and prevented its being deified
as impudently as it was among the ancients. In modern times, it has had to
contend against the school which proclaims that private interest is the only principle
of morals; it has not been able, it is true, to prevent this fatal doctrine
from causing great evils, but at least it has sensibly diminished them. Unhappy
for the world will be the day when men shall say without disguise, "<em>My own
advantage is my virtue</em>; <em>my honor is what is useful to myself</em>; <em>all is good or
evil, according as it is pleasing or displeasing to me</em>." Unhappy for the world
will be the day when such language will no longer be repudiated by public conscience.
The opportunity now presenting itself, and wishing to explain so important
a matter as fully as possible, I will make some observations on an opinion
of Montesquieu respecting the censors of Greece and Rome. This digression
will not be foreign to the purpose.</p>

<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXIX" id="CHAPTER_XXIX">CHAPTER XXIX.</a><br />

<small>OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC CONSCIENCE ACCORDING TO MONTESQUIEU&mdash;HONOR&mdash;VIRTUE</small>.</h2>


<p>Montesquieu has said that republics are preserved by virtue, and monarchies
by honor. He observes, moreover, that honor renders the censors, who were
required among the ancients, unnecessary among us. True it is, that in modern
times there are no censors charged with watching over the public morals;
but the cause of this is not as stated by this famous publicist. Among Christian
nations, the ministers of religion are the natural censors of public morals.
The plenitude of this office belongs to the Church, with this difference, that the
censorial power of the ancients was purely civil, while that of the Church is a
religious power, which has its origin and sanction in divine authority. The
religion of Greece and Rome neither did, nor could, exercise this censorial
power over morals. To be convinced of this, it is enough to read the passage
from St. Augustine, quoted in the fourteenth chapter&mdash;a passage so interesting
on this matter, that I will venture to ask the reader to peruse it again. This is
the reason why we find among the Greeks and Romans censors who are not seen
among Christian nations. These censors were an addition to the Pagan religion,
the impotence of which they clearly showed&mdash;a religion which was mistress
of society, and yet could not fulfil one of the first duties of all religions&mdash;that
of watching over the public morals. What I assert is so perfectly true,
that in proportion as the influence of religion and the ascendency of its ministers
have been lowered among modern nations, the ancient censors have reappeared
in some sort in the institution of police. When moral means are wanting,
it is necessary to have recourse to physical ones; violence is substituted
for persuasion, and instead of a zealous and charitable missionary, delinquents
fall into the hands of the ministers of public justice.</p>

<p>Much has been already written of the system of Montesquieu, with respect
to the principles on which the different forms of government are based; but
perhaps sufficient attention has not been paid to the phenomenon which has
served to mislead him. As this question is intimately connected with the point
which I have just touched upon, in relation to the existence of the censorial
authority, I shall explain myself at some length. In the time of Montesquieu,
the Christian religion was not so fully understood as it now is with respect to
its social importance; and although on this point the author of the <cite>Esprit des
Lois</cite> has done homage to her, it is well to remember what were his antichristian
prejudices during his youth, and also that this work is still far from rendering
to the true religion what is due to her. The ideas of an irreligious philosophy
which, some years later, misled so many fine intellects, had begun at
that time to gain the ascendant, and Montesquieu had not sufficient strength of
mind to make a decided opposition to the prejudices which threatened universal
dominion. To this cause we must add another, which, although distinct from
the last, yet had the same origin, viz. a prejudice in favor of all that was old,
and a blind admiration for every thing Roman or Grecian. It seemed to the
philosophers of that time, that social and political perfection had reached their
greatest height among the ancients, that there was nothing to be added to or
taken from it, and that even in religion the fables and festivals of antiquity
were a thousand times preferable to the faith and worship of the Christian religion.
In the eyes of the new philosophers, the heaven of the Apocalypse could
not sustain a comparison with that of the Elysian fields; the majesty of Jehovah
was inferior to that of Jupiter; all the loftiest Christian institutions were
a legacy of ignorance and fanaticism; the most holy and beneficent institutions
were the work of tortuous and interested views&mdash;the vehicle and expression of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</a></span>
sordid interests; public authority was only an atrocious tyranny; and the only
noble, just, and salutary institutions were those of Paganism. There every
thing was wise, and evinced profound designs highly advantageous to society;
the ancients alone had enjoyed social advantages, and had succeeded in organizing
public authority, with guarantees for the liberty of citizens. Modern nations
should bitterly lament not being able to mingle in the agitation of the forum,
being deprived of such orators as Demosthenes and Cicero,&mdash;having no Olympic
games, or contests of athletæ; in fine, they must always regret a religion
which, although full of illusion and falsehood, gave to all nature a dramatic
interest, gave life to fountains, rivers, cascades, and seas, peopled the fields, the
meadows, and the woods with beautiful nymphs, gave to man gods as the companions
of his hearth, and above all, knew how to render life pleasant and
charming, by giving full scope to all the passions, and deifying them under the
most enchanting forms.</p>

<p>How, in the midst of such prejudices, was it possible to discover the truth
in modern institutions? Every thing was in the most deplorable state of confusion;
all that was established was condemned without appeal, and every one
who attempted to defend it was considered a fool or a knave. Religion and political
constitutions, which seemed destined soon to disappear, could reckon on
no other support than the prejudices or the interests of governments. Lamentable
aberration of the human mind! What would these writers now say if they
could arise from their tombs? And yet a century has not yet elapsed since
the epoch when their school began to acquire its influence. They have, for a
long time, ruled the world at their pleasure; and they have only shed torrents
of blood, heaping lesson upon lesson, and deception upon deception, in the history
of humanity.</p>

<p>But let us return to Montesquieu. This publicist, who was so much affected
by the atmosphere in which he lived, and who had no small share in perverting
the age, saw the facts which are here so apparent; he recognised the results of
that public opinion which has been created among European nations by the influence
of Christianity. But while observing the effects, he did not ascertain
the real causes, and labored in every way to accommodate them to his own system.
In comparing ancient with modern society, he discovered between them
a remarkable difference in the conduct of men; he observed that we see accomplished
among us the noblest and most heroic actions, while we avoid a great
part of the vices which defile the ancients; but, on the other hand, Montesquieu,
like others, could not help seeing that men among us have not always that
high moral aim which ought to be the motive of their laudable conduct. Avarice,
ambition, love of pleasure, and other passions, still reign in the world, and
are easily discovered everywhere. Still these passions do not reach the excess
they did among the ancients; there is a mysterious power which restrains them;
before giving way to their impulses, they throw a cautious glance around them,
and do not indulge in certain excesses unless they are sure of being able to do
so in secret. They have great dread of being seen by man; they can only live
in solitude and darkness. The author of the <cite>Esprit des Lois</cite> asked himself
what is the cause of this phenomenon. Men, he said to himself, often act, not
from moral virtue, but from respect for the judgment which other men will pass
upon their actions; this is to act from honor. Now, this is the case in France
and in the other monarchies of Europe; it must be, therefore, the distinctive
characteristic of monarchical governments; it must be the base of that form of
government, the distinction between a republic and despotism. Let us hear the
author himself: "Dans quel governement," says he, "faut il des censeurs? Il
en faut dans une république, où le principe du governement est la vertu. Ce ne
sont pas seulement les crimes qui detruisent la vertu, mais encore les negligences,
les fautes, une certaine tiédeur dans l'amour de la patrie, des exemples<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</a></span>
dangereux, des semences de corruption; ce qui ne choque point les lois, mais
les élude; ce qui ne les détruit pas, mais les affaiblit. Tout cela doit être corrigé
par les censeurs. * * * Dans les monarchies il ne faut point de censeurs,
elles sont fondées sur l'honneur; et la nature de l'honneur est d'avoir pour
censeur tout l'univers. Tout homme qui y manque est soumis aux reproches
de ceux mêmes qui n'en ont point." (<cite>De l'Esprit des Lois</cite>, liv. v. chap. 19.)
Such is the opinion of this publicist. But if we reflect on the matter, we shall see
that he was wrong in transferring to politics, and explaining by simply political
causes, a fact purely social. Montesquieu points out, as the distinguishing characteristic
of monarchies, what is the general characteristic of all modern European
society; he seems not to have understood why the institution of censors was not
necessary in Europe, any more than he did the real reason why they were required
among the ancients. Monarchical forms have not exclusively prevailed in Europe.
Powerful republics have existed there; and there are still some not to be despised.
Monarchy itself has undergone numerous modifications; it has been allied sometimes
with democracy, sometimes with aristocracy; sometimes its power has been
very limited, and sometimes it has been unbounded; and yet we always find this
restraint which Montesquieu speaks of, and which he calls honor; that is, a
powerful influence stimulating to good deeds and deterring from bad, and all
this from respect for the judgments which other men will pass.</p>

<p>"Dans les monarchies," says Montesquieu, "il ne faut point de censeurs, elles
sont fondées sur l'honneur; et la nature de l'honneur est d'avoir pour censeur
tout l'univers;" remarkable words, which reveal to us the ideas of the writer,
and at the same time show us the origin of his mistake. They will assist us in
solving the enigma. In order to explain this point as fully as the importance
of the subject requires, and with as much clearness as the multitude and intricacy
of its relations demand, I shall endeavour to convey my ideas with as
much precision as possible.</p>

<p>Respect for the judgment of others is a feeling innate in man; consequently
it is in his nature to do or avoid many things on account of this judgment. All
this is founded on the simple fact of self-love: this is nothing but love of our
own good fame, the desire of appearing to advantage, and the fear of appearing
to disadvantage, in the eyes of our fellows. These things are so simple and clear,
that they do not require or even admit of proofs or comments. Honor is a stimulant
more or less active, or a restraint more or less powerful, according to the degree
of severity which we expect in the judgments of others. Thus it is that the
miser, when among the generous, makes an effort to appear liberal; the prodigal
restrains himself in the presence of the lovers of strict economy; in meetings where
decorum generally reigns we see that even libertines control themselves, while men
whose manners are usually correct allow themselves certain freedoms in licentious
societies. Now the society in which we live is, as it were, one vast company.
If we know that strict principles prevail there, if we hear everywhere
proclaimed the rules of sound morality, if we think that the generality of the
men with whom we live give the right name to every action, without allowing
the irregularity of their conduct to falsify their judgment, we see ourselves
surrounded on all sides by witnesses and judges who cannot be corrupted; and
this checks us at every step when we wish to do evil, and urges us on when we
wish to do good. It will be far otherwise if we have reason to expect indulgence
from the society in which we move. In this case, and supposing us all
to entertain the same convictions, vice will not appear to us so horrible, crime
so detestable, or corruption so disgusting; our ideas with regard to the morality
of our conduct will be very different, and in the end our actions will show the
fatal influence of the atmosphere in which we live. It follows from this, that,
in order to infuse into our hearts a feeling of honor strong enough to produce
good, it is necessary that principles of sound morality should regulate society,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</a></span>
and that they should be generally and fully believed. This being granted,
social habits will be formed, which will regulate manners; and even if these
habits do not succeed in hindering the corruption of a great number of individuals,
they will, nevertheless, be sufficient to compel vice to adopt certain disguises,
which, although hypocritical, will not fail to add to the decorum of manners.
The salutary effects of these habits will still continue after the faith on
which their moral principles are based has been considerably weakened, and
society will still gather in abundance the beneficent fruits of the despised or
forgotten tree. This is the history of the morality of modern nations: although
lamentably corrupt, they are still not so bad as the ancients. They preserve in
their legislation, and in their morals, a fund of morality and dignity which the
ravages of irreligion have not been able to destroy. Public opinion never dies;
every day it censures vice, and extols the beauty and advantages of virtue; it
reigns over governments and nations, and exercises the powerful ascendency of
an element which is found universally diffused.</p>

<p>"Outre l'Aréopage," says Montesquieu, "il y avait à Athènes des gardiens
des mœurs et des gardiens des lois. A Lacédémone, tous les vieillards
étaient censeurs. A Rome, deux magistrats particuliers avaient la censure.
Comme le Senat veille sur le peuple, il faut que des censeurs aient les
yeux sur le peuple et sur le Senat. Il faut qu'ils rétablissent dans la république
tout ce qui a été corrompu, qu'ils notent la tiédeur, jugent les négligences,
et corrigent les fautes, comme les lois punissent les crimes." (<cite>De l'Esprit des
Lois</cite>, liv. v. chap. 7.) In describing the duties of the censors of antiquity, the
author seems to state the functions of religious authority. To penetrate where
the civil laws do not extend; to correct, and in some measure to chastise, what
they leave unpunished; to exercise over society an influence more delicate and
minute than that which belongs to legislation,&mdash;such are the objects of the
censorial power; and who does not see that that power has been replaced by
religious authority? and that if the former has been unnecessary among modern
nations, it is owing to the existence of the latter, or to the influence which it
has exercised for many centuries?</p>

<p>It cannot be denied that religious authority has for a long time gained a
decided ascendency over men's minds and hearts; this fact is written in every
page of the history of Europe. As to the results of that influence, so calumniated
and ill understood, we meet with them every day,&mdash;we who see the principles
of justice and sound morality still reigning over public conscience, in
spite of the ravages which irreligion and immorality have committed among
individuals.</p>

<p>The powerful influence of public conscience will be best explained by some
examples. Let us suppose that the richest of nobles, or the most powerful of
monarchs, indulged in the abominable excesses of a Tiberius, a Nero, or the
other monsters who disgraced the imperial throne, what would happen? We
will not predict; but we are confident that the universal shout of indignation
and horror would be so loud, and the monster would be so crushed under the
load of public execration, that it appears to us impossible for him to exist. It
seems to us an anachronism, an impossibility at this time. Even if we admit
that there might be men immoral enough to commit such enormities, sufficiently
perverted in mind and heart to exhibit such depravity, we see that it would be
an outrage against universal morals, and that such a spectacle could not stand
for a moment in presence of public opinion. I could draw numberless contrasts,
but I shall content myself with one, which, while it reminds us of a fine
trait in ancient history, exhibits, with the virtue of a hero, the manners of the
time and the melancholy condition of the public conscience. Let us suppose that
a general of modern Europe captures by assault a town in which a distinguished
lady, the wife of one of the principal leaders of the enemy, falls into the hands<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</a></span>
of the soldiers. The beautiful prisoner is brought to the general; what
should be his conduct? Every one will immediately say, that she ought
to be treated with the most delicate attention, that she ought to be immediately
set at liberty and allowed to rejoin her husband. Such conduct
appears to us so strictly obligatory, so much according to the order of things,
and so conformable to our ideas and sentiments, that there certainly does
not appear to us to be any peculiar merit in adopting it. We should say
that the general had performed a strict and sacred duty, which he could not
evade without covering himself with shame and ignominy. We certainly
should not immortalize such an action in history; we should allow it to pass
unnoticed in the ordinary course of events. Now, this is what Scipio did with
respect to the wife of Mardonius at the taking of Carthagena; and ancient
history records this generosity as an eternal monument of his virtues. This
parallel explains better than any commentary the immense progress of morality
and public conscience under the influence of Christianity. Now, such conduct,
which among us is considered as simple, natural, and strictly obligatory, does
not flow from the honor belonging to monarchies, as Montesquieu asserts, but
from more lofty notions of human dignity, from a clearer knowledge of the true
state of society, from a morality the purer and more powerful because it is established
on eternal foundations. This, indeed, is found and felt everywhere, it
governs the good and is respected even by the bad; this is what would stop the
licentious man, who, in a case of this sort, would be inclined to indulge his
cruelty or his other passions. The author of the <cite>Esprit des Lois</cite> would doubtless
have perceived these truths if he had not been prejudiced by the favorite
distinction established at the beginning of his work, and which throughout
bound him to an inflexible system. We know what a preconceived system is&mdash;one
that serves as the mould for a work. Like the bed of Procrustus, ideas and
facts, right or wrong, are accommodated to the system; what is too much is
taken away, and what is wanting is added. Thus Montesquieu finds in political
motives, founded on the republican form of government, the reason for the
power exercised over Roman women by their husbands. The cruel rights
given to fathers over their children, the unlimited paternal power established
by the Roman laws, also appeared to him to flow from political causes, as if it
were not evident that these two regulations of the ancient Roman law were
owing to causes purely domestic and social, altogether independent of the form
of government.<a href="#Note_19" class="fnanchor">19</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXX" id="CHAPTER_XXX">CHAPTER XXX.</a><br />

<small>ON THE DIFFERENT INFLUENCE OF PROTESTANTISM AND CATHOLICITY ON
THE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE</small>.</h2>


<p>We have defined the nature of public conscience; we have pointed out its
origin and effects. It now remains to examine whether Protestantism has had
any share in forming it, and whether it is fairly entitled to the glory of having
been of any service to European civilization on this point. We have already
shown that the origin of this public conscience is to be found in Christianity.
Now Christianity may be considered under two aspects&mdash;as a doctrine, and as
an institution intended to realize that doctrine; that is to say, Christian morality
may be considered in itself, or as taught and inculcated by the Church. To
form the public conscience, and make Christian morality regulate it, it was not
enough to announce this doctrine; there was still required a society, not only
to preserve it in all its purity, that it might be transmitted from generation to
generation, but to preach it incessantly to man, and apply it continually to all<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</a></span>
the acts of life. We must observe that ideas, however powerful they may be,
have only a precarious existence until they are realized, and become embodied,
as it were, in an institution which, while it is animated, moved, and guided by
them, serves them as a rampart against the attacks of other ideas and other
interests. Man is formed of body and soul; the whole world is a collection of
spiritual and corporeal beings&mdash;a system of moral and physical relations; thus
it is that all ideas, even the greatest and the loftiest, begin to fall into oblivion
when they have no outward expression&mdash;no organ by which they make themselves
heard and respected. They are then confounded and overwhelmed amid
the confusion of the world, and in the end disappear altogether. Therefore, all
ideas that are to have a lasting influence on society, necessarily tend to create
an institution to represent them, in which they may be personified; not satisfied
with addressing themselves to the mind, and with descending to practice by
indirect means, they seek to give form to matter, they present themselves to the
eyes of humanity in a palpable manner. These observations, which I submit
with confidence to the judgment of sensible men, contain a condemnation of the
Protestant system. So far from the pretended Reformation being able to claim
any part in the salutary events which we are explaining, we should rather say
that, by its principles and conduct, it would have been an obstacle in their way,
if, as was happily the case, Europe had not been of adult age in the sixteenth
century, and consequently almost incapable of losing the doctrines, feelings,
habits, and tendencies which the Catholic Church had communicated to it during
an education of so many centuries. Indeed, the first thing that Protestantism
did was to attack authority, not by a mere act of resistance, but by proclaiming
resistance to be a real right, by establishing private judgment as a dogma. From
that moment Christian morality remained without support, for there was no
longer a society which could claim the right of explaining and teaching it;
that is to say, it was reduced to the level of those ideas which, not being represented
or supported by an institution, and not having any authorized organ to
explain them, possessed no direct means of acting on society, and had no means
of protection when attacked.</p>

<p>But I shall be told that Protestantism <em>has</em> preserved the institution which
realizes this idea; for it has preserved its ministers, worship, and preaching&mdash;in
a word, all that truth requires in dealing with man.</p>

<p>I will not deny that there is some truth in this, and I will repeat what I have
not hesitated to affirm in the fourteenth chapter of this work, "That we ought
to regard it as a great good, that the first Protestants, in spite of their desire to
upset all the practices of the Church, have yet preserved that of preaching." I
added in the same place: "It is not necessary to deny on this account the evils
produced at certain times by the declamation of some ministers, either furious
or fanatical; but as unity was broken, and as the people had been hurried into
the perilous path of schism, we say that it must have been very conducive to
the preservation of the most important ideas concerning God and man, and the
fundamental maxims of morality, for such truths to be frequently explained to
the people by men who had long studied them in the Holy Scriptures." I repeat
here what I there said: preaching practised among Protestants must have had
very good effects; but this only amounts to saying, that it did not do so much
mischief as was to be feared from its own principles. On this point, they were
like men of immoral opinions, who are not so bad as they would be, were their
hearts in accordance with their minds: they had the good fortune to be inconsistent.
Protestantism had proclaimed the abolition of authority, and the right
of private judgment without limit; but in practice it did not quite act up to
these doctrines. Thus, it devoted itself with ardor to what it called gospel
preaching, and its ministers were called gospellers. So that, at the very time
when they just established the principle that every individual had the free right<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</a></span>
of private judgment, and ought to be guided by reason or private inspiration
alone, without listening to any external authority, Protestant ministers were seen
spreading themselves everywhere, and claiming to be the legitimate organs of
the divine word.</p>

<p>The better to understand the strange nature of such a doctrine, we must remember
the maxims of Luther with respect to the priesthood. We know that
this heresiarch, embarrassed by the hierarchy which constitutes the ministry
of the Church, pretended to overturn it at one blow, by maintaining that all
Christians are priests, and that, to exercise the sacred ministry, a simple appointment
is necessary, which adds nothing essential or characteristic to the
quality of priests, which is the universal patrimony of all Christians. It follows
from this doctrine, that the Protestant preacher wanting a mission is not distinguished
from other Christians by any characteristic; he cannot, consequently,
speak to them with any authority; he is not allowed, like Jesus Christ, to speak
<i lang="la">quasi potestatem habens</i> (as having authority); he is nothing more than an orator
who addresses the people with no other right than what he derives from his
education, knowledge, or eloquence.</p>

<p>This preaching without authority, which, in reality and according to the
preacher's own principles, was only human, although it committed the glaring
inconsistency of pretending to be divine, may, no doubt, have contributed something
to the preservation of good moral principles when they were already
everywhere established; but it would certainly have been unable to establish
them in a society where they were unknown, especially if it had had to struggle
with other principles directly opposed to it, and supported by ancient prejudices,
by deeply rooted passions, and by strong interests.</p>

<p>Yes, we repeat it, this preaching would have been unable to introduce its
principles into such a society; unable to preserve them in safety amid the most
alarming revolutions and the most unexampled catastrophes; unable to impart
them to barbarous nations, who, proud of their triumph, listened to no other
voice than that of their ferocious instinct; unable to make the conquerors and
the conquered bow before these principles, to mould the most different nations
into one people, by stamping on their laws, institutions, and manners the same
seal, in order to form from them that admirable society, that assemblage of
nations, or rather that one great nation, which is called Europe. In a word,
Protestantism, from its very constitution, would have been incapable of realizing
what the Catholic Church has done.</p>

<p>Moreover, this attempted preaching preserved by Protestantism is, at bottom,
an effort to imitate the Church that it may not remain unarmed in the presence
of so redoubtable an adversary. It required a means of influencing the people,&mdash;a
channel open to communicate, at the will of each usurper of religious
authority, different interpretations of the Bible; this is the reason why, in spite
of violent declamation against all that emanated from the chair of St. Peter, it
preserved the valuable practice of preaching.</p>

<p>But the best way to feel the inferiority of Protestantism in regard to the
knowledge and comprehension of the means proper to extend and strengthen
morality, and make it prevail in all the acts of life, is to observe, that it has
interrupted all communication between the conscience of the faithful and the
direction of the priest; it only leaves to the latter a general direction, which,
owing to its being extended over all at the same time, is exerted with effect over
none. If we confine ourselves to the consideration of the abolition of the sacrament
of Penance among Protestants, we may rest assured that they have thereby
given up one of the most legitimate, powerful, and gentle means of rendering
human conduct conformable to the principles of sound morality. Its action is
legitimate; for nothing can be more legitimate than direct and intimate communication
between the conscience of man who is to be judged by God, and the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</a></span>
conscience of the man who represents God on earth;&mdash;an action which is
powerful, because this intimate communication, established between man and
man, between soul and soul, identifies, as it were, the thoughts and affections;
because, in the presence of God alone, to the exclusion of every other witness,
admonitions have more force, precepts more authority, and advice more unction
and sweetness to penetrate into the inmost soul;&mdash;an action full of gentleness,
for it supposes the voluntary manifestation of the conscience which seeks
guidance&mdash;a manifestation which is commanded, it is true, by authority, but
which cannot be enforced by violence, as God alone is the judge of its sincerity;&mdash;an
action, I repeat, which is gentle, for the minister is compelled to the
strictest secrecy; all imaginable precautions have been taken by the Church to
prevent a betrayal, and man may rest with tranquillity in the assurance that
the secrets of his conscience will never be revealed.</p>

<p>But you will ask me, do you believe all this is necessary to establish and preserve
a good state of morality? If morality is to be any thing more than a
mere worldly probity, which is exposed to destruction at the first shock of
interest, or easily seduced by the passions; if it is to be a morality delicate,
strict, and profound, extending over all the acts of life, guiding and ruling the
heart of man, and transforming it into that <i lang="fr">beau idéal</i> which we admire in Catholics
who are really devoted to the observances and practices of their religion;
if this is the morality which you mean, it is necessary, undoubtedly, that,
placed under the inspection of religious authority, it should be directed and
guided by a minister of the sanctuary, by a faithful communication of the secrets
of our hearts and the numberless temptations which continually assail our weak
nature. This is the doctrine of the Catholic Church; and I will add, that it is
pointed out by experience and taught by philosophy. I do not mean to say,
that Catholics alone are capable of performing virtuous actions; this would be
to contradict the experience of every day. I only wish to prove the efficacy of
a Catholic institution which is despised by Protestants. I speak of the great
influence which this institution has in infusing into our hearts, and preserving
in them, a morality which is cordial, constant, and applicable to all the acts of
our souls.</p>

<p>No doubt, there is in man a monstrous mixture of good and evil; I know
that it is not given him to attain in this life to that ineffable degree of perfection
which consists in a perfect conformity with Divine truth and holiness&mdash;a
perfection which he will not be able even to conceive until the moment when,
stripped of his mortal body, he will be plunged into the pure ocean of light and
love. But we cannot be permitted to doubt that man, in this earthly abode, in
the land of misery and darkness, can, nevertheless, attain to the universal,
delicate, and profound state of morality which I have just described; and,
however much the present corruption of the world may be a too legitimate subject
of affliction, it must be allowed that we still find, in our own days, a considerable
number of honorable exceptions in the multitude of persons who
conform to the strict rule of gospel morality in their conduct, their wishes, and
even in their thoughts and inmost affections. To attain to this degree of
morality (and observe, I do not say of evangelical perfection, but of mere
morality), it is necessary that the religious principle should be visibly present
to the eyes of the soul, that it should act continually upon her, urging on or
restraining her in an infinite variety of circumstances which, in the course of
life, occur to mislead from the path of duty. The life of man is, as it were, a
chain composed of an infinite variety of acts, which cannot be constantly in
accordance with reason and the eternal law, unless it remains constantly in the
hands of a fixed and universal regulator. And let it not be said that such a
state of morality is a <i lang="fr">beau idéal</i>, the existence of which would bring such confusion
into the acts of the soul, and complication of the whole life, as in the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</a></span>
end to make it insupportable. No, this is not a mere fancy; it is a reality
which is frequently seen by our eyes, not only in the cloister and the sanctuary,
but amid the confusion and distractions of the world. That which establishes a
fixed rule cannot bring confusion into the acts of the soul, or complicate the
affairs of life. Quite the contrary; instead of confusion, it serves to distinguish
and illuminate; instead of complicating, it puts in order and simplifies. Establish
this rule, and you will have unity; and with unity general order.</p>

<p>Catholicity is always distinguished by its extreme vigilance with respect to
morality, by its care in regulating all the acts of life, and even the most secret
movements of the heart. Superficial observers have declaimed against the
prolixity of moralists&mdash;against the minute and detailed study which they make
of human actions considered under a moral aspect; they should have observed,
that if Catholicity is the religion in the bosom of which has appeared so great a
number of moralists, by whom all human actions have been examined in the
greatest detail, it is because this religion has for its object to moralize for the
whole man, as it were, in all his relations with God, with his neighbor, and
with himself. It is clear that such an enterprise requires a more profound and
attentive examination than would be necessary, if it had only to give to man an
imperfect morality, stopping at the surface of actions, and not penetrating to
the bottom of the heart. With respect to Catholic moralists, and without
attempting to excuse the excess into which some among them have fallen,
either by too great subtility, or by a spirit of party and dispute (excesses which
cannot be imputed to the Catholic Church, since she has testified her displeasure
when she has not expressly condemned them), it must be observed, that this
abundance, this superfluity, if you will, of moral studies, has contributed more
than people think to direct minds to the intimate study of man, by furnishing a
multitude of facts and observations to those who have subsequently wished to
devote themselves to this important science. Now, can there be a more worthy
or more useful object for our labors? In another part of this work, I propose
to develop the relations of Catholicity with the progress of science and literature;
I shall not, therefore, enter more fully on the matter now. Still I may
be allowed briefly to observe, that the development and education of the human
mind have been principally theological; and that on this point, as well as on
many others, philosophers are more indebted to theologians than they seem to
imagine.</p>

<p>Let us return to the comparison of the Protestant and Catholic influence on
the formation and preservation of a sound public conscience. We have showed
that Catholicity, having constantly maintained the principle of authority which
Protestantism rejects, has given to moral ideas a force and influence which Protestantism
could not. Protestantism, indeed, by its nature and fundamental
principles, has never given to these ideas any other support than they might
have derived from a school of philosophy. But you will perhaps ask me, do
you not acknowledge the force of these ideas; a force peculiar to them, and
inherent in their nature, and which frequently changes the face of the world, by
deciding its doctrines? Do you not know that they always, in the end, force a
passage, in spite of every obstacle, and of all resistance? Have you forgotten
the teaching of all history; and do you pretend to deprive human thought of
that vital, creative force, which renders man superior to all that surrounds him?
Such is the common panegyric on the strength of ideas; thus we see them
transformed every moment into all-powerful beings, whose magical wand is
capable of changing every thing at their pleasure.</p>

<p>However this may be, I am full of respect for human thought, and allow
that there is much truth in what is called the force of an idea; yet I must beg
leave to offer a few observations to these enthusiasts, not directly to combat their
opinion, but to make some necessary modifications. In the first place, ideas, in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</a></span>
the point of view in which we are now considering them, must be divided into
two orders; some flattering our passions, the others checking them. It cannot
be denied that the former have an immense expansive force. They have a
motion of their own; they act in all places; they exert a rapid, violent power;
one would say that they overflow with life and activity. The latter have great
difficulty in making their way; they advance slowly, they cannot pursue their
career without an institution to secure their stability. And why? Because it
is not the ideas themselves which act in the former case, but the passions which
accompany them, and assume their names; thus masking what is repulsive in
them at first sight. In the latter case, on the contrary, it is the truth that
speaks. Now, in this land of misfortune, the truth is but little attended to; for
it leads to good; and the heart of man, as the Scripture says, is inclined to evil
from his youth. Those who vaunt so much the native force of ideas, should
point out to us, in ancient or modern history, one idea which, without going out
of its own circle, that of the purely philosophical order, is entitled to the glory
of having materially contributed to the amelioration of individuals and society.</p>

<p>It is commonly said that the force of ideas is immense; that once shown
among men, they will fructify sooner or later; that once deposited in the bosom
of humanity, they will remain there as a precious legacy, and contribute wonderfully
to the improvement of the world, to the perfection towards which the
human race advances. No doubt these assertions contain some truth; as man
is an intelligent being, all that immediately affects his mind must certainly
influence his destiny. Thus no great change is worked in society without being
first realized in the order of ideas; all that is established contrary to our ideas,
or without them, must be weak and passing. But it is by no means to be supposed
that every useful idea contains in itself a conservative force capable of
dispensing with all institutions; that is to say, with support and defence,
even during times of social disorder: between these two propositions there is a
gulf which cannot be closed without contradicting all history. Now humanity,
considered by itself, and given up to its own strength, as it appears to philosophers,
is not so safe a depositary as people wish to suppose. Unhappily we
have melancholy proofs of this truth: we see too clearly that the human race,
far from being a faithful trustee, has but too much imitated the conduct of a
foolish spendthrift. In the cradle of the human race, we find great ideas on the
unity of God, on man, on relations of man with God and their fellowmen.
These ideas were certainly true, salutary, and fruitful: and yet, what did man
do with them? Did he not lose them by modifying, mutilating, and distorting
them in the most deplorable way? Where were they when Jesus Christ came
into the world? What had humanity done with them? One nation alone
preserved them; but in what way? Fix your attention on the chosen people,
the Jews, and you will see that there was a continual struggle between truth
and error; you will see that, by an inconceivable blindness, they incessantly
inclined to idolatry; they had a constant tendency to substitute the abominations
of the Gentiles for the sublime law of Mount Sinai. And do you know how the
truth was preserved among this people? Observe it well; it was supported by
the strongest institutions that can be imagined; it was armed with all the means
of defence with which an inspired legislator could surround it. It will be said
that they were a hard-hearted nation, in the language of the Scriptures; unhappily,
since the fall of our first parent, this hardness of heart is become the patrimony
of humanity; <em>the heart of man is inclined to evil from his youth</em>; ages
before the existence of the Jews, God had covered the earth with the waters of
heaven, and had blotted out man from the face of the world; <em>for all flesh had corrupted
its way</em>. We must conclude from this, that the preservation of great moral
ideas requires powerful institutions; it is evident, therefore, that they cannot be
abandoned to the fickleness of the human mind without being disfigured, or even<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</a></span>
lost. I will say, moreover, that institutions are not only necessary to teach, but
also to apply them. Moral ideas, especially those which openly contradict the
passions, are never reduced to practice without great efforts; now the ideas
themselves do not suffice to make these great efforts, and means of action are
required capable of connecting ideas with facts; this is one of the reasons of the
impotence of philosophical schools when they attempt to construct any thing.
They are often powerful in destroying; momentary action is enough for this,
and this action may be easily acquired in a moment of enthusiasm. But when
they wish to establish and reduce their conceptions to practice, they are impotent;
their only resource is what is called the force of ideas. Now, as ideas
constantly vary and change&mdash;an inconstancy of which these schools themselves
afford the first example&mdash;it happens that what we hear them announce one moment
as an infallible means of human progress, is the next reduced to a mere
object of curiosity.</p>

<p>These last observations anticipate the objection that may be urged against us
with respect to the immense force which printing has given to ideas. But this
is so far from being a preserver, that it may be said to be the best destroyer of
all opinions. If we measure the immense orbit which the human mind has
passed through since that important discovery, we shall see that the <em>consummation</em>
of opinions (if I may be allowed the expression) is increased in a prodigious
degree. The history of the human race, especially since the press has
become periodical, appears to be the representation of a rapid drama, where the
decorations change every moment, where the scenes succeed each other, scarcely
allowing the spectator to catch any of the author's words. Half of this century
has not yet passed away, and already it seems as if many centuries had elapsed,
so great has been the number of schools which have been born and are dead,
of reputations which, after being raised to the highest pitch of renown, have
been soon forgotten. This rapid succession of ideas, so far from contributing to
increase their force, necessarily renders them weak and unproductive. The natural
order in the progress of ideas is this: at first to make their appearance,
then to be realized in an institution representing them, and in fine to exert their
influence on facts by means of an institution in which they are personified.
Now, it is necessary that during these transformations, which essentially require
time, ideas should preserve their credit, if they are to produce any favorable
result. But when they succeed each other too rapidly, time is wanting for their
successive transformations; new ideas strive to discredit the old ones, and consequently
to render them useless. This is the reason why the strength of ideas,
that is, of philosophy, was never so little to be relied on as now, to produce
any thing durable and consistent in the moral order: in this respect, the gain to
modern society may well be questioned. More is conceived, but less matured;
what the mind gains in extent, it loses in depth, and the pretension in theory
makes a sad contrast with the impotence of practice. Of what importance is it
that our predecessors were not so ready as we are in <em>improvising</em> a discussion on
great social and political questions, if they nevertheless organized and founded
such admirable institutions? The architects who raised the astonishing monuments
of ages which we call barbarous, were certainly not so learned or so cultivated
as those of our time; and yet who has the boldness even to commence
what they have finished? Thus it is in the social and political order. Let us
remember that great thoughts are produced rather by intuition than by reasoning;
in practice, success depends more upon the invaluable quality called tact,
than upon enlightened reflection; and experience often teaches that he who
knows much, sees little. The genius of Plato would not have been the best
guide for Solon or Lycurgus; and all the knowledge of Cicero would not have
succeeded in doing what was done by the tact and good sense of two unlettered
men like Romulus and Numa.<a href="#Note_20" class="fnanchor">20</a></p>

<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXI" id="CHAPTER_XXXI">CHAPTER XXXI.</a><br />

<small>ON GENTLENESS OF MANNERS IN GENERAL</small>.</h2>


<p>A certain general gentleness of manners, which in war prevents great atrocities,
and in peace renders life more quiet and agreeable:&mdash;such is one of the
valuable qualities which I have pointed out as forming the distinguishing characteristics
of European civilization. This is a fact which does not require
proof; we see and feel it everywhere when we look around; it is evident to all
who open the pages of history, and compare our times with any others. Wherein
does this gentleness of manners in modern times consist? what is the cause of
it? what has favoured it? what has opposed it? These interesting questions
directly apply to our present subject; for they lead straight to the examination
of other questions, such as the following: has Catholicity contributed in any
way to this gentleness of manners; or, on the other hand, has it opposed or
retarded it? in fine, what part has Protestantism played in the work, for good
or evil? First of all, we must determine wherein gentleness of manners consists.
Although we have here to deal with an idea which every one sees, or
rather feels, we must still endeavor to explain and analyze it by a definition as
complete and exact as possible. Gentleness of manners consists <em>in the absence
of force</em>; so that manners will be more or less gentle according as force is less
or more employed. Thus, we must not confound gentle with charitable manners;
the latter work good, the former only exclude the idea of force. We
must also distinguish gentle manners from those that are pure, and conformable
to reason and justice. Immorality is often gentle, when, instead of resorting to
force, it makes use of seduction and stratagem. This gentleness of manners
consists in directing the human mind, not by violence which constrains the body,
but by reasons which address themselves to the intellect, or by appeals to the
passions. Thus it is that gentle manners are not always under the influence of
reason; but their rule is always intellectual, although they are often made the
slaves of the passions by golden chains of their own formation.</p>

<p>If gentleness of manners consists in not making use, in human transactions,
of other means than those of conviction, persuasion, or seduction, it is clear
that the most advanced society&mdash;that is, that in which intelligence has been
most developed&mdash;should always participate more or less in this social advantage.
There the mind rules, because it is strong; while material force disappears,
because the body has less strength. Moreover, in societies very much
advanced, where relations and interests are necessarily much multiplied, there
is an indispensable want of means capable of acting in a universal and lasting
manner, and applicable to all the details of life. These means are, unquestionably,
moral and intellectual: the mind operates without destruction, while force
dashes violently against obstacles, and breaks itself to pieces, if it cannot overturn
them. Thus it is the cause of continual commotions, which cannot subsist
in a society which has numerous and complicated relations, without throwing
into confusion and destroying society itself.</p>

<p>We always observe in young nations a lamentable abuse of force. Nothing
is more natural: the passions ally themselves with force, because they resemble
it; they are energetical as violence, and rude as its shocks. When society has
reached a great degree of development, the passions are divorced from force, and
become allied with the intelligence; they cease to be violent, in order to become
artful. In the first case, if it is the people who struggle, they make war on,
they contend with, and destroy each other; in the second case, they contend
with the arms of industry, commerce, and contraband. Governments attack,
in the first case, by arms and invasions; and in the second by diplomacy. In<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</a></span>
the first epoch, warriors are every thing; in the second, they are nothing; they
have not a very important part to play when negotiation, and not fighting, is
required. When we look at ancient civilization, we observe a remarkable difference
between the character of its manners and the gentleness of ours. Neither
the Greeks nor Romans ever regarded this precious quality in the light in which
we regard it, for the honor of European civilization. Those nations became enervated,
but they did not become gentle; we may say that their manners were
made effeminate, but they were not softened; for we see them make use of
force on all occasions, when neither vigor of body nor energy of mind was
required. There is nothing more worthy of observation than this peculiarity of
ancient civilization, especially of that of Rome. Now this phenomenon, which
at first sight appears to us to be very strange, has very deep causes. Besides
the principal of these causes, which is, the want of an element of civilization
such as that which modern nations have had in Christian charity, we shall find
among the ancients, if we descend to the details of their social organization,
certain causes which necessarily hindered this gentleness of manners being
established among them.</p>

<p>In the first case, slavery, one of the constituent elements of their social and
domestic organization, was an eternal obstacle to the introduction of this precious
quality. The man who has the power of throwing another to the fishes,
and of punishing with death the crime of breaking a glass; he who during a
feast, to gratify his caprice, can take away the life of one of his brethren; he
who can rest upon a voluptuous couch, surrounded by the most sumptuous magnificence,
while he knows that hundreds of men, crowded together in dark vaults,
work incessantly for his cupidity and his pleasures; he who can hear without
emotion the lamentations of a crowd of unhappy beings imploring a morsel of
bread to pass through the night's misery which is to unite their labors and
fatigues of the evening with those of the morning, such a man may have effeminate,
but he cannot have gentle manners; his heart may become enervated,
but it will not cease to be cruel. This was precisely the situation of the free
man in ancient society: the organization of which we have just stated the results
was regarded as indispensable; they could not even conceive the possibility of
any other order of things. What removed this obstacle? was it not the Catholic
Church, by abolishing slavery, after having ameliorated the cruel lot of slaves?
Those who revert to the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th chapters of this work,
with the notes appended to them, will find the truth of this demonstrated by
incontestable reasons and documents.</p>

<p>In the second place, the right of life and death, given by the laws to the
paternal power, introduced into families an element of severity which could not
but produce injurious effects. Happily, the hearts of fathers were continually
contending against the power thus granted by law: but if this feeling did not
prevent some deeds the perusal of which makes us shudder, must we not suppose
that, in the ordinary course of life, cruel scenes constantly reminded the
members of families of this atrocious right with which the chief was invested?
Will not he who is possessed of the power of killing with impunity, be frequently
hurried into acts of cruel despotism? Now this tyrannical extension
of the rights of paternal authority, carried far beyond the limits pointed out by
nature, was taken away by the force of laws and manners which were much
aided by the influence of Catholicity (see the 24th chap. of this work). To the
two causes which I have just pointed out, may be added another perfectly analogous,
viz. the despotism which the husband exercised over his wife, and the
little respect which was paid to her. Public spectacles were, among the Romans,
another element of severity and cruelty. What could be expected of a people
whose principal amusement is to look coolly upon homicide&mdash;who took pleasure<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</a></span>
in witnessing the slaughter in the arena of hundreds of men fighting against
each other, or against wild beasts?</p>

<p>As a Spaniard, I feel called upon here to insert a paragraph, in reply to the
observations which will be made against me on this point: I allude to the
Spanish bull-fights. I shall naturally be asked, Is it not in a Christian and
Catholic country that the custom of making men fight against animals is preserved?
The objection, however plausible it may seem, can be answered. In
the first place, to avoid any misunderstanding, I declare that this popular amusement
is, in my opinion, barbarous, and ought, if possible, to be completely
extirpated. But after this full and explicit avowal, let me be permitted to make
a few observations, to screen the honor of my country. In the first place, it
must be remarked, that there is in the human heart a secret taste for risks and
dangers; in order to make an adventure interesting, it is necessary that the hero
should be encompassed with great and multiplied perils; if a history is to excite
curiosity to a high degree, it must not be an uninterrupted chain of peaceful
and happy events. We wish to find ourselves frequently in the presence of
extraordinary and surprising facts; and, however unpleasant may be the avowal,
our hearts, while they feel the tenderest compassion for the unfortunate, seem
to require the contemplation of scenes of a more violent and exciting character.
Hence the taste for tragedies: hence the love of scenes in which the actors
incur great risks, in appearance or in reality. It is not my duty here to explain
the origin of this phenomenon; it is enough for me here to point out its
existence to show foreigners who accuse us of being barbarians, that the taste
of the Spanish people for bull-fights is only the application to a particular case,
of an inclination inherent everywhere in the heart of man. Those who, with
respect to this custom of the Spanish people, affect so much humanity, would
do well to answer the following questions: To what is owing the pleasure taken
by the multitude in every exhibition, when the actors run any risk in one way
or another? Whence comes it that all would willingly be present at the
bloodiest battle, if they could do so without danger? Whence comes it that
everywhere an immense multitude assembles to witness the agonies and the last
convulsions of a criminal on the gibbet? Whence comes it, in fine, that foreigners,
when at Madrid, render themselves accomplices in the barbarity of Spaniards
by assisting at these bull-fights? I say this, not in any degree to excuse
a custom which appears to me to be unworthy of a civilized people, but to
show that in this point, as well as in almost all that relates to the Spanish people,
there are exaggerations which ought to be reduced within reasonable limits.
Let us add an important observation, which is the best excuse that can be made
for this reprehensible exhibition: instead of fixing our attention on the spectacle
itself, let us consider the evils that flow from it. Now, I ask, how many
men die in Spain in bull-fights? The number is extremely small, and altogether
insignificant in proportion to the frequency of these spectacles; so that
if a comparison were made between the accidents which occur in consequence
of this amusement and those that happen in other sports, such as horse-races
and others of the same kind, we should perhaps find that bull-fights, however
barbarous they may be in themselves, still do not deserve all the anathemas
with which foreigners have loaded them. To return to our principal object,
how, we ask, is it possible to compare an amusement which, perhaps, may not
cost the life of one man during many years, to those terrible shows in which
death was a necessary condition for the pleasure of the spectators? After the
triumph of Trajan over the Dacians, the public games lasted twenty-three days,
and the fearful number of six thousand gladiators was slain. Such were the amusements
at Rome, not only of the populace, but of the highest classes; such were the
horrible spectacles required by a people who added voluptuousness to the most
atrocious cruelty. This is a most convincing proof of what I have said, viz.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</a></span>
that manners may be effeminate without being gentle, and that the brutality
of unbounded luxury is not inconsistent with the instinct of blood-thirsty
ferocity.</p>

<p>It is impossible that such spectacles should be tolerated among modern nations,
however corrupt their manners may be. The principle of charity has
extended its empire too universally for such excesses to be renewed. This
charity, it is true, does not induce men to do all the good to each other that
they ought; but, at least, it prevents their coldly perpetrating evil, and assisting
quietly at the slaughter of their brethren to gratify the pleasure of the
moment. Christianity, at its birth, cast into society the seed of this aversion
to homicide. Who is not aware of the repugnance of Christians for the shows
of the Gentiles&mdash;a repugnance prescribed and kept alive by the admonitions of
the early pastors of the Church? It was an acknowledged fact, that Christian
charity prohibited the being present at games where homicide formed part of
the spectacle. "As for us," said one of the apologists of the early ages, "we make
little difference between committing murder and seeing it committed."<a href="#Note_21" class="fnanchor">21</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXII" id="CHAPTER_XXXII">CHAPTER XXXII.</a><br />

<small>THE IMPROVEMENT OF MANNERS BY THE ACTION OF THE CHURCH</small>.</h2>


<p>Modern society ought, it would seem, to be distinguished for severity and
cruelty, since it was formed from that of the Romans and barbarians, from both
of whom it should have inherited these qualities. Who is not aware of the fierce
manners of the northern barbarians? The historians of that time have left us
statements that make us shudder when we read them. It was believed that the
end of the world was at hand; and, indeed, it was excusable to consider the last
catastrophe as near, when so many other melancholy ones had already been
heaped upon humanity. The imagination cannot figure to itself what would
have happened to the world at this crisis, if Christianity had not existed. Even
supposing that society would have been organized anew under one form or
another, it is certain that private and public relations would have remained in a
state of lamentable disorder, and that legislation would have been unjust and
inhuman. Thus the influence of the Church on civil legislation was an inestimable
benefit; thus even the power of the clergy in temporal things was one
of the greatest safeguards of the highest interests of society.</p>

<p>Attacks are often made upon this temporal power of the clergy and this influence
of the Church in worldly affairs. But, in the first place, it should be
remembered, that this power and influence were brought about by the very
nature of things; that is to say, they were natural, and, consequently, to assail
them is to declaim in vain against the force of events, of which no man could
hinder the realization. This power and influence, besides, were legitimate; for
when society is in danger, nothing can be more legitimate than that that which
can save it should save it. Now, at the time we speak of, the Church alone
could save society. The Church, which is not an abstract being, but a real and
substantial society, acted upon civil society by real and substantial means. If
the purely material interests of society were in question, the minister of the
Church ought, in some way or other, to take part in the direction of those
interests. These reflections are so natural and simple, that their truth must be
seen by good sense. All those who know any thing of history are now generally
agreed on this point; and if we are not aware how much it generally
costs the human mind to enter upon the path of truth, and, above all, how
much bad faith there has been in the examination of these questions, we
shall have a difficulty in understanding that so much time should have been<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</a></span>
required to bring the world to agree on a thing which is apparent to those
who read history. But let us return to our subject. This extraordinary
mixture of the cruelty of a cultivated but corrupted people with the atrocious
ferocity of a barbarous one, proud of its triumphs, and intoxicated with
blood during long wars, placed in European society a germ of severity and
cruelty which fermented there for ages, and the remains of which we find
at a late period. The precept of Christian charity was in men's heads, but
Roman cruelty and barbarian ferocity still prevailed in their hearts; ideas
were pure and beneficent, since they proceeded from a religion of love, but they
encountered a terrible resistance in the habits, manners, institutions, and laws,
for all these were more or less disfigured by the two mixed principles which I
have just pointed out. If we reflect upon the constant and obstinate struggle
between the Catholic Church and the elements which contended with her, we
shall clearly see that Christian ideas could never have prevailed in legislation
and manners, if Christianity had been a religious idea abandoned to human
caprice, as Protestants imagine; it was necessary for it to be realized in a powerful
institution, in a strongly constituted society, such as we find in the Catholic
Church. In order to give an idea of the efforts made by the Church, I will
point out some of the regulations which she made for the purpose of improving
manners. Private animosities were very violent at the time of which we speak;
and right was decided by force, and the world was threatened with becoming the
patrimony of the strongest. Public law did not exist, or was hurried away and
confounded by outrages which its feeble hand could never prevent or repress;
it was altogether powerless in rendering manners pacific, and in subjecting men
to reason and justice. Then we see that the Church, besides the instruction
and the general admonitions inseparable from her sacred mission, adopted at
that time certain measures calculated to restrain the torrent of violence which
ravaged and destroyed every thing. The Council of Arles, celebrated in the
middle of the fifth century, between 443 and 452, ordains, in its 50th canon,
that the Church should be interdicted to those who have public animosities,
until they were reconciled. The Council of Angers, celebrated in 453, proscribes,
by its 3d canon, acts of violence and mutilation. The Council of Agde,
in Languedoc, celebrated in 506, ordains, in its 31st canon, that enemies who
would not be reconciled should be admonished by the priests, and excommunicated
if they did not follow their apostolical counsels.</p>

<p>The Franks at that time had the custom of going armed, and they always
entered the churches with their arms. It will be understood that such a custom
must have produced great evils; the house of prayer was often converted into
an arena of blood and vengeance. In the middle of the seventh century, the
Council of Chalons-sur-Saone, in its 17th canon, pronounces excommunication
against all laymen who excite tumults, or draw their swords to strike any one
in the churches or in their precincts. Thus, we see the prudence and foresight
which dictated the 29th canon of the third Council of Orleans, celebrated in
538, which forbids any one to be present at mass or vespers, armed. It is
curious to observe the uniformity of design and plan pursued by the Church.
In countries the most distant from each other, and at times when communication
could not be frequent, we find regulations analogous to those which we
have pointed out. The Council of Lerida, held in 546, ordains, by its 7th
canon, that he who shall have sworn not to be reconciled with his enemy, shall
be deprived of the participation of the body and blood of Jesus Christ until he
has done penance for his oath and been reconciled.</p>

<p>Centuries passed away, acts of violence continued, the precept of fraternal
charity, which obliges us to love even our enemies, always met with open
resistance in the harsh character and fierce passions of the descendants of the
barbarians; but the Church did not cease to preach the divine command; she<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</a></span>
continually inculcated and labored to render it efficacious by means of spiritual
penalties. More than four hundred years had elapsed since the celebration of
the Council of Arles, where we have seen the church forbidden to those who
were openly at variance; we then see the Council of Worms, held in 868, pronouncing,
in its 41st canon, excommunication against enemies who refused to
be reconciled. It will suffice to have some idea of the disorders of that time,
to know whether it was possible to appease the violence of animosities during
this long period. One would fancy that the Church would have been wearied
of inculcating a precept which the unhappy state of circumstances so often
rendered fruitless; but such was not the case: she continued to speak as she
had spoken for ages; she never lost her confidence that her words would produce
fruit in the present, and would be productive in the future. Such is her
system; one would think that she heard these words constantly repeated, "Cry
out, cry out without ceasing; raise thy voice like a trumpet." It is then that she
triumphs over all resistance; when she cannot exert her power over the will of a
nation, she makes her voice heard with indefatigable diligence in the sanctuary.
There she assembles seven thousand who have not bent the knee to Baal; and
while she endeavors to confirm them in faith and good works, she protests, in
the name of God, against those who resist the Holy Spirit. Let us imagine
that, amid the dissipation and distraction of a populous city, we enter a sacred
place, where seriousness and moderation reign, in the bosom of silence and
religious retirement; there a minister of the sanctuary, surrounded by a chosen
number of the faithful, utters from time to time some serious and solemn words.
This is the personification of the Church in times disastrous from weakened
faith and corrupted morals. One of the rules of conduct of the Catholic Church
has been, not to bend before the powerful. When she has proclaimed a law,
she has proclaimed it for all, without distinction of rank. In the time of the
power of those petty tyrants, who, under different names, persecuted the people,
this conduct of the Church contributed in an extraordinary degree to render the
ecclesiastical laws popular; for nothing was more likely to make a law tolerable
to the people than to show that it applied to nobles, and even to kings. In the
times of which we speak, hatred and violence among plebeians were severely
proscribed; but the same law extended to great men and to royalty. A short
time after the establishment of Christianity in England, we find a very curious
example in that country, applicable to this question. It is nothing less than
excommunication pronounced against three kings in the same year, and in the
same town; all these were compelled by the Councils to do penance for the
crimes which they had committed. The town of Llandaff, in Wales, within the
metropolitan see of Canterbury, witnessed the celebration of three Councils, in
the year 560. In the first, Monric, king of Glamorgan, was excommunicated
for having put to death King Cinétha, although he had sworn the peace on the
sacred relics; in the second, King Morcant was excommunicated for having
put to death Friac, his uncle, in whose favor he had equally sworn the peace;
in the third, King Guidnert was excommunicated for having put to death his
brother, the competitor for the throne.</p>

<p>Thus, these barbarian chiefs, just changed into kings, and prone to slaughter,
are compelled to acknowledge the authority of a superior power, and to expiate
by penance the murder of their relatives and the violation of sacred engagements;
it is useless to point out how much this must have contributed to the
improvement of manners. "It was easy," the enemies of the Church will say&mdash;those
who endeavor to lower the merit of her acts&mdash;"it was easy to preach
gentleness of manners, to impose the observance of divine precepts on chiefs
whose power was limited, and who had only the name of kings; it was easy to
manage those petty barbarian chiefs, who, rendered fanatical by a religion of
which they understood nothing, humbly bowed before the first priest who ven<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</a></span>tured
to menace them on the part of God. But of what importance was that?
What influence could it have on the course of great events? The history of
European civilization presents a vast theatre, where events must be studied on
a large scale, and where none but the most important scenes exercised any
influence on the spirit of nations." Let us observe, that these petty barbarian
kings were the origin of the principal families which now occupy the most important
thrones of the world. To place the germ of real civilization in their
hearts, was to graft the tree which was one day to overshadow the earth. But
without staying to show the futility of such reasoning, and as our opponents
desire great scenes capable of influencing European manners on a large scale,
let us open the history of the Church in the first ages, and we shall soon find a
page which redounds to the eternal honor of Catholicity. The whole of the
known world was subject to an emperor, whose name, then universally venerated,
will continue to be respected by the remotest posterity. In an important
city, the rebellious inhabitants put to death the commander of the garrison; the
emperor, transported with anger, orders them to be exterminated. Returning
to himself, he revokes the order; but it was too late, the order was executed,
and thousands of victims had been involved in the horrible carnage; at the
news of this dreadful catastrophe, a bishop quits the court of the emperor,
leaves the city, and writes to him in this grave language: "I dare not offer the
sacrifice if you attempt to be present at it; the blood of one innocent person
would suffice to forbid me; how much more the massacre of a large number."
The emperor, confident in his power, takes no notice of this letter, and goes
towards the church. When he arrives at the door, he finds himself in the presence
of a venerable man, who, with a grave and stern countenance, stops him
and forbids him to enter the church. "Thou hast imitated David in crime,"
he says, "imitate him also in penance." The emperor yields, humbles himself,
and submits to the regulations of the bishop, and religion and humanity gain
an immortal triumph. This unhappy city was Thessalonica; the emperor was
Theodosius; the prelate was St. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan.</p>

<p>We find face to face, in this sublime fact, force and justice personified.
Justice triumphs over force; but why? Because he who represents justice,
represents it in the name of Heaven; because the sacred vestments and the
imposing attitude of the man who stops the emperor reminds Theodosius of the
divine mission of the holy bishop, and of the office which he holds in the sacred
ministry. Put a philosopher in the place of the bishop, and tell him to arrest
the proud culprit by an injunction of doing penance, and you will see whether
human wisdom can do as much as the Catholic priest speaking in the name of
God. Put, if you please, a bishop of the Church, who has acknowledged spiritual
supremacy in the civil power, and you will see whether in his mouth
words have the same effect in obtaining so glorious a triumph. The spirit of
the Church was always the same; her arms were always directed towards the
same end; her language was always equally strict, equally strong, whether she
spoke to the Roman plebeian or a barbarian, whether she addressed her admonitions
to a patrician of the empire or to a noble German. She was no more
afraid of the purple of the Cæsars than of the frowns of the long-haired kings.
The power which she possessed during the middle ages was not exclusively
owing to her having preserved alone the light of science and the principles of
government; but it was also owing to the invincible firmness, which no resistance
and no attack could destroy. What would Protestantism have effected in
such difficult and dangerous circumstances? Without authority, without a
centre of action, without security for her own faith, without confidence in her
resources, what means would she have had to assist her in restraining the torrent
of violence&mdash;that impetuous torrent, which, after having inundated the
world, was about to destroy the remains of ancient civilization, and opposed to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[Pg 179]</a></span>
all attempts at social reorganization an obstacle almost insurmountable?
Catholicity, with its ardent faith, its powerful authority, its undivided unity,
its well-compacted hierarchy, was able to undertake the lofty enterprise of improving
manners; and it brought to the undertaking that constancy which is
inspired by conscious strength, and that boldness which animates a mind secure
of triumph.</p>

<p>We must not, however, imagine that the conduct of the Church, in her mission
of improving manners, always brought her into collision with force. We
also see her employ indirect means, limit her demands to what she could obtain,
and ask for as little, in order to obtain as much as possible. In a capitulary
of Charlemagne, given at Aix-la-Chapelle in 813, and consisting of twenty-six
articles, which are nothing more than a sort of confirmation and <i lang="fr">résumé</i> of the
five Councils held a little before in France, we find in an appendix of two articles
the method of proceeding judicially against those who, under pretext of the
right called <i lang="es">faida</i>, excited tumults on Sundays, holidays, and also working
days. We have already seen above that they had recourse to the holy relics,
to give greater authority to the oaths of peace and friendship taken by kings
towards each other&mdash;an august act, in which Heaven was invoked to prevent
the effusion of blood, and to establish peace on earth. We see in the capitulary
which we have just quoted, that the respect for Sundays and holidays was made
use of to bring about the abolition of the barbarous custom, which authorized
the relations of a murdered man to avenge his death in the blood of the murderer.
The deplorable state of European society at that time is vividly painted by the
means which the ecclesiastical power was compelled to use, to diminish in some
degree the disasters occasioned by the prevailing violence. Not to attack, not
to maltreat any one, not to have recourse to force to obtain reparation or to
gratify a desire of vengeance, appears to us to be so just, so reasonable, and so
natural, that we can hardly imagine another way of acting. If, now, a law
were promulgated, to forbid one to attack one's enemy on such or such a day,
at such or such an hour, it would appear to us the height of folly and extravagance.
But it was not so at that time; such prohibitions were made continually,
not in obscure hamlets, but in great towns, in very numerous assemblies,
when bishops were present in hundreds, and where counts, dukes, princes, and
kings were gathered together. This law, by which authority was glad to make
the principles of justice respected, at least on certain days,&mdash;principally on the
great solemnities,&mdash;this law, which now would appear to us so strange, was, in
a certain way, and for a long period, one of the chief points of public and private
law in Europe. It will be understood that I allude to the truce of God, a
privilege of peace very necessary at that time, as we see it very often renewed
in various countries. Of all that I might say on this point, I shall content
myself with selecting a few of the decisions of Councils at the time. The
Council of Tubuza, in the diocese of Elne, in Roussillon, held by Guifred,
Archbishop of Narbonne, in 1041, established the truce of God, from the evening
of Friday until Monday morning. Nobody during that time could take
any thing by force, or revenge any injury, or require any pledge in surety.
Those who violated this decree were liable to the same legal composition as if
they had merited death; in default of which, they were excommunicated and
banished from the country.</p>

<p>The practice of this ecclesiastical regulation was considered so advantageous,
that many other Councils were held in France during the same year, on the
same subject. Moreover, care was taken frequently to repeat the obligation, as
we see by the Council of Saint Gilles, in Languedoc, held in 1042, and by that
of Narbonne, held in 1045. In spite of these, repeated efforts did not obtain
all the desired fruit; this is indicated by the changes which we observe in the
regulations of the law. Thus we see that, in the year 1047, the truce of God<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[Pg 180]</a></span>
was fixed for a less time than in 1041; the Council of Telugis, in the same
diocese of Elne, held in 1047, only ordains that it is forbidden to any one in
all the <i lang="fr">comté</i> of Roussillon to attack his enemy between the hours of none on
Sunday and prime on Monday; the law was then much less extensive than in
1041, when, as we have seen, the truce of God was extended from Friday evening
till Monday morning. We find in the same Council a remarkable regulation,
the object of which was to preserve from all attack men who were going
to church or returning from it, or who were accompanying women. In 1054,
the truce of God had gained ground; we see it extended, not only from Friday
evening till Monday morning after sunrise, but over considerable periods of the
year. Thus we see that the Council of Narbonne, held by Archbishop Guifred,
in 1045, after having included in the truce of God the time from Friday evening
till Monday morning, declares it obligatory during the following periods:
from the first Sunday of Advent till the octave of the Epiphany; from Quinquagesima
Sunday till the octave of Easter; from the Sunday preceding the
Ascension till the octave of Pentecost; the festival days of Our Lady, of St.
Peter, of St. Laurence, of St. Michael, of All Saints, of St. Martin, of St. Just
and Pasteur, titularies of the Church of Narbonne, and all fasting days, under
pain of anathema and perpetual banishment. The same Council gives some
other regulations, so beautiful that we cannot pass them over in silence, when
we are engaged in showing the influence of the Catholic Church in improving
manners. The 9th canon forbids the cutting of olive-trees; a reason for it is
given, which, in the eyes of jurists, will not appear sufficiently general or adequate,
but which, in the eyes of the philosophy of history, is a beautiful symbol
of the beneficial influence exercised over society by religion. This is the reason
given by the Council: "It is," it says, "<em>that the olive-trees may furnish
matter for the holy chrism, and feed the lamps that burn in the churches</em>." Such
a reason was sure to produce more effect than any that could be drawn from
Ulpian and Justinian. It is ordained in the 10th canon that shepherds and
their flocks shall enjoy at all times the security of the truce; the same favor is
extended by the 11th canon to all houses within thirty paces of the churches.
The 18th canon forbids those who have a suit, to take any active steps, to commit
the least violence, until the cause has been judged in presence of the bishop
and lord of the place. The other canons forbid the robbing of merchants and
pilgrims, and the commission of wrong against any one, under pain of being
separated from the Church, if the crime be committed during the time of the
truce.</p>

<p>In proportion as we advance in the 11th century, we see the salutary practice
of the truce of God more and more inculcated; the Popes interpose their
authority in its favor. At the Council of Gironne, held by Cardinal Hugues-le-Blanc,
in 1068, the truce of God is confirmed by the authority of Alexander
II., under pain of excommunication; the Council held in 1080, at Lillebonne,
in Normandy, gives us reason to suppose that the truce was then generally
established, since it ordains, by its first canon to bishops and lords, to take
care that it was observed, and to inflict on offenders against it censures and
other penalties. In the year 1093, the Council of Troja, in Apulia, held
by Urban II., continues the truce of God. To judge of the extent of this
canonical regulation, we should know that this Council consisted of sixty-five
bishops. The number was much greater at the Council of Clermont, in Auvergne,
held by the same Urban II., in 1095; it reckoned no less than thirteen
archbishops, two hundred and twenty bishops, and a great number of abbots.
The first canon of this Council confirms the truce for Thursday, Friday, Saturday,
and Sunday; it wishes, moreover, that it should be observed on all the
days of the week, with respect to monks, clergy, and women. The canons 29
and 30 ordain, that if a man pursued by an enemy take refuge near a cross, he<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[Pg 181]</a></span>
should be in safety, as if he had found asylum in a church. The sublime sign
of redemption, after having given salvation to the world, by drinking on Calvary
the blood of the Son of God, had already proved a refuge, during the sack
of Rome, to those who fled from the fury of the barbarians; centuries later, we
find it erected on the roads, to save the unfortunate, who, by embracing it,
escaped their enemies, who were thus deterred from vengeance.</p>

<p>The Council of Rouen, held in 1096, extending still further the benefit of
the truce, ordains the observance of it from the Sunday before Ash Wednesday
till the second feast after the octave of Pentecost, from sunset on Wednesday
preceding Advent to the octave of Epiphany, and every week from Friday after
sunset till the Monday following at sunrise; in fine, on all the feasts and vigils
of the Virgin and the Apostles. The 2d canon of the same Council secures
perpetual peace to all clergy, monks, and nuns, to women, to pilgrims, to merchants
and their servants, to oxen and horses of labor, to carmen and laborers;
it gives the same privileges to all lands that belong to sacred institutions; all
such persons, animals, and lands are protected from the attacks of pillage and
all kinds of violence. At this time the law felt itself stronger; it could now
call for obedience in a firmer tone; we see, indeed, that the third canon of the
same Council enjoins upon all who have reached the age of twelve, to engage
by oath to observe the truce; in the fourth canon, all who refuse to take this
oath are excommunicated. Some years after, in 1115, the truce, instead of
comprising certain stated parts of the year, embraces whole years; the Council
of Troja in Apulia, held in that year by Pope Pascal, establishes the truce
for three years.</p>

<p>The Popes pursued with ardor the work thus commenced; they sanctioned it
with their authority, and extended the observance of the truce by means of
their influence, then universal and powerful over all Europe. Although the
truce was apparently only a testimony of respect paid to religion by the violent
passions, which, in her favor, consented to suspend their hostilities, it was, in
reality, a triumph of right over might, and one of the most admirable devices
ever used to improve the manners of a barbarous people. The man who, during
four days of the week, and during long periods of the year, was compelled to
suspend the exercise of force, was necessarily led to more gentle manners; he
must, in the end, entirely renounce it. The difficulty is not, to convince a man
that he does ill, but to make him lose the habit of doing so; and it is well
known that habits are engendered by the repetition of acts, and are lost when
they cease for a time. Nothing is more pleasing to the Christian soul than to
see the Popes laboring to maintain and extend this truce. They renew the
command of it with a power the more efficacious and universal according to the
number of bishops who assist at the Councils where their supreme authority
presides. At the Council of Rheims, opened by Pope Calixtus II. in person,
in 1119, a decree confirming the truce is promulgated. Thirteen archbishops,
more than two hundred bishops, and a great number of abbots and ecclesiastics,
distinguished for their rank, assisted at this Council. The same command is
renewed at the General Council of Lateran, held under the care of the same
Pontiff, Calixtus II., in 1123. There were assembled more than three hundred
archbishops and bishops, and more than six hundred abbots. In 1130, the
Council of Clermont, in Auvergne, held by Innocent II., insists on the same
point, and repeats the regulations concerning the observance of the truce. The
Council of Avignon, held in 1209, by Hugh, Bishop of Riez, and Milon, notary
of Pope Innocent III., both legates of the Holy See, confirms the laws before
enacted on the subject of the peace and the truce, and condemns the rebellious
who dare to infringe them. In the year 1215, at the Council of Montpellier,
assembled by Robert de Courçon, and presided over by Cardinal Benavent, in
his office as legate of the province, all the regulations established at different<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[Pg 182]</a></span>
times for the public safety, and more recently to secure peace between lord and
lord, and town and town, are renewed and confirmed.</p>

<p>Those who have regarded the intervention of the ecclesiastical power in civil
affairs as a usurpation of the rights of public authority, should tell us how it
is possible to usurp that which does not exist, and how a power which is unable
to exercise the authority which ought to belong to it, can reasonably complain
when that authority passes into the hands of those who have force and skill to
make use of it. At that time, the public authority did not at all complain of
these pretended usurpations. Governments and nations looked upon them as
just and legitimate; for, as we have said above, they were natural and necessary,
they were brought about by the force of events, they were the result of
the situation of affairs. Certainly, it would now seem extraordinary to see
bishops provide for the security of roads, publish edicts against incendiaries,
against robbers, against those who cut down olive-trees and commit other injuries
of the kind; but, at the time we are speaking of, this proceeding was very
natural, and more, it was necessary. Thanks to the care of the Church, to that
incessant solicitude which has been since so inconsiderately blamed, the foundations
of the social edifice, in which we now dwell in peace, were laid; an organization
was realized which would have been impossible without the influence of
religion and the action of ecclesiastical authority. If you wish to know whether
any fact of which you have to judge is the result of the nature of things,
or the fruit of well contrived combinations, observe the manner in which it
appears, the places where it takes its rise, the times which witness its appearance;
and if you shall find it reproduced at once in places far distant from each
other, by men who can have had no concert, be assured that it is not the result
of human contrivance, but of the force of events. These conditions are found
united in a palpable manner in the action of the ecclesiastical power on public
affairs. Open the Councils of those times, and everywhere the same facts meet
your eyes; thus, to quote a few examples, the Council of Palentia, in the kingdom
of Leon, held in 1129, decrees, in its 12th canon, exile or seclusion in a
monastery, against those who attack the clergy, monks, merchants, pilgrims, and
women. Let us pass into France; the Council of Clermont, in Auvergne, held
in 1130, pronounces, in its 13th canon, excommunication against incendiaries.
In 1157, the Council of Rheims, in the 3d canon, orders to be respected,
during war, the persons of the clergy, of monks, women, travellers, laborers,
and vine-dressers. Let us pass into Italy; the 11th Council of Lateran, a
General Council, convoked in 1179, forbids, in its 22d canon, to maltreat or
disturb monks, clergy, pilgrims, merchants, peasants, either travelling or engaged
in the labors of agriculture, and animals laboring in the fields. In its 24th
canon, the same Council excommunicates those who make slaves of, or rob,
Christians on voyages of commerce, or for other lawful purposes; those who
plunder the shipwrecked are subjected to the same penalty, unless they make
restitution. Let us go to England; there the Council of Oxford, held in 1222,
by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, forbids, by its 20th canon, any
one to have robbers in their service. In Sweden, the Council of Arbogen, held
in 1396, by Henry, Archbishop of Upsala, directs, by its 5th canon, that church-burial
shall be refused to pirates, ravishers, incendiaries, highway robbers, oppressors
of the poor, and other malefactors; so that in all parts, and at the same
periods, we see the same fact appear, viz. the Church struggling against injustice
and violence, and endeavoring to substitute in their stead the empire of law
and justice.</p>

<p>In what spirit must they read the history of the Church, who do not feel the
beauty of the picture presented to us by the multitude of regulations, scarcely
indicated here, all tending to protect the weak against the strong? The clergy
and monks, on account of the weakness consequent on their peaceful profession,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[Pg 183]</a></span>
find in the canons which we have just quoted peculiar protection; but the same
is granted to females, to pilgrims, to merchants, to villagers, travelling, or engaged
in rural labors, and to beasts of labor&mdash;in a word, to all that is weak;
and observe, that this protection is not a mere passing effort of generosity, but
a system practised in widely different places, continued for centuries, developed
and applied by all the means that charity suggests&mdash;a system inexhaustible in
resources and contrivances, both in producing good and in preventing evil. And
surely it cannot be said that the Church was influenced in this by views of self-interest:
what interested motive could she have in preventing the spoliation of
an obscure traveller, the violence inflicted on a poor laborer, or the insult offered
to a defenceless woman? The spirit which then animated her, whatever might
be the abuses which were introduced during unhappy times, was, as it now is,
the spirit of God himself&mdash;that spirit which continually communicates to her
so marked an inclination towards goodness and justice, and always urges her to
realize, by any possible means, her sublime desires. I leave the reader to judge
whether or not the constant efforts of the Church to banish the dominion of
force from the bosom of society were likely to improve manners. I now speak
only of times of peace; for I need not stay to prove that during the time of
war that influence must have had the happiest results. The <i lang="la">væ victis</i> of the
ancients has disappeared from modern history, thanks to the divine religion
which knew how to inspire man with new ideas and new feelings&mdash;thanks to the
Catholic Church, whose zeal for the redemption of captives has softened the
fierce maxims of the Romans, who, as we have seen, had considered it necessary
to take from brave men the hope of being redeemed from servitude, when by
the chances of war they had fallen into the hands of their enemies. The reader
may revert to the seventh chapter of this work, and the third paragraph of the
fifteenth note, where there are, in the original text, numerous documents that
may be quoted in support of our assertion; he will thus be better able to judge
of the gratitude which is due to the charity, disinterestedness, and indefatigable
zeal of the Catholic Church in favor of the unfortunate, who groaned in bondage
in the power of their enemies. We must also consider that, slavery once abolished,
the system was necessarily improved; for if those who surrendered could
no longer be put to death, or be kept in slavery, the only thing to be done was,
to retain them for the time necessary to prevent their doing mischief, or until
they were ransomed. Now, this is the modern system, which consists in retaining
prisoners till the end of the war, or until they are exchanged.</p>

<p>Although the amelioration of manners, as I have said above, consists, properly
speaking, in the exclusion of force, we must yet avoid considering this exclusion
of force in the abstract, and believing that such an order of things was possible,
by virtue of the mere development of mind. All is connected in this world;
it is not enough, to constitute the real improvement of manners, that they avoid
violence as much as possible; they must also be benevolent. As long as they
are not so, they will be less gentle than enervated; the use of force will not be
banished from society, but it will remain artificially disguised. It will be understood,
then, that we are obliged here to take a survey of the principle whence
European civilization has drawn the spirit of benevolence which distinguishes
it; we shall thus succeed in showing that the gentleness of our present manners
is principally owing to Catholicity. There is, besides, in the examination of the
principle of benevolence, so much importance of its own, independently of its
connection with the question which now occupies us, that we cannot avoid devoting
some pages to it, in the course of an analytical review of the elements of
our civilization.<a href="#Note_22" class="fnanchor">22</a></p>

<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[Pg 184]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXIII" id="CHAPTER_XXXIII">CHAPTER XXXIII.</a><br />

<small>ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC BENEFICENCE IN EUROPE</small>.</h2>


<p>Never will manners be perfectly gentle without the existence of public beneficence;
so that gentleness of manners and beneficence, although distinct, are
sisters. Public beneficence, properly so called, was unknown among the
ancients. Individuals might be beneficent there, but society was without compassion.
Thus, the foundation of public establishments of beneficence formed
no part of the system of administration among ancient nations. What, then,
did they do with the unfortunate? We will answer with the author of the
<cite>Génie de Christianisme</cite>, that they had no resources but infanticide and slavery.
Christianity having become predominant everywhere, we see the authority of
the Church employed in destroying the remains of cruel customs. In the year
442, the Council of Vaison, establishing a regulation for the legitimate possession
of foundlings, decrees ecclesiastical censure against those who disturb by
importunate reproaches charitable persons who have received children. The
Council adopts this measure with the view of protecting a beneficent custom;
for, adds the canon, <em>these children were exposed to be eaten by dogs</em>. There were
still found fathers unnatural enough to kill their children. The Council of
Lerida, held in 546, imposes seven years of penance on those who commit such
a crime; and that of Toledo, held in 589, forbids, in the 17th canon, parents
to commit this crime. Still, the difficulty did not consist in correcting these
excesses; crimes thus opposed to the first notions of morality&mdash;so much in
contradiction to the feelings of nature&mdash;tended to their own extirpation. The
difficulty consisted in finding proper means to organize a vast system of beneficence,
to provide constant succor, not only for children, but for old men, for the
sick, for the poor incapable of living by their own labor; in a word, for all the
necessitous. Familiarized as we are with such a system universally established,
we see nothing in it but what is simple and natural; we can hardly find any
merit in it. But let us suppose for a moment that such institutions do not
exist; let us transport ourselves to the times when there was not even the first
idea of them, what continued efforts would there not be required to establish
and organize them!</p>

<p>It is clear that by the mere extension of Christian charity in the world the
various wants of humanity must have been more frequently succored, and with
more efficacy, than they were before; and this even if we suppose that the
exercise of charity was limited to purely individual means. Assuredly, there
would always have been a great number of the faithful who would have remembered
the doctrines and example of Jesus Christ. Our Saviour did not content
Himself with teaching us by his discourses the obligation of loving our neighbor
as ourselves, nor with a barren affection, but by giving food to the hungry,
drink to the thirsty, clothes to the naked; by visiting the sick and prisoners.
He showed us in his own conduct a model of the practice of charity. He
could have shown in a thousand ways the power which belonged to Him in
heaven and on earth; his voice could have controlled all the elements, stopped
the motions of the stars, and suspended all the laws of nature; but He delighted
above all in displaying his beneficence; He only attested his divinity by miracles
which healed or consoled the unfortunate. His whole life is summed up in
the sublime simplicity of these two words of the sacred text: <em>pertransiit benefaciendo;
He went about doing good</em>.</p>

<p>Whatever good might be expected from Christian charity when left to its
own inspiration, and acting in a sphere purely individual, it was not desirable
to leave it in this state. It was necessary to realize it in permanent institutions,
and not to leave the consolation of the unfortunate to the mercy of man<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[Pg 185]</a></span>
and passing circumstances; this is the reason why there was so much wisdom
and foresight in the idea of founding establishments of beneficence. It was the
Church that conceived and executed this idea. Therein she only applied to a
particular case her general rule of conduct; which is, never to leave to the will
of individuals what can be connected with an institution: and observe, that
this is one of the causes of the strength inherent in all that belongs to Catholicity.
As the principle of authority in matters of faith preserves to her unity
and constancy therein, so the rule of intrusting every thing to institutions
secures the solidity and duration of all her works. These two principles have
an intimate connection; for if you examine them attentively, the one supposes
that she distrusts the intellect of man, the other, that she distrusts his individual
will and capacity. The one supposes that man is not sufficient of himself
to attain to, and preserve the knowledge of, certain truths; the other, that he
is so feeble and capricious, that it is unwise to leave to his weakness and inconstancy
the care of doing good. Now, neither one nor the other is injurious to
man; neither one nor the other lowers his proper dignity. The Church only
tells him, that he is, in reality, subject to error, inclined to evil, inconstant in
his designs, and very miserable in his resources. These are melancholy truths;
but the experience of every day attests them, and the Christian religion explains
them, by establishing, as a fundamental dogma, the fall of man in the person
of our first parent. Protestantism, following principles diametrically opposite,
applies the same spirit of individuality to the will as to the intelligence; it is
even the natural enemy of institutions. Without going further than our present
subject, we see that its first step, on its appearance, was to destroy what existed,
without in any way replacing it. Will it be believed that Montesquieu went so
far as to applaud this work of destruction? This is another proof of the fatal
influence exerted over minds by the pestilential atmosphere of the last century:
"Henri VIII.," says Montesquieu, "voulant réformer l'église d'Angleterre,
détruisit les moines: nation paresseuse elle-même, et qui entretenait la paresse
des autres, parceque, practiquant l'hospitalité, une infinité de gens oisifs, gentilhommes
et bourgeois, passoient leur vie à courir de couvent en couvent. <i lang="fr">Il ôta
encore les hôpitaux, où le bas peuple trouvait sa subsistence</i>, comme les gentilhommes
trouvaient la leur dans les monastères. Depuis ce changement, l'esprit
de commerce et d'industrie s'établit en Angleterre." (<cite>De l'Esprit des Lois</cite>,
liv. xxiii. chap. 19.) That Montesquieu should praise this conduct of Henry
VIII., and the destruction of monasteries, for the miserable reason, that it was
good to deprive the idle of the hospitality of the monks, is a notion which ought
not to astonish us, as such vulgar ideas were in accordance with the taste of the
philosophy which had then begun to prevail. It attempted to find profound
economical and political reasons for all that was in opposition to the institutions
of Catholicity; and this was not difficult, for a prejudiced mind always finds in
books, as well as in facts, what it seeks. We might inquire of Montesquieu,
however, what is become of the property of the monasteries? As these rich
spoils were in great part given to the same nobles who found hospitality with
the monks, we might observe to him, that it was a singular way of diminishing
the idleness of people, to give them as their own the property which they
had previously enjoyed as guests. It cannot be denied, that to take to the
houses of the nobles the property which had supported the hospitality which
the monks showed them, was certainly to save them the trouble of <em>running from
monastery to monastery</em>. But what we cannot tolerate is, to hear vaunted as a
political <i lang="fr">chef-d'œuvre</i>, the <em>suppression of the hospitals where the poor people found
their subsistence</em>. What! are these your lofty views, and is your philosophy so
devoid of compassion, that you think the destruction of the asylums of misfortune
proper means for encouraging industry and commerce? The worst of it
is, that Montesquieu, seduced by the desire of offering new and piquant obser<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[Pg 186]</a></span>vations,
goes so far as to deny the utility of hospitals, pretending that, in Rome,
they make all live in comfort except those who labor. He does not wish to
have them in rich nations or in poor ones. He supports this cruel paradox by
a reason stated in the following words: "Quand la nation est pauvre," says he,
"la pauvreté particulière dérive de la misère générale, et elle est, pour ainsi
dire, la misère générale. Tous les hôpitaux du monde ne sauraient guérir cette
pauvreté particulière; <i lang="fr">au contraire l'esprit de paresse qu'ils inspirent augmente
la pauvreté générale, et par conséquent la particulière</i>." Thus, hospitals are
represented as dangerous to poor nations, and consequently condemned. Let
us now listen to what is said of rich ones: "J'ai dit que les nations riches avaient
besoin d'hôpitaux, parceque la fortune y était sujette a mille accidents; mais
<i lang="fr">on sent que les recours passagers vaudraient bien mieux que les établissements perpétuels</i>.
Le mal est momentané; il faut donc des secours de même nature, et
qui soient applicables à l'accident particulier." (<cite>De l'Esprit des Lois</cite>, liv. xxiii.
chap. 19.) It is difficult to find any thing more empty or more false. Undoubtedly,
if we were to judge, by these passages, of the <cite>Esprit des Lois</cite>, the
merit of which has been so much exaggerated, we should be compelled to condemn
it in terms more severe than those employed by M. de Bonald, when he
called it "the most profound of superficial works." Happily for the poor, and
for the good order of society, Europe in general has not adopted these maxims;
and on this point, as on many others, prejudices against Catholicity have been
laid aside, in order to continue, with more or less modification, the system which
she taught. We find in England herself a considerable number of establishments
of beneficence; and it is not believed in that country that it is necessary,
in order to excite the activity of the poor, to expose them to the danger of dying
of hunger. We should always remember that the system of public establishments
for beneficence, now general in Europe, would not have existed without
Catholicity; indeed, we may rest assured, that if the religious schism had taken
place before the foundation and organization of this system, European society
would not now have enjoyed these establishments which do it so much honor,
and are so precious an element of good government and public tranquillity.
It is one thing to found and maintain an establishment of this kind, when a
great number of similar ones already exist,&mdash;when governments possess immense
resources, and strength sufficient to protect all interests; but it is a very
different thing to establish a multitude of them in all places, when there is no
model to be copied, when it is necessary to <em>improvise</em> in a thousand ways the
indispensable resources,&mdash;when public authority has no <em>prestige</em> or force to control
the violent passions that struggle to gain every thing that they can feed on.
Now, in modern times, since the existence of Protestantism, the first only of
these things has been done; the second was accomplished centuries before by the
Catholic Church; and let it be observed, that what has been done in Protestant
countries in favor of public beneficence, has been done by administrative acts
of the government, acts which were necessarily inspired by the view of the happy
results already obtained from similar institutions. But Protestantism, by itself,
considered as a separate Church, has done nothing, and it could do nothing; for
in all places where it preserves any thing of hierarchical organization, it is the
mere instrument of the civil power; consequently it cannot there act by its own
inspirations. Such is the vice of its constitution. Its prejudice against the
religious institutions, both of men and women, make it sterile in this respect.
Thus, indeed, it is deprived of one of the most powerful elements possessed by
Catholicity to accomplish the most arduous and laborious works of charity. For
the great works of charity, it is necessary to be free from worldly attachments
and self-love; and these qualities are found in an eminent degree in persons
who are devoted to charity in religious institutions. There they commence
with that freedom which is the root of all the rest&mdash;the absence of self-love.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[Pg 187]</a></span>
The Catholic Church has not been instigated to this by the civil power; she
has considered it as one of her own peculiar duties to provide for the unfortunate.
Her bishops have always been looked upon as the protectors and the
natural inspectors of beneficent establishments. Therefore there was a law
which placed hospitals under the charge of the bishops; and thence it comes
that that class of charitable institutions has always occupied a distinguished
place in canonical legislation. The Church, from remote times, has made laws
concerning hospitals. Thus, we see the Council of Chalcedon place under the
authority of the bishop the clergy residing in Ptochüs,&mdash;that is, as explained by
Zonarus, in the establishments destined to support and provide for the poor:
"Such," he says, "as those where orphans and the old and infirm are received
and cared for." The Council makes use of this expression, <em>according to the
tradition of the holy Fathers</em>; thereby indicating that regulations had been
made of old by the Church concerning establishments of this kind. The learned
also know what the ancient <em>diaconies</em> were,&mdash;places of charity, where poor widows,
orphans, old men, and other unfortunate persons, were received.</p>

<p>When the irruption of the barbarians had introduced everywhere the reign
of force, the possessions which hospitals already had, and those which they
afterwards gained, were exposed to unbounded rapacity. The Church did all
she could to protect them. It was forbidden to take them, under the severest
penalties; those who made the attempt were punished as murderers of the poor.
The Council of Orleans, held in 549, forbids, in its 13th canon, taking the
property of hospitals; the 15th canon of the same Council confirms the foundation
of a hospital at Lyons, a foundation due to the charity of King Childebert
and Queen Ultrogotha. The Council takes measures to secure the safety and
good management of the funds of that hospital; all violating these regulations
are anathematized as guilty of homicide of the poor.</p>

<p>We find, with respect to the poor, in very ancient Councils, regulations of
charity and police at the same time, quite similar to measures now adopted in
certain countries. For example, parishes are enjoined to make a list of their
poor, to maintain them, &amp;c. The Council of Tours, held in 566 or 567, by its
5th canon orders every town to maintain its poor; and the priests in the
country, as well as the faithful, to maintain their own, in order to prevent mendicants
from wandering about the towns and provinces. With respect to lepers,
the 21st canon of the Council of Orleans, before quoted, prescribes to bishops to
take particular care of these unfortunate beings in all dioceses, and to furnish
them with food and clothing out of the Church funds; the Council of Lyons,
held in 583, in its 6th canon ordains that the lepers of every town and territory
shall be supported at the expense of the Church under the care of the
bishop. The Church had a register of the poor, intended to regulate the distribution
which was made to them of a portion of the ecclesiastical property; it
was expressly forbidden to demand any thing from the poor for being inscribed
in this book of charity. The Council of Rheims, held in 874, in the second of
its five articles forbids receiving any thing from the poor thus inscribed, and that
under pain of deposition. Zeal for improving the condition of prisoners, a
kind of charity which has been so much displayed in modern times, is extremely
ancient in the Church. We must observe that in the sixth century there was
already an inspector of prisons; the archdeacon or the provost of the church was
obliged to visit prisoners on all Sundays; no class of criminals was excluded
from the benefit of this solicitude. The archdeacon was bound to learn their
wants, and to furnish them, by means of a person recommended by the bishop,
with food and all they stood in need of. This was ordered by the 20th canon of
the Council of Orleans, held in 549. It would be too long to enumerate even a
small part of the ordinances which attest the zeal of the Church for the comfort
and consolation of the unfortunate; besides, it would be beyond my purpose, for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[Pg 188]</a></span>
I have only undertaken to compare the spirit of Protestantism with that of
Catholicity with respect to works of charity. Yet, and as the development of
this question has naturally led me to state several historical facts, I shall allude
to the 141st canon of the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle, enjoining upon prelates to
found, according to the example of their predecessors, a hospital to receive all
the poor that the revenues of the Church were able to support. Prebendaries
were bound to give to the hospital the tenth of their fruits; one of them was
appointed to receive the poor and strangers, and to watch over the administration
of the hospital. Such was the rule of prebendaries. In the rule destined for
the canonesses, the same Council ordains that a hospital shall be established
close to the house, and that it shall itself contain a place reserved for poor
women. Therefore, were there seen, many centuries later, in various places,
hospitals near to prebendal churches. As we approach our own times, we
everywhere see innumerable institutions founded for charity. Ought we not to
admire the fruitfulness with which there arise, on all sides, as many resources as
are necessary to succour all the unfortunate? We cannot calculate with precision
what would have happened if Protestantism had not appeared, but at least
there is a conjecture authorized by reasons of analogy. If the development of
European civilization had been fully carried out under the principle of religious
unity, if the so-called Reformation had not plunged Europe into continual revolutions
and reactions, there would certainly have been produced in the bosom
of the Catholic Church some general system of beneficence, which, organized on
a grand scale and in conformity with the new progress of society, would have
been able to prevent or effectually to remedy the sore of pauperism, that cancer
of modern nations. What was not to be expected from all the intelligence and
all the resources of Europe, working in concert to obtain this great result?
Unhappily, the unity of faith was broken; authority, the proper centre, past,
present, and future, was rejected. From that time Europe, which was destined
to become a nation of brothers, was changed into a most fiercely-contested battle-field.
Hatred, engendered by religious differences, prevented any united efforts
for new arrangements; and the necessities which arose out of the bosom of the
social and political organization, which was for Europe the fruit of so many centuries
of labor, could not be provided for. Bitter disputes, rebellions, and wars
were acclimatized among us.</p>

<p>Let us remember that the Protestant schism not only prevented the union of
all the efforts of Europe to attain the end in question, but, moreover, it has been
the reason why Catholicism has not been able to act in a regular manner even in
those countries where it has preserved its complete empire, or a decided predominance.
In these countries it has been compelled to hold itself in an attitude of
defence; it has been obliged, by the attacks of its enemies, to employ a great
part of its resources in defending its own existence: it is very probably for this
reason that the state of things in Europe is entirely different from what it would
have been on a contrary supposition; and perhaps in the latter case there would
not have existed the sad necessity of exhausting itself in impotent efforts against
an evil, which, according to all appearances, and unless hitherto unknown means
can be devised, appears without remedy. I shall be told that the Church in this
case would have had an excessive authority over all that relates to charity, and
would have unjustly usurped the civil power. This is a mistake; the Church
has never claimed any thing that is not quite conformable to her indelible character
of protector of all the unfortunate. During some centuries, it is true, we
hardly hear any other voice or perceive any other action than hers, in all that
relates to beneficence; but we must observe that the civil power during that
time was very far from possessing a regular and vigorous administration, capable
of doing without the aid of the Church. The latter was so far from being actu<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[Pg 189]</a></span>ated
by any motives of ambition, that her double charge of spiritual and temporal
things imposed on her all sorts of sacrifices.</p>

<p>Three centuries have passed away since the event of which we now lament
the fatal results. Europe during this period has been submitted in great part
to the influence of Protestantism, but it has made no progress thereby. I cannot
believe that these three centuries would have passed away under the exclusive
influence of Catholicity, without producing in the bosom of Europe a degree of
charity sufficient to raise the system of beneficence to the height demanded by
the difficulties and new interests of society. If we look at the different systems
which ferment in minds devoted to the study of this grave question, we shall
always find there <em>association</em> under one form or another. Now association has
been at all times one of the favorite principles of Catholicity, which, by proclaiming
unity in faith, proclaims it also in all things; but there is this difference,
that a great number of associations which are conceived and established in our
days are nothing but an agglomeration of interests; they want unity of will and
of aim, conditions which can be obtained only by means of Christian charity.
Yet these two conditions are indispensably necessary to accomplish great works
of beneficence, if any thing else is required than a mere measure of public administration.
As to the administration itself, it is of little avail when it is not
vigorous; and unfortunately, in acquiring the necessary vigor, its action
becomes somewhat stiff and harsh. Therefore it is that Christian charity is
required, which, penetrating on all sides like a balsam, softens all that is harsh
in human action. I pity the unfortunate who in their necessities find only the
succor of the civil authorities, without the intervention of Christian charity.
In reports presented to the public, philanthropy may and will exaggerate the
care which it lavishes on the unfortunate, but things will not be so in reality.
The love of our brethren, when it is not founded on religious principle, is as
fruitful in words as it is barren in deeds. The sight of the poor, of the sick,
of impotent old age, is too disagreeable for us long to bear it, unless we are urged
to it by very powerful motives. Even much less can we hope that a vague
feeling of humanity will suffice to make us encounter, as we should, the constant
cares required to console these unfortunate beings. When Christian charity is
wanting, a good administration will no doubt enforce punctuality and exactitude&mdash;all
that can be demanded of men who receive a salary for their services: but
one thing will be wanting, which nothing can replace and money cannot buy,
viz. love. But it will be asked, have you no faith in philanthropy? No; for
as M. de Chateaubriand says, philanthropy is only the false coin of charity.
It was then perfectly reasonable that the Church should have a direct influence
in all branches of beneficence, for she knew better than any others how to make
Christian charity active, by applying it to all kinds of necessities and miseries.
Therein she did not gratify her ambition, but found food for her zeal; she did
not claim a privilege, but exerted a right. In fine, if you will persevere in
calling such a desire ambition, you cannot deny at least that it was ambition of
a new kind. An ambition truly worthy of glory and reward, is that which
claims the right of succoring and consoling the unfortunate.<a href="#Note_23" class="fnanchor">23</a></p>




<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXIV" id="CHAPTER_XXXIV">CHAPTER XXXIV.</a><br />

<small>ON TOLERATION IN RELIGIOUS MATTERS</small>.</h2>


<p>The question of the improvement of manners, treated in the preceding chapters,
naturally leads me to another, sufficiently thorny in itself, and rendered
still more so by innumerable prejudices. I allude to toleration in matters of
religion. The word Catholicity, to certain persons, is the synonyme of intole<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[Pg 190]</a></span>rance;
and the confusion of ideas on this point has become such, that no more
laborious task can be undertaken than to clear them up. It is only necessary
to pronounce the word intolerance, to raise in the minds of some people all
sorts of black and horrible ideas. Legislation, institutions, and men of past
times, all are condemned without appeal, the moment there is seen the slightest
appearance of intolerance. More than one cause contributes to this universal
prejudice. Yet, if called upon to point out the principal one, we would repeat
the profound maxim of Cato, who, when accused at the age of eighty-six of
certain offences of his past life, committed at times long gone by, said, "It is
difficult to render an account of one's own conduct to men belonging to an age
different from that in which one has lived." There are some things of which
one cannot accurately judge without, not only a knowledge of them, but also a
complete appreciation of the times when they occurred. How many men are
capable of attaining to this? There are few who are able to succeed in freeing
their minds from the influence of the atmosphere which surrounds them; but
there are fewer still who can do the same with their hearts. The age in which
we live is precisely the reverse of the ages of intolerance; and this is the first
difficulty which meets us in discussing questions of this kind. The prejudice
and bad faith of some who have applied themselves to this subject, have contributed
also in a considerable degree to erroneous opinions. There is nothing in
the world which cannot be undervalued by showing only one side of it; for thus
considered, all things are false, or rather are not themselves. All bodies have
three dimensions; only to look at one is not to form an idea of the body itself,
but of a quantity very different from it. Take any institution, the most just
and useful that can be imagined, then all the inconveniences and evils which it
has caused, taking care to bring together into a few pages what in reality was
spread over a great many ages; then your history will be disgusting, hideous,
and worthy of execration. Let a partisan of democracy describe to you in a
narrow compass, and by means of historical facts, all the inconveniences and
evils of monarchy, the vices and the crimes of kings; how will monarchy then
appear to you? But let a partisan of monarchy paint to you, in his turn, by the
same method of historical facts, democracy and demagogues; and what will you
then think of democracy? Assemble in one picture all the evils occasioned to
nations by a high degree of development of the social state; civilization and
refinement will then appear detestable. By seeking and selecting in the annals
of the human mind certain traits, the history of science may be made the history
of folly, and even of crime. By heaping together the fatal accidents that
have occurred to masters of the healing art, their beneficent profession may be
represented as a career of homicide. In a word, every thing may be falsified
by proceeding in this way. God himself would appear to us as a monster of
cruelty and tyranny, if, taking away his goodness, wisdom, and justice, we only
attended to the evils which we see in a world created by his power and governed
by his providence.</p>

<p>Having laid down these principles, let us apply them. The spirit of the
age, particular circumstances, and an order of things quite different from ours,
are all forgotten, and the history of the religious intolerance of Catholics is
composed by taking care to condense into a few pages, and paint in the blackest
colours, the severity of Ferdinand and Isabella, of Philip II., of Mary of England,
of Louis XIV., and every thing of the kind that occurred during three
centuries. The reader who receives, almost at the same moment, the impression
of events which occurred during a period of three hundred years,&mdash;the
reader, accustomed to live in society where prisons are being converted into
houses of recreation, and where the punishment of death is vigorously opposed,
can he behold the appearance of darksome dungeons, the instruments of punishment,
the <i lang="es">san-benitos</i> and scaffolds, without being deeply moved? He will be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[Pg 191]</a></span>wail
the unfortunate lot of those who perish; he will be indignant against the
authors of what he calls horrible atrocities. Nothing has been said to this candid
reader of the principles and conduct of Protestants at the same time; he
has not been reminded of the cruelty of Henry VIII. and of Elizabeth of England.
Thus all his hatred is directed against Catholics, and he is accustomed
to regard Catholicity as a religion of tyranny and blood. But will a judgment
thus formed be just? Will this be a sentence passed with a full knowledge of
the cause? What would impartiality direct us to do, if we met with a dark
picture, painted in the way we have described, of monarchy, democracy, or
civilization, of science, or of the healing art? What we should do, or rather
what we ought to do, is to extend our view further, to examine the subject in
its different phases; to inquire into its good as well as its evil: this would be
to look upon these evils as they really are, that is, spread at great distances
over the course of centuries; this would weaken the impression they had made
upon us: in a word, we should thus be just, we should take the balance in hand
to weigh the good and evil, to compare the one with the other, as we ought
always to do when we have duly to appreciate things in the history of humanity.
In the case in question, we should act in the same way, in order to provide
against the error into which we may be led by the false statements and exaggerations
of certain men, whose evident intention it has been to falsify facts by
representing only one side of them. The Inquisition no longer exists, and assuredly
there is no probability of its being re-established; the severe laws in
force on this matter in former times no longer exist; they are either abrogated
or they are fallen into desuetude: no one, therefore, has an interest in representing
this institution in a false point of view. It may be imagined that some
men had an interest in this while they were engaged in destroying their ancient
laws, but that once attained, the Inquisition and its laws are become a historical
fact, which ought to be examined here with attention and impartiality.
We have here two questions, that of principle, and that of its application; in
other words, that of intolerance, and that of the manner of showing it. We
must not confound these two things, which, although very closely connected,
are very different. I shall begin with the first.</p>

<p>The principle of universal toleration is now proclaimed, and all kind of intolerance
is condemned without appeal. But who takes care to examine the
real meaning of these words? who undertakes to analyze the ideas which they
contain by the light of reason, and explain them by means of history and experience?
Very few. They are pronounced mechanically; they are constantly
employed to establish propositions of the highest importance, without even the
suspicion that they contain ideas, the right or wrong comprehension and application
of which is every thing for the preservation of society. Few persons
consider that these words include questions as profound as they are delicate,
and the whole of a large portion of history; very few observe that, according
to one solution given to the problem of toleration, all the past is condemned,
and all the present overturned; nothing is left thereby to build on for the
future but a moving bed of sand. Certainly, the most convenient way in such
a case is, to adopt and employ these words such as we already find them in circulation,
in the same way as we take and circulate the current coin, without
considering whether it be composed of alloy or not. But what is the most convenient
is not always the most useful; and, as when receiving coins of value,
we carefully examine them, so we ought to weigh words the meaning of which
is of such paramount importance. Toleration&mdash;what is the meaning of this
word? It means, properly speaking, the patience with which we suffer a thing
which we judge to be bad, but which we think it desirable not to punish. Thus,
some kinds of scandals are tolerated; prostitutes are tolerated; such and such
abuses are tolerated; so that the idea of toleration is always accompanied by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[Pg 192]</a></span>
the idea of evil. When toleration is exercised in the order of ideas, it always
supposes a misunderstanding, or error. No one will say that he tolerates the
truth. We have an observation to make here. The phrase <em>to tolerate opinions</em>
is commonly used: now, opinion is very different from error. At first sight,
the difficulty appears great; but if we examine the thing well, we shall be able
to explain it. When we say that we tolerate an opinion, we always mean an
opinion contrary to our own. In this case, the opinion of another is, according
to us, an error; for it is impossible to have an opinion on any point whatever&mdash;that
is, to think that a thing is or is not, is in one way or in another&mdash;without
thinking at the same time that those who judge otherwise are deceived. If our
opinion is only an opinion&mdash;that is, if our judgment, although based on reasons
which appear to us to be good, has not attained to a degree of complete certainty&mdash;our
judgment of another will be only a mere opinion; but if our conviction
has become completely established and confirmed&mdash;that is, if it has
attained to certainty&mdash;we shall be sure that those who form a judgment opposed
to ours are deceived. Thence it follows, that the word toleration, applied to
opinions, always means the toleration of an error. He who says, yes, thinks
no is false; and he who says, no, thinks yes is a mistake. This is only an application
of the well-known principle, <em>that it is impossible for the same thing to
be and not to be at the same time</em>. But, we shall be asked, What do you mean
when you use these words, 'to respect opinions?' is it always understood that
we respect errors? No; for these words can have two different and equally
reasonable meanings. The first is founded on the feebleness of the conviction
of the person from whom the respect comes. When on any particular point
we have only just formed an opinion, it is understood that we have not reached
certainty; consequently, we know that there are reasons on the other side. In
this sense, we may well say that we respect the opinions of others: we express
thereby our conviction that it is possible that we are deceived&mdash;that it is possible
the truth is not on our side. In the second meaning, to respect opinions is
to respect, sometimes those who profess them, sometimes their good faith, sometimes
their intentions. Thus, when we say that we respect prejudices, it is
clear that we do not mean a real respect professed in this place. We see thus,
that the expression 'to respect the opinions of others' has a very different meaning,
according as the person from whom the respect comes has or has not assured
convictions in the contrary sense.</p>

<p>In order the better to understand what toleration is, what its origin and its
effects, it is necessary, before we examine it in society, to reduce it to its simplest
element. Let us analyze toleration considered in the individual. An
individual is called tolerant, when he is habitually in a disposition of mind to
bear without irritation or disturbance opinions contrary to his own. This toleration
will bear different names, according to the different matters to which it
relates. In religious matters, tolerance as well as intolerance may be found in
those who have religion as well as in those who have none; so that neither of
these situations, with respect to religion, necessarily implies the one or the other.
Some people imagine that tolerance is peculiar to the incredulous, and intolerance
to the religious; but they are mistaken. Who is more tolerant than St.
Francis de Sales? who more intolerant than Voltaire?</p>

<p>Tolerance in religious men&mdash;that tolerance which does not come from want
of faith, and which is not inconsistent with an ardent zeal for the preservation
and propagation of the faith&mdash;is born of two principles, charity and humility.
Charity, which makes us love all men, even our greatest enemies; charity,
which inspires us with compassion for their faults and errors, and obliges us to
regard them as brothers, to employ all the means in our power to withdraw them
from being fatally deceived; charity, which forbids us ever to regard them as
deprived of the hope of salvation as long as they live. Rousseau has said, that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[Pg 193]</a></span>
"it is impossible to live in peace with those that one believes to be damned."
We do not, and we cannot, believe in the condemnation of any man as long as
he lives; however great may be his iniquity, the mercy of God and the value
of the blood of Jesus Christ are still greater. We are so far from thinking
with the philosopher of Geneva, "that to love such people would be to hate
God," that no one could maintain such a doctrine among us without ceasing to
belong to our faith. The other source of tolerance is Christian humility: humility,
which inspires us with a profound sense of our weakness, and makes us
consider all that we have as given by God; humility, which makes us consider
our advantages over our neighbor as so many more powerful motives for acknowledging
the liberality of Providence; humility, which, placing before our eyes
the spectacle of humanity in its proper light, makes us regard ourselves and all
others as members of the great family of the human race, fallen from its ancient
dignity by the sin of our first parent; humility, which shows us the perverse
inclinations of our hearts, the darkness of our minds, and the claims which
man has to pity and indulgence in his faults and errors; humility, that virtue
sublime even in its abasement. "If humility is so pleasing to God," is the
admirable observation of St. Theresa, "it is because it is the truth." This is the
virtue which renders us indulgent towards all men, by never allowing us to forget
that we ourselves, perhaps, more than any others, have need of indulgence.</p>

<p>Yet for a man to be tolerant, in the full extent of the word, it is not enough
for him to be humble and charitable; this is a truth which experience teaches
and reason explains to us. In order perfectly to clear up a point, the obscurity
of which produces the confusion which almost always prevails in these questions,
let us make a comparison between two men equally religious, whose principles
are the same, but whose conduct is very different. Let us suppose two
priests both distinguished for learning and eminent virtue. The one has passed
his life in retirement, surrounded by pious persons, and having no intercourse
with any but Catholics: the other has been a missionary in countries where
different religions are established, he has been obliged to live and converse with
men of creeds different from his own; he has been under the necessity of witnessing
the establishment of temples of a false religion close to those of the
true one. The principles of Christian charity will be the same with both these
priests; both will look upon faith as a gift of God, which he has received, and
must preserve; their conduct, however, will be very different, if they meet with
a man of a faith different from their own, or of none at all. The first, who,
never having had intercourse with any but the faithful, has always heard religion
spoken of with respect, will be horrified, will be indignant, at the first
word he shall hear against the faith or ceremonies of the Church; it will be
impossible, or nearly so, for him to remain calm during a conversation or discussion
on the question: the second, accustomed to such things, to hear his
faith impugned, to dispute with men of creeds opposed to his own, will remain
tranquil; he will engage in a discussion with coolness, if it be necessary; he
will skilfully avoid one, if prudence shall advise such a course. Whence comes
this difference? It is not difficult to discover. The second of these priests,
by intercourse with men, by experience, by contradiction, has obtained a clear
notion of the real condition of men's minds in the world; he is aware of the
fatal combination of circumstances which has led a great number of unfortunate
persons into error, and keeps them there; he knows how, in some measure, to
put himself in their place; and the more lively is his sense of the benefit conferred
upon him by Providence, the more mild and indulgent he is towards
others. The other may be as virtuous, as charitable, and as humble as you
please; but how can you expect of him that he will not be deeply moved, and
give utterance to his indignation, the first time that he hears that denied which
he has always believed with the most lively faith? He has up to this time met<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[Pg 194]</a></span>
with no opposition in the world, but a few arguments in books. Certainly he
was not ignorant that there existed heretics and unbelievers, but he has not
frequently met with them, he has not heard them state their hundred different
systems, and he has not witnessed the erroneous creeds of men of all sorts, of
different characters, and the most varied minds; the lively susceptibility of his
mind, which has never met with resistance, has not been blunted; for this
reason, although endowed with the same virtues, and, if you will, with the same
knowledge as the other, he has not acquired that penetration, that vivacity, so
to speak, with which a man of practised intellect enters into the minds of those
with whom he has to deal, discerns the reasons, seizes the motives which blind
them and hinder them from obtaining a knowledge of the truth.</p>

<p>Thus tolerance, in a person who is religious, supposes a certain degree of
gentleness of mind, the fruit of intercourse with men, and the habits thereby
engendered; yet this quality is consistent with the deepest conviction, and the
purest and most ardent zeal for the propagation of the truth. In the moral, as
in the physical world, friction polishes, use wears away, and nothing can remain
for a long time in an attitude of violence. A man will be indignant, once,
twice, a hundred times, when he hears his manner of thinking attacked; but
it is impossible for him to remain so always; he will, in the end, become accustomed
to opposition; he will, by habit, bear it calmly. However sacred
may be his articles of belief, he will content himself with defending and putting
them forward at convenient opportunities; in all other cases, he will keep them
in the bottom of his soul, as a treasure which he is desirous to preserve from
any thing that may injure them. Tolerance, then, does not suppose any new
principles in a man, but rather a quality acquired by practice; a disposition of
mind, into which a man finds himself insensibly led; a habit of patience,
formed in him by constantly having to bear with what he disapproves of.</p>

<p>Now, if we consider tolerance in men who are not religious, we shall observe
that there are two ways of being irreligious. There are men who not only have
no religion, but who have an animosity against it, either on account of some
fatal error they entertain, or because they find it an obstacle to their designs.
These men are extremely intolerant; and their intolerance is the worst of all,
because it is not accompanied by any moral principle which can restrain it. A
man thus circumstanced feels himself, as it were, continually at war with himself
and the human race; with himself, because he must stifle the cries of his
own conscience: with the human race, because all protest against the mad doctrine
that pretends to banish the worship of God from the earth. Therefore
we find among men of this kind much rancor and spleen; therefore their
words are full of gall; therefore they have constantly recourse to raillery,
insult, and calumny.</p>

<p>But there is another class of men who, although devoid of religion, are not
strongly prejudiced against the faith. They live in a kind of skepticism, into
which the reading of bad books, or the observations of a superficial and frivolous
philosophy, have led them; they are not attached to religion, but they are
not its enemies. Many of them acknowledge the importance of religion for the
good of society, and some of them even feel within themselves a certain desire
to return to the faith; in their moments of recollection and meditation, they
remember with pleasure the days when they offered to God an obedient spirit
and a pure heart; and at the sight of the rapid course of life, they perhaps love
to cherish the hope of becoming reconciled with the God of their fathers, before
they descend into the grave. These men are tolerant; but, if carefully
examined, their tolerance is not a principle or a virtue, it is only a necessity
resulting from their position. It is difficult to be indignant at the opinions of
others, when we have none of our own&mdash;when, consequently, we do not come
into collision with any. It is difficult to be violently opposed to religion, when<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[Pg 195]</a></span>
we consider it as a thing necessary for the welfare of society; there can be no
hatred or rancor towards faith in a soul which desires its mercy, and which,
perhaps, fixes its eyes upon it as the last beam of hope amid the terrors of an
alarming future. Tolerance, in this case, is nothing strange; it is natural and
necessary. Intolerance would be inconceivable and extravagant, and could
arise only from a bad heart.</p>

<p>In applying these remarks to society instead of individuals, it must be observed
that tolerance, as well as intolerance, may be considered in government,
or in society. It sometimes happens that government and society are not
agreed; while the former maintains one principle, the reverse may prevail in
the latter. As governments are composed of a limited number of individuals,
all that has been said of tolerance, considered individually, may be applied to
them. Let us not forget, however, that men placed in authority are not free to
give themselves up without limit to the impulses of their own opinions or feelings;
they are often forced to immolate their own feelings on the altar of public
opinion. They may, owing to peculiar circumstances, oppose or impede that
opinion for a time; but it will soon stop them, and force them to change their
course.</p>

<p>As sooner or later government becomes the expression of the ideas and feelings
of society, we shall content ourselves with considering tolerance in the latter;
we shall observe that society, with respect to tolerance, follows the same
path as individuals. This is with it not the effect of a principle, but of a habit.
Men of different creeds, who live together for a long time in the same society,
end by tolerating each other; they are led to this by growing weary of collision
with each other, and by the wish for a kind of life more quiet and peaceful.
But when men, thus divided in creed, find themselves face to face for the first
time, a shock more or less rude is the inevitable result. The causes of this
phenomenon are to be found in human nature itself; it is one of those necessities
against which we struggle in vain.</p>

<p>Some modern philosophers have imagined that society is indebted to them for
the spirit of toleration which prevails there; they have not seen that it is much
rather a fact slowly brought about by the force of circumstances, than it is the
fruit of their doctrines. Indeed, what have they said that is new? They have
recommended universal fraternity; but this has always been one of the doctrines
of Christianity. They have exhorted men of all the different religions to live
in peace together; but before they had opened their mouths to tell them this,
men began to adopt this course in many countries of Europe; for, unhappily,
religions in many countries were so numerous and different, that none of them
could pretend to exclusive dominion. It is true that some infidel, philosophers
have a claim, and a deplorable one, in support of their pretensions with respect
to the development of toleration; it is, that, by their efforts to disseminate infidelity
and skepticism, they have succeeded in making general, in nations and
governments, that false toleration which has nothing virtuous, but is indifference
with respect to all religions. Indeed, why is tolerance so general in our age?
or, rather, in what does our tolerance consist? If you observe well, you will
find that it is nothing but the result of a social condition perfectly similar to
that of the individual who has no creed, but who does not hate creeds, because
he considers them as conducive to the public good, and cherishes a vague hope
of one day finding a last asylum therein. All that is good in this is in no degree
owing to the infidel philosophers, but may rather be said to be a protest against
them. Indeed, when they could not obtain the supreme command, they lavished
calumnies and sarcasms on all that is most sacred in heaven and on earth; and,
when they did raise themselves to power, they overturned with indescribable
fury all that existed, and destroyed millions of victims in exile or on the scaffolds.
The multitude of religions,&mdash;infidelity, indifference, the improvement<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[Pg 196]</a></span>
of manners, the lassitude produced by wars,&mdash;industrial and commercial organization,
which every day becomes more powerful in society,&mdash;communication
rendered more frequent among men by means of travelling,&mdash;the diffusion of
ideas by the press;&mdash;such are the causes which have produced in Europe that
universal tolerance which has taken possession of all, and has been established
in fact when it could not by law. These causes, as it is easy to observe, are of
different kinds; no doctrine can pretend to an exclusive influence; they are the
result of a thousand different influences, which act simultaneously on the development
of civilization.<a href="#Note_24" class="fnanchor">24</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXV" id="CHAPTER_XXXV">CHAPTER XXXV.</a><br />

<small>ON THE RIGHT OF COERCION IN GENERAL</small>.</h2>


<p>How much, during the last century, was said against intolerance! A philosophy
less superficial than that which then prevailed would have reflected a little
more on a fact which may be appreciated in different ways, but the existence
of which cannot be denied. In Greece, Socrates died drinking hemlock. Rome,
whose tolerance has been so much vaunted, tolerated, indeed, foreign gods; but
these were only foreign in name, since they formed a part of that system of
pantheism which was the foundation of the Roman religion; gods, who, in order
to be declared gods of Rome, only needed the mere formality, as it were, of receiving
the name of citizens. But Rome did not admit the gods of Egypt any
more than the Jewish or Christian religion. She had, no doubt, many false
ideas with respect to these religions; but she was sufficiently acquainted with
them to know that they were essentially different from her own. The history
of the Pagan emperors is the history of the persecution of the Church; as soon
as they became Christians, a system of penal legislation was commenced against
those who differed from the religion of the state. In subsequent centuries,
intolerance continued under various forms; it has been perpetuated down to our
times, and we are not so free from it as some would wish to make us believe.
The emancipation of Catholics in England is but of recent date; the violent
disputes of the Prussian government with the Pope, on the subject of certain
arbitrary acts of that government against the Catholic religion, are of yesterday;
the question of Argau, in Switzerland, is still pending; and the persecution
of Catholicity by the Russian government is pursued in as scandalous a manner
as at any former period. Thus it is with religious sects. As to the toleration
of the <em>humane</em> philosophers of the 18th century, it was exemplified in Robespierre.</p>

<p>Every government professing a religion is more or less intolerant towards
those which it does not profess; and this intolerance is diminished or destroyed,
only when the professors of the obnoxious religions are either feared on account
of their great power, or despised on account of their weakness. Apply to all
times and countries the rule which we have just laid down, you will everywhere
find it exact; it is an abridgment of the history of governments in their relations
with religions. The Protestant government of England has always been
intolerant toward Catholics; and it will continue to be so, more or less, according
to circumstances. The governments of Russia and Prussia will continue to
act as they have done up to this time, with the exception of modifications
required by difference of times; in the same way, in countries where Catholicity
prevails, the exercise of the Protestant worship will always be more or
less interfered with. I shall be told of the instance of France as a proof of the
contrary; in that country, where the immense majority profess the Catholic
religion, other worships are allowed, without any disposition on the part of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[Pg 197]</a></span>
state to disturb them. This toleration will perhaps be attributed to public
opinion; it comes, I think, from this, that no fixed principle prevails there in
the government: all the policy of France, internal and external, is a constant
compromise to get out of difficulties in the best possible way. This is shown
by facts; it appears from the well-known opinions of the small number of men
who, for some years, have ruled the destinies of France. It has been attempted
to establish in principle universal toleration, and refuse to government the right
of violating consciences in religious matters; nevertheless, in spite of all that
has been said, philosophers have not been able to make a very clear exposition
of their principle, still less have they been able to procure its general adoption
as a system in the government of states. In order to show that the thing is not
quite so simple as has been supposed, I will beg leave to ask a few questions of
these <i lang="fr">soi-disant</i> philosophers. If a religion which required human sacrifices
were established in your country, would you tolerate it? No. And why?
Because we cannot tolerate such a crime. But then you will be intolerant;
you will violate the consciences of others, by proscribing, as a crime, what in
their eyes is a homage to the Divinity. Thus thought many nations of old, and
so think some now. By what right do you make your conscience prevail over
theirs?&mdash;It matters not; we shall be intolerant, but our intolerance will be for
the good of humanity.&mdash;I applaud your conduct; but you cannot deny that it
is a case in which intolerance with respect to a religion appears to you a right
and a duty. Still further: if you proscribe the exercise of this atrocious worship,
would you allow the doctrine to be taught which preaches as holy and salutary
the practice of human sacrifices? No; for that would be permitting the
teaching of murder. Very well, but you must acknowledge that this is a doctrine
with respect to which you have a right to be, and are obliged to be, intolerant.
Let us pursue our subject. You are aware, no doubt, of the sacrifices
offered in antiquity to the goddess of Love, and the infamous worship which
was paid to her in the temples of Babylon and Corinth. If such a worship
reappeared among you, would you tolerate it? No; for it is contrary to the
sacred laws of modesty. Would you allow the doctrine on which it was based
to be taught? No; for the same reason. This, then, is another case in which
you believe you have the right and the obligation to violate the consciences of
others; and the only reason you can assign for it is, that you are compelled to
do so by your own conscience. Moreover, suppose that some men, over-excited
by reading the Bible, desired to establish a new Christianity, in imitation of
Mathew of Haarlem or John of Leyden; suppose that these sectaries began to
propagate their doctrines, to assemble together in bodies, and that their fanatical
declamation seduced a portion of the people, would you tolerate this new
religion? No; for these men might renew the bloody scenes of Germany in
the 16th century, when, in the name of God, and to fulfil, as they said, the
order of the Most High, the Anabaptists invaded all property, destroyed all
existing power, and spread everywhere desolation and death. This would be
to act with as much justice as prudence; but you cannot deny that you would
thereby commit an act of intolerance. What, then, becomes of universal toleration,
that principle so evident, so predominant, if you are compelled at every
step to limit, and I will say more, to lay it aside, and act in a way diametrically
opposite to it? You will say that the security of the state, the good order of
society, and public morality compel you to act in this way. But then, what
sort of a principle is it that, in certain cases, is in opposition to the interests of
morality and to society, and to the safety of the state? Do you think that the
men against whom you declaim did not intend also to protect these interests,
by acting with that intolerance which is so revolting to you?</p>

<p>It has been acknowledged at all times and in all countries, as an incontestable
principle, that the public authority has, in certain cases, the right of prohibiting<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[Pg 198]</a></span>
certain acts, in violation of the consciences of individuals who claim the right of
performing them. If the constant testimony of history were not enough, at
least the dialogue which we have just held ought to convince us of this truth;
we have seen that the most ardent advocates of tolerance may well be compelled,
in certain cases, to be intolerant. They would be obliged to be so in the name
of humanity, of modesty, of public order; universal toleration, then, with respect
to doctrines and religions&mdash;that toleration which is proclaimed as the duty of
every government&mdash;is an error; it is a theory which cannot be put in practice.
We have clearly shown that intolerance has always been, and still is, a principle
recognised by all governments, and the application of which, more or less
indulgent or severe, depends on circumstances, and above all, on the particular
point of view in which the government considers things.</p>

<p>A great question of right now presents itself&mdash;a question which seems, at first
sight, to require to be solved by condemning all intolerance, both with respect to
doctrines and acts; but which, when thoroughly examined, leads to a very different
result. If we grant that the mind is incapable of completely removing the difficulty
by means of direct reasoning, it is not the less certain that indirect means,
and the reasoning called <i lang="la">ad absurdum</i>, are here sufficient to show us the truth,
at least as far as it is necessary for us to know it as a guide for human prudence,
always uncertain. The question is this: "By what right do you hinder a man
from professing a doctrine, and acting in conformity with it, if he is convinced
that it is true, and that he only fulfils his duty, or exercises a right, by acting
as it prescribes?" In order to prevent the prohibition being vain and ridiculous,
there must be a penalty attached to it; now, if you inflict this penalty,
you punish a man who, according to his own conscience, is innocent. Punishment
by the hand of justice supposes culpability; and no one is culpable without
being so first in his conscience. Culpability has its root in the conscience;
and we cannot be responsible for the violation of a law, unless that law has addressed
us through our conscience. If our conscience tells us that an action
is bad, we cannot perform it, whatever may be the injunctions of the law which
prescribes it; on the contrary, if conscience tells us that an action is a duty, we
cannot omit it, whatever may be the prohibitions of the law. This is, in a few
words, and in all its force, the whole argument that can be alleged against intolerance
in regard to doctrines and facts emanating from them. Let us now see
what is the real value of these observations, apparently so conclusive.</p>

<p>It is apparent that the admission of this principle would render impossible
the punishment of any political crime. Brutus, when plunging his dagger into
the heart of Cæsar; Jacques Clement, when he assassinated Henry III., acted,
no doubt, under the influence of an excitement of mind, which made them view
their attempts as deeds of heroism; and yet, if they had both been brought before
a tribunal, would you have thought them entitled to impunity&mdash;the one on
account of his love of country, and the other on account of his zeal for religion?
Most political crimes are committed under a conviction of doing well; and I do
not speak merely of those times of trouble, when men of parties the most opposed
are fully persuaded that they have right on their side. Conspiracies contrived
against governments in times of peace are generally the work of some
individuals who look upon them as illegal and tyrannical; when working to
overthrow them, they are acting in conformity with their own principles.
Judges punish them justly when they inflict on them the penalties appointed
by legislators; and yet, neither legislators when they decree the penalty, nor
the judges when they inflict it, are, or can be, ignorant of the condition of
mind of the delinquent who has violated the law. It may be said, that compassion
and indulgence with respect to political crimes increase every day, for these
reasons. I shall reply, that if we lay down the principle that human justice
has not the right to punish, when the delinquent acts according to his convic<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[Pg 199]</a></span>tion,
we must not only mitigate our punishments, but even abolish them. In
this case, capital punishment would be a real murder, a fine a robbery, and other
penalties so many acts of violence. I shall remark in passing, that it is not
true that severity towards political crimes diminishes as much as it is said to
do; the history of Europe of late years affords us some proofs to the contrary.
We do not now see those cruel punishments which were in use at other times;
but that is not owing to the conscience of the criminal being considered by the
judge, but to the improvement of manners, which, being everywhere diffused,
has necessarily influenced penal legislation. It is extraordinary that so much
severity has been preserved in laws relating to political crimes, when so great a
number of legislators among the different nations of Europe knew well that they
themselves, at other times, had committed the same crimes. And there is no
doubt that more than one man, in the discussion of certain penal laws, has
inclined to indulgence, from the presentiment that these very laws might one
day apply to himself. The impunity of political crimes would bring about the
subversion of social order, by rendering all government impossible. Without
dwelling longer on the fatal results which this doctrine would have, let us observe,
that the benefit of impunity in favor of the illusions of conscience would
not be due to political crimes alone, but would be applicable also to those of an
ordinary kind. Offences against property are crimes of this nature; and yet
we know that many at former periods regarded, and that unfortunately some
still regard, property as a usurpation and an injustice. Offences against the
sanctity of marriage are ordinarily considered crimes; and yet have there not
been sects in whose sight marriage was unlawful, and others who have desired,
and still desire, a community of women? The sacred laws of modesty and
respect for innocence have alike been regarded by some sects as an unjust
infringement of the liberty of man; to violate these laws, therefore, was a
meritorious action. At the time when the mistaken ideas and blind fanaticism
of the men who professed these principles were undoubted, would any one have
been found to deny the justice of the chastisement which was inflicted on them
when, in pursuance of their doctrines, they committed a crime, or even when
they had the audacity to diffuse their fatal maxims in society?</p>

<p>If it were unjust to punish the criminal for acting according to his conscience,
all imaginable crimes would be permitted to the atheist, the fatalist, the disciple
of the doctrine of private interest; for by destroying, as they do, the basis of
all morality, these men do not act against their consciences; they have none.
If such an argument were to hold good, how often would we have reason to
charge tribunals with injustice, when they inflict any punishment on men of
this class. By what right, we would say to magistrates, do you punish this
man, who, not admitting the existence of God, does not acknowledge himself
culpable in his own eyes, or consequently in yours? You have made a law, by
virtue of which you punish him; but this law has no power over the conscience
of this man, for you are his equals; and he does not acknowledge the existence
of any superior, to give you the power of controlling his liberty. By what right
do you punish another, who is convinced that all his actions are the effect of necessary
causes, that free-will is a chimera, and who, in the action which you charge
on him as a crime, believes that he had no more power of restraining himself
than the wild beast, when he throws himself upon the prey before his eyes, or
upon any other animal that excites his fury? With what justice do you punish
him, who is persuaded that all morality is a lie; that there is no other principle
than individual interest; that good and evil are nothing but this interest, well
or ill understood? If you make him undergo any punishment, it will not be
because he is culpable in his own conscience; you will punish him for being
deceived in his calculation, for having ill-understood the probable result of the
action which he was about to commit. Such are the necessary and inevitable<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[Pg 200]</a></span>
deductions from the doctrine, which refuses to the public authority the power of
punishing crimes committed in consequence of an error of the mind.</p>

<p>But I shall be told that the right of punishment only extends to actions, and
not to doctrines; that actions ought to be subject to the law, but that doctrines
are entitled to unbounded liberty. Do you mean doctrines shut up in the mind
and not outwardly manifested? It is clear that not only the right, but also the
possibility of punishing them is wanting, for God alone can tell the secrets of
the heart of man. If avowed doctrines are meant, then the principle is false;
and we have just shown that those who maintain it in theory, find it impossible
to reduce it to practice. In fine, we shall be told that, however absurd in its
results may be the doctrine which we have been combating, it is still impossible
to justify the punishment of an action which was ordered or authorized by the
conscience of the man who committed it. How is this difficulty to be solved?
How is this great obstacle to be removed? Is it lawful in any case to treat as
culpable the man who is not so at the tribunal of his own conscience?</p>

<p>Although this question seems entirely to turn upon some point on which men
of all opinions are agreed, there is nevertheless a wide difference in this respect
between Catholics on one side and unbelievers and Protestants on the other.
The first lay it down as an incontestable principle, <em>that there are errors of the
understanding which are faults</em>; the others, on the contrary, think, <em>that all
errors of the understanding are innocent</em>. The first consider error in regard to
great moral and religious truths, as one of the gravest offences which man can
commit against God; their opponents look upon errors of this kind with great
indulgence, and they ought to do so in order to be consistent. Catholics admit
the possibility of invincible ignorance with respect to some very important
truths; but with them this possibility is limited to certain circumstances, out of
which they declare man to be culpable: their opponents constantly extol liberty
of thought, without any other restriction than that imposed by the taste of each
one in particular; they constantly affirm that man is free to hold the opinions
which he thinks proper; they have gone so far as to persuade their followers
that there are no culpable errors or opinions, that man is not obliged to search
into the secret recesses of his soul, to make sure that there are no secret causes
which induce him to reject the truth; they have in the end monstrously confounded
physical with moral liberty of thought; they have banished from
opinions the ideas of lawful and unlawful, and have given men to understand
that such ideas are not applicable to thought. That is to say, in the order of
ideas, they have confounded right with fact, declaring, in this respect, the uselessness
and incompetency of all laws, divine and human. Senseless men! as
if it were possible for that which is most noble and elevated in human nature
to be exempt from all rule; as if it were possible for the element which makes
man the king of the creation, to be exempted from concurring in the ineffable
harmony of all parts of the universe with themselves and with God; as if this
harmony could exist, or even be conceived in man, unless it were declared to be
the first of human obligations to adhere constantly to truth.</p>

<p>This is one of the profound reasons which justify the Catholic Church, when
she considers the sin of heresy as one of the greatest that man can commit.
You, who smile, with pity and contempt at these words, <em>the sin of heresy</em>; you,
who consider this doctrine as the invention of priests to rule over consciences,
by retrenching the liberty of thought; by what right do you claim the power
of condemning heresies which are opposed to your orthodoxy? By what right
do you condemn those societies that profess opinions hostile to property, public
order, and the existence of authority? If the thought of man is free, if you
cannot attempt to restrain it without violating sacred rights, if it is an absurdity
and a contradiction to wish to oblige a man to act against his conscience, or disobey
its dictates&mdash;why do you interfere with those men who desire to destroy<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[Pg 201]</a></span>
the existing state of society? Why baffle, why oppose those dark conspiracies,
which, from time to time, send one of their members to assassinate a king?
You invoke your convictions to declare unjust and cruel the intolerance which
has been practised at certain times against your enemies; but you must remember
that such societies and such men can also invoke their convictions. You
say that the doctrines of the Church are human inventions; they say that the
doctrines prevailing in society are also human inventions. You say that the
ancient social order was a monopoly; they say the present social order is a
monopoly. In your eyes, the ancient authorities were tyrannical; in theirs the
present ones are so. You pretended to destroy what existed, in order to found
new institutions conducive to the good of humanity; to-day these men hold the
same language. You have proclaimed holy the war which was waged against
ancient power; they proclaim holy the war against present power. When you
availed yourselves of the means which offered themselves, you pretended that
necessity rendered them legitimate; they declare to be not less legitimate the
only means which they possess, that of combinations, of preparing for their
opportunity, and of hastening it by assassinating great men. You have pretended
to make all opinions respected, even atheism, and you have taught that
nobody has a right to prevent your acting in conformity with your principles;
but the fanatics in question have also their horrible principles and their dreadful
convictions. Do you require a proof of this? See them amid the gayety of
public celebrations, glide, pale and gloomy, among the joyful multitude, choose
the fitting moment to cast desolation over a royal family, and cover a nation
with mourning, while they accumulate on their own heads the public execration,
certain, moreover, of finishing their lives on the scaffold. But our adversaries
will say, such convictions are inexcusable. Yours are so also. All the difference
is, that you have contrived your ambitious and fatal systems amid ease and
pleasure, perhaps in opulence, and under the shadow of power, while they have
conceived their abominable doctrines in the bosom of obscurity, poverty, misery,
and despair.</p>

<p>Indeed, the inconsistency of some men is shocking to the last degree. To
ridicule all religions, to decry the spirituality and immortality of the soul, and
the existence of God, to overturn all morality, and sap its deepest foundations,
all this they have considered excusable, and we may even say, worthy of praise;
moreover, the writers who have undertaken this fatal task are worthy of apotheosis;
men must expel the Divinity from his temples to place there the names
and busts of the leaders of their schools; under the vaults of splendid basilicas,
where repose the ashes of Christians awaiting the resurrection, they must raise
the mausoleum of Voltaire and Rousseau, in order that future generations, when
they descend into their dark and silent abodes, may receive the inspirations of
their genius. But have they, then, a right to complain that property, and
domestic life, and social order are attacked? Property is sacred; but is it
more sacred than God? However great may be the importance of the truths
relating to the family and to society, are they of a superior order to the eternal
principles of morality, or rather, are they any thing more than the application
of these principles?</p>

<p>But let us resume the thread of our discourse. When the principle, that
there are culpable errors, is once established (a principle which in practice, if
not in theory, must be received by all men, but which Catholicity alone can
logically maintain in theory), it is easy to see the reason of the punishments
which human power decrees against the propagation and teaching of certain
doctrines; and we can understand why it is legitimate to punish, without considering
the conviction that animated the culprit, the actions which are the result
of his doctrines. The law shows that this mortal error has existed, or can exist;
but in this case it declares the error itself to be culpable; and if man adduces<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[Pg 202]</a></span>
the testimony of his own conscience, the law reminds him that it is his duty to
rectify his conscience. Such is, in truth, the foundation of a legislation which
has appeared so unjust; a foundation which it is necessary to point out, in
order to vindicate a great many human laws from a deep disgrace; for it would
be a great disgrace to claim the right of punishing a man who was really innocent.
Such an absurd right is so far from belonging to human justice, that it
does not belong even to God. The infinite justice of God would cease to be
what it is, if it could punish the innocent.</p>

<p>Perhaps another origin will be assigned for the right which governments possess,
of punishing the propagation of certain doctrines and the actions committed
in consequence of them, when the criminal has acted from the deepest
conviction. "Governments," it may be said, "act in the name of society,
which, like every being, possesses the right of self-defence. There are certain
doctrines which menace its existence; it has, therefore, of necessity and right,
the power of resisting those who promulgate them." Such a reason, however
plausible it may appear, is liable to this grave objection, that it destroys at one
blow the idea of punishment and justice. To wound an aggressor in self-defence
is not to chastise but to resist him. If we consider society in this point
of view, the criminal led to punishment will no longer be a real criminal, but
the unfortunate victim of a rash and unequal struggle. The voice of the judge
condemning him will no longer be the august voice of justice; his sentence
will only be the act of society avenging the attack made upon it. The word
punishment will then assume quite a different meaning; the gradations of it
will depend entirely upon calculations, and not on justice. We must remember
this; if we suppose that society, by virtue of the right of self-defence,
inflicts a punishment upon the man whom it considers quite innocent, it no
longer judges or condemns, but fights and struggles. That which is perfectly
suitable with respect to the relations between one society and another, is in no
way suitable to society in its relations with individuals. It then appears like a
combat between a giant and a pigmy. The giant takes the pigmy in his hand,
and crushes him against a stone.</p>

<p>The doctrine which I have just explained evidently shows the value of the
much vaunted principle of universal toleration; it has been demonstrated that
that principle is as impracticable in fact as it is unsustainable in theory; consequently
all the accusations made against the Catholic Church on the subject
of intolerance are overturned. It has been clearly shown that intolerance is in
some measure the right of all public power; this has always been acknowledged;
it is acknowledged still, generally speaking, when philosophers, the partisans
of tolerance, attain to power. No doubt, governments have a thousand times
abused this principle; no doubt, more than once the truth has been persecuted
in virtue of it; but what do men not abuse? Their duty, then, as good philosophers,
was not to establish principles that cannot be sustained, and are extremely
dangerous; not to declaim to satiety against the times and institutions
which have preceded us; but to endeavor to propagate sentiments of mildness
and indulgence, and, above all, not to impugn important truths, without which
society cannot be sustained, and which cannot be destroyed without abandoning
the world to the empire of force, and, consequently, to despotism and tyranny.</p>

<p>Men have attacked dogmas; but they have not been willing to see that morality
was intimately connected with dogmas, and that it was itself a dogma. By
proclaiming unbounded liberty of thought, they have asserted the impeccability
of the mind; error has ceased to figure among the faults of which men can be
guilty. They have forgotten that, in order to <em>will</em>, it was necessary to <em>know</em>;
and that to <em>will rightly</em>, it was necessary to <em>know truly</em>. If we examine the
greater part of the errors of our hearts, we shall see that they have their source
in a misunderstanding; is it possible, then, that it should not be the duty of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[Pg 203]</a></span>
man to preserve his mind from error? But since it has been said that opinions
are of little importance, that man is free to choose such as please him, even in
matters of religion and morality, truth has lost its value; its intrinsic worth is
no longer what it was in the eyes of man; and too many consider themselves
exempt from attempting to attain it,&mdash;a deplorable condition of mind, which is
one of the greatest evils afflicting society.<a href="#Note_25" class="fnanchor">25</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXVI" id="CHAPTER_XXXVI">CHAPTER XXXVI.</a><br />

<small>ON THE INQUISITION IN SPAIN</small>.</h2>


<p>I find myself naturally led to make a few observations on the intolerance of
certain Catholic princes, on the Inquisition, and in particular on that of Spain.
I must make a rapid examination of the charges against Catholicity on account
of its conduct during the last centuries. The dungeons, the burnings of the
Inquisition, and the intolerance of some Catholic princes, have furnished the
enemies of the Church with one of their most effective arguments in depreciating
her, and rendering her the object of odium and hatred; and it must be
allowed that they have, in attacks of this kind, many advantages, which give
them good prospects of success. Indeed (as we have said above, for the generality
of readers, who, without undertaking to examine things to the bottom,
naïvely allow themselves to be led away by a subtle writer; as we have said,
for all those who have sensitive hearts, and are prompt to pity the unfortunate),
what is more likely to excite indignation than the exhibition of dark dungeons,
instruments of torture, <i lang="es">san-benitos</i>, and burnings? Imagine what effect must be
produced, amid our toleration, our gentle manners, our humane penal codes, by
the sudden exhibition of the severities, the cruelties of another age; the whole
exaggerated and grouped into one picture, where are shown all the melancholy
scenes which occurred in different places, and were spread over a long period of
time. They take care to remind us that all this was done in the name of the
God of peace and love; thereby the contrast is rendered more vivid, the imagination
is excited, the heart becomes indignant; and the result is, that the
clergy, magistrates, kings, and popes of those remote times, appear like a troop
of executioners, whose pleasure consists in tormenting and desolating the human
race. Writers, who have ventured to act in this way, have certainly not added
to their reputation for delicacy of conscience. There is a rule which orators
and writers ought never to forget, viz. that it is not allowable to excite the passions,
until they have convinced the reason, unless it had been convinced before.
Besides, there is a degree of bad faith in appealing to the feelings with respect
to matters which ought to be examined by the light of reason alone, if they are
to be examined properly. In such a case we ought not to begin by moving, but
by convincing; to do otherwise is to deceive the reader.</p>

<p>I am not going to write the history of the Inquisition, or of the different
systems which various countries have adopted with respect to religious intolerance;
this would be impossible within my narrow limits; besides, it would
lead me away from the object of my work. Ought we to draw from the Inquisition
in general, that of Spain in particular, or from the greater or less intolerance
of the legislation of some countries, an accusation against Catholicity?
Can it, in this respect, be put in comparison with Protestantism? Such are the
questions I have to examine.</p>

<p>Three things at first present themselves to the eyes of the observer: 1st,
the legislation and institutions proceeding from the principle of intolerance;
2d, the use which has been made of this legislation and these institutions;
3d, the intolerant acts which have been committed illegally. With<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[Pg 204]</a></span>
respect to the latter, I must say at once that they have nothing to do with the
question. The Massacre of St. Bartholomew, and other atrocities committed in
the name of religion, ought not to trouble the apologists of religion: to render
her responsible for all that has been done in her name, would be to act with
manifest injustice. Man is endowed with so strong and lively a sense of the
excellence of virtue, that he endeavors to cover the greatest crimes with her
mantle;&mdash;would it be reasonable to banish virtue from the earth on that account?
There are, in the history of mankind, terrible periods, where a fatal giddiness
seizes upon the mind; rage, inflamed by disorder, blinds the intellect and
changes the heart; evil is called good, and good evil; the most horrible attempts
are made under the most respectable names. Historians and philosophers,
in treating of such periods, should know what ought to be their line of
conduct; strictly accurate in the narration of such facts, they ought to beware
of drawing from them a judgment as to the prevailing ideas and institutions.
Society then resembles a man in a state of delirium; we should ill judge of the
ideas, character, and conduct of such a man, from what he says and does in that
deplorable condition. What party, in those calamitous times, can boast of not
having committed great crimes? If we fix our eyes on the period just mentioned,
do we not see the leaders of both parties assassinated by treason? Admiral
Coligny died by the hands of the assassins who began the massacre of St.
Bartholomew; but the Duke of Guise had been also assassinated by Poltrot,
before Orleans. Henry III. was assassinated by Jacques Clement; but this
same Henry III. had treacherously murdered the other Duke of Guise in the
corridors of his palace, and his brother, the Cardinal, in the tower of Moulins;
this same Henry III. had taken part in the massacre of St. Bartholomew. We
see atrocities committed by the Catholics; but did not their opponents also commit
them? Let us throw a veil over these catastrophes, over these afflicting
proofs of the misery and perversity of the human heart. The tribunal of the
Inquisition, considered in itself, is only the application to a particular case of
that doctrine of intolerance, which, to a greater or less degree, is that of every
existing power. Thus, we have only to examine the character of that particular
application, and see whether its enemies are correct in their charges against
it. In the first place, we must observe that those who extol antiquity, sadly
falsify history, if they pretend that intolerance only appeared after the time
when, according to them, the Church had degenerated from her primitive purity.
As for myself, I see that from the earliest times, when the Church began to
exert political influence, heresy began to figure in the codes as a crime; and I
have never been able to discover a period of complete tolerance. I must here
make an important remark, which shows one of the causes of the rigor displayed
in later centuries. The Inquisition was first directed against the Manichean
heretics; that is, against the sectaries who at all times were treated with
the greatest severity. In the 11th century, when the punishment of fire had
not yet been applied to the crime of heresy, the Manicheans were excepted from
this rule. Even in the time of the Pagan emperors, these sectaries were treated
with extreme rigor. In the year 296, we see Diocletian and Maximilian, by an
edict, condemning to different punishments the Manicheans who had not abjured
their dogmas, and consigning their leaders to the fire. These sectaries
have always been considered as great criminals; and to punish them has always
been judged necessary, not only for the interests of religion, but even for
the morals and good order of society. This was one of the causes of the rigor
of the Inquisition at its commencement: if we add to this, the turbulent character
of the sects which, under various names, arose in the 11th, 12th, and
13th centuries, we shall have two of the causes that contributed to produce those
scenes which now we can scarcely credit. In studying the history of those
centuries, and fixing our attention on the troubles and disasters which ravaged<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[Pg 205]</a></span>
the south of France, we clearly see that it was not a dispute as to a particular
dogma, but that the whole social system was compromised. The sectaries of
those times were precursors of those of the 16th century; with this difference,
that the latter, if we except the frantic Anabaptists, were less democratic, less
apt to address the multitude. Amid the cruelties of those times, when long
ages of violence and revolution had given an excessive preponderance to brute
force, what could be expected from governments incessantly menaced with such
imminent danger? It is clear that the laws, and their application, must savour
of the times.</p>

<p>As to the Spanish Inquisition, which was only an extension of that which
was established in other countries, we must divide it, with respect to its duration,
into three great periods;&mdash;we omit the time of its existence in the kingdom
of Aragon, before its introduction into Castille. The first of these comprehends
the time when the Inquisition was principally directed against the relapsed
Jews and Moors, from the day of its installation under the Catholic sovereigns,
till the middle of the reign of Charles V. The second extends from the time
when it began to concentrate its efforts to prevent the introduction of Protestantism
into Spain, until that danger entirely ceased; that is, from the middle
of the reign of Charles V. till the coming of the Bourbons. The third and last
period is that when the Inquisition was limited to repress infamous crimes, and
exclude the philosophy of Voltaire; this period was continued until its abolition
in the beginning of the present century. It is clear that, the institution being
successively modified according to circumstances at these different epochs,&mdash;although
it always remained fundamentally the same,&mdash;the commencement and
termination of each of these three periods which we have pointed out cannot be
precisely marked; nevertheless, these three periods really existed in its history,
and present us with very different characters.</p>

<p>Every one knows the peculiar circumstances in which the Inquisition was
established in the time of the Catholic sovereigns; yet it is worthy of remark,
that the Bull of establishment was solicited by Queen Isabella; that is, by one
of the most distinguished sovereigns in our history,&mdash;by that queen who still,
after three centuries, preserves the respect and admiration of all Spaniards. Isabella,
far from opposing the will of the people in this measure, only realized the
national wish. The Inquisition was established chiefly against the Jews; the
Papal Bull had been sent in 1478; now, before the Inquisition published its
first edict, dated Seville, in 1481, the Cortes of Toledo, in 1480, had adopted
severe measures on the subject. To prevent the injury which the intercourse
between Jews and Christians might occasion to the Catholic faith, the Cortes
had ordered that unbaptized Israelites should be obliged to wear a distinctive
mark, dwell in separate quarters, called <i>Juiveries</i>, and return there before night.
Ancient regulations against them were renewed; the professions of doctor,
surgeon, shopkeeper, barber, and tavern-keeper, were forbidden them. Intolerance
was, therefore, popular at that time. If the Inquisition be justified in the
eyes of friends to monarchy, by conformity with the will of kings, it has an
equal claim to be so in the eyes of lovers of democracy.</p>

<p>No doubt the heart is grieved at reading the excessive severities exercised at
that time against the Jews; but must there not have been very grave causes to
provoke such excesses? The danger which the Spanish monarchy, not yet well
established, would have incurred if the Jews, then very powerful on account of
their riches and their alliances with the most influential families, had been
allowed to act without restraint, has been pointed out as one of the most important
of these causes. It was greatly to be feared that they would league with the
Moors against the Christians. The respective positions of the three nations
rendered this league natural: this is the reason why it was looked upon as
necessary to break a power which was capable of compromising anew the inde<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[Pg 206]</a></span>pendence
of the Christians. It is necessary also to observe, that at the time when
the Inquisition was established, the war of eight hundred years against the Moors
was not yet finished. The Inquisition was projected before 1474; it was established
in 1480, and the conquest of Granada did not take place till 1492. Thus
it was founded at the time when the obstinate struggle was about to be decided;
it was yet to be known whether the Christians would remain masters of the
whole peninsula, or whether the Moors should retain possession of one of the
most fertile and beautiful provinces; whether these enemies, shut up in Granada,
should preserve a position, excellent for their communication with Africa, and
a means for all the attempts which, at a later period, the Crescent might be
disposed to make against us. Now, the power of the Crescent was very great,
as was clearly shown by its enterprises against the rest of Europe in the next
century. In such emergencies, after ages of fighting, and at the moment which
was to decide the victory for ever, have combatants ever been known to conduct
themselves with moderation and mildness? It cannot be denied that the system
of repression pursued in Spain, with respect to the Jews and the Moors, was
inspired, in great measure, by the instinct of self-preservation: we can easily
believe that the Catholic princes had this motive before them when they decided
on asking for the establishment of the Inquisition in their dominions. The
danger was not imaginary: it was perfectly real. In order to form an idea of
the turn which things might have taken if some precaution had not been
adopted, it is enough to recollect the insurrections of the last Moors in later
times.</p>

<p>Yet it would be wrong, in this affair, to attribute all to the policy of royalty;
and it is necessary here to avoid exalting too much the foresight and designs of
men; for my part, I am inclined to think that Ferdinand and Isabella naturally
followed the generality of the nation, in whose eyes the Jews were odious when
they persevered in their creed, and suspected when they embraced the Christian
religion. Two causes contributed to this hatred and animadversion. First, the
excited state of religious feeling then general in all Europe, and especially in
Spain; 2d, the conduct by which the Jews had drawn upon themselves the
public indignation.</p>

<p>The necessity of restraining the cupidity of the Jews, for the sake of the independence
of the Christians, was of ancient date in Spain: the old assemblies of
Toledo had attempted it. In the following centuries the evil reached its height;
a great part of the riches of the peninsula had passed into the hands of the
Jews, and almost all the Christians found themselves their debtors. Thence
the hatred of the people against the Jews; thence the frequent troubles which
agitated some towns of the peninsula; thence the tumults which more than once
were fatal to the Jews, and in which their blood flowed in abundance. It was
difficult for a people accustomed for ages to set themselves free by force of arms,
to resign themselves peacefully and tranquilly to the lot prepared for them by
the artifices and exactions of a strange race, whose name, moreover, bore the
recollection of a terrible malediction.</p>

<p>In later times, an immense number of Jews were converted to the Christian
religion; but the hatred of the people was not extinguished thereby, and mistrust
followed these converts into their new state. It is very probable that a great
number of these conversions were hardly sincere, as they were partly caused by
the sad position in which the Jews who continued in Judaism were placed. In
default of conjectures founded on reason in this respect, we will regard as a
sufficient corroboration of our opinion, the multitude of Judaizing Christians who
were discovered as soon as care was taken to find out those who had been guilty
of apostacy. However this may be, it is certain that the distinction between
<em>new and old</em> Christians was introduced; the latter denomination was a title of
honor, and the former a mark of ignominy; the converted Jews were contemptu<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[Pg 207]</a></span>ously
called <i lang="es">marranos</i>,&mdash;impure men, pigs. With more or less foundation, they
were accused of horrible crimes. In their dark assemblies they committed, it
was said, atrocities which could hardly be believed, for the honor of humanity.
For example, it was said that, to revenge themselves on the Christians and in
contempt of religion, they crucified Christian children, taking care to choose for
the purpose the greatest day among Christian solemnities. There is the often-repeated
history of the knight of the house of Guzman, who, being hidden one
night in the house of a Jew whose daughter he loved, saw a child crucified at
the time when the Christians celebrated the institution of the sacrifice of the
Eucharist. Besides infanticide, there were attributed to the Jews, sacrileges,
poisonings, conspiracies, and other crimes. That these rumors were generally
believed by the people is proved by the fact, that the Jews were forbidden by
law to exercise the professions of doctor, surgeon, barber, and tavern-keeper;
this shows what degree of confidence was placed in their morality. It is useless
to stay to examine the foundations for these sinister accusations. We are not
ignorant how far popular credulity will go, above all when it is under the influence
of excited feelings, which makes it view all things in the same light. It is
enough for us to know that these rumors circulated everywhere and with credit,
to understand what must have been the public indignation against the Jews, and
consequently how natural it was that authority, yielding to the impulse of the
general mind, should be urged to treat them with excessive rigor.</p>

<p>The situation in which the Jews were placed is sufficient to show, that they
might have attempted to act in concert to resist the Christians; what they did
after the death of St. Peter Arbues shows what they were capable of doing on
other occasions. The funds necessary for the accomplishment of the murder,
the pay of the assassins, and the other expenses required for the plot, were collected
by means of voluntary contributions imposed on themselves by all the
Jews of Aragon. Does not this show an advanced state of organization, which
might have become fatal if it had not been watched.</p>

<p>In alluding to the death of St. Peter Arbues, I wish to make an observation
on what has been said on this subject, as proving the unpopularity of the establishment
of the Inquisition in Spain. What more evident proof, we shall be
told, can you have than the assassination of the Inquisitor? Is it not a sure
sign that the indignation of the people was at its height, and that they were quite
opposed to the Inquisition? Would they otherwise have been hurried into such
excesses? If by 'the people' you mean the Jews and their descendants, I will
not deny that the establishment of the Inquisition was indeed very odious to
them; but it was not so with the rest of the nation. The event we are speaking
of gave rise to a circumstance which proves just the reverse. When the report of
the death of the Inquisitor was spread through the town, the people made a fearful
tumult to avenge his death. They spread through the town, they went in crowds
in pursuit of the <em>new Christians</em>, so that a bloody catastrophe would have ensued,
had not the young Archbishop of Saragossa, Alphonsus of Aragon, presented himself
to the people on horseback, and calmed them by the assurance that all the
rigor of the laws should fall on the heads of the guilty. Was the Inquisition
as unpopular as it has been represented; and will it be said that its adversaries
were the majority of the people? Why, then, could not the tumult at Saragossa
have been avoided in spite of all the precautions which were no doubt taken by
the conspirators, at that time very powerful by their riches and influence?</p>

<p>At the time of the greatest rigor against the Judaizing Christians, there is a
fact worthy of attention. Persons accused, or threatened with the pursuit of the
Inquisition, took every means to escape the action of that tribunal: they left
the soil of Spain and went to Rome. Would those who imagine that Rome has
always been the hotbed of intolerance, the firebrand of persecution, have imagined
this? The number of causes commenced by the Inquisition, and summoned<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[Pg 208]</a></span>
from Spain to Rome, is countless, during the first fifty years of the existence
of that tribunal; and it must be added, that Rome always inclined to the side
of indulgence. I do not know that it would be possible to cite one accused
person who, by appealing to Rome, did not ameliorate his condition. The history
of the Inquisition at that time is full of contests between the Kings and
Popes; and we constantly find, on the part of the Holy See, a desire to restrain
the Inquisition within the bounds of justice and humanity. The line of conduct
prescribed by the court of Rome was not always followed as it ought to
have been; thus we see the Popes compelled to receive a multitude of appeals,
and mitigate the lot that would have befallen the appellants, if their cause had
been definitely decided in Spain. We also see the Pope name the judge of
appeal, at the solicitation of the Catholic sovereigns, who desired that causes
should be finally decided in Spain: the first of these judges was Dr. Inigo
Manrique, Archbishop of Seville. Nevertheless, at the end of a short time, the
same Pope, in a Bull of the 2d of August, 1483, said that he had received new
appeals, made by a great number of the Spaniards of Seville, who had not dared
to address themselves to the judge of appeal for fear of being arrested. Such was
then the excitement of the public mind; such was, at that time, the necessity
of preventing injustice, or measures of undue severity. The Pope added, that
some of those who had had recourse to his justice had already received the absolution
of the Apostolical Penitentiary, and that others were about to receive it;
he afterwards complained that indulgences granted to divers accused persons had
not been sufficiently respected at Seville; in fine, after several other admonitions,
he observed to Ferdinand and Isabella, that mercy towards the guilty was
more pleasing to God than the severity which it was desired to use; and he
gave the example of the good Shepherd following the wandering sheep. He
ended by exhorting the sovereigns to treat with mildness those who voluntarily
confessed their faults, desiring them to allow them to reside at Seville, or in
some other place they might choose; and to allow them the enjoyment of their
property, as if they had not been guilty of the crime of heresy.</p>

<p>Moreover, it is not to be supposed that the appeals admitted at Rome, and
by virtue of which the lot of the accused was improved, were founded on errors
of form and injustice committed in the application of the law. If the accused
had recourse to Rome, it was not always to demand reparation for an injustice,
but because they were sure of finding indulgence. We have a proof of this in
the considerable number of Spanish refugees convicted at Rome of having
fallen into Judaism. Two hundred and fifty of them were found at one time;
yet there was not one capital execution. Some penances were imposed on them,
and when they were absolved, they were free to return home, without the least
mark of ignominy. This took place at Rome in 1498.</p>

<p>It is a remarkable thing that the Roman Inquisition was never known to
pronounce the execution of capital punishment, although the Apostolic See was
occupied during that time by Popes of extreme rigor and severity in all that
relates to the civil administration. We find in all parts of Europe scaffolds
prepared to punish crimes against religion; scenes which sadden the soul were
everywhere witnessed. Rome is an exception to the rule; Rome, which it has
been attempted to represent as a monster of intolerance and cruelty. It is true,
that the Popes have not preached, like Protestants, universal toleration; but
facts show the difference between the Popes and Protestants. The Popes,
armed with a tribunal of intolerance, have not spilled a drop of blood; Protestants
and philosophers have shed torrents. What advantage is it to the victim
to hear his executioners proclaim toleration? It is adding the bitterness of sarcasm
to his punishment. The conduct of Rome in the use which she made of
the Inquisition, is the best apology of Catholicity against those who attempt to
stigmatize her as barbarous and sanguinary. In truth, what is there in com<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</a></span>mon
between Catholicity and the excessive severity employed in this place or
that, in the extraordinary situation in which many rival races were placed, in
the presence of danger which menaced one of them, or in the interest which the
kings had in maintaining the tranquillity of their states, and securing their conquests
from all danger? I will not enter into a detailed examination of the conduct
of the Spanish Inquisition with respect to Judaizing Christians; and I am
far from thinking that the rigor which it employed against them was preferable
to the mildness recommended and displayed by the Popes. What I wish to
show here is, that rigor was the result of extraordinary circumstances,&mdash;the
effect of the national spirit, and of the severity of customs in Europe at that
time. Catholicity cannot be reproached with excesses committed for these
different reasons. Still more, if we pay attention to the spirit which prevails
in all the instructions of the Popes relating to the Inquisition; if we observe
their manifest inclination to range themselves on the side of mildness, and to
suppress the marks of ignominy with which the guilty, as well as their families,
were stigmatized, we have a right to suppose that, if the Popes had not
feared to displease the kings too much, and to excite divisions which might
have been fatal, their measures would have been carried still further. If we
recollect the negotiations which took place with respect to the noisy affair of
the claims of the Cortes of Aragon, we shall see to which side the court of Rome
leaned.</p>

<p>As we are speaking of intolerance with regard to the Judaizers, let us say a
few words as to the disposition of Luther towards the Jews. Does it not seem
that the pretended reformer, the founder of independence of thought, the furious
declaimer against the oppression and tyranny of the Popes, should have
been animated with the most humane sentiments towards that people? No
doubt the eulogists of this chieftain of Protestantism ought to think thus also.
I am sorry for them; but history will not allow us to partake of this delusion.
According to all appearances, if the apostate monk had found himself in the
place of Torquemada, the Judaizers would not have been in a better position.
What, then, was the system advised by Luther, according to Seckendorf, one
of his apologists? "Their synagogues ought to be destroyed, their houses
pulled down, their prayer-books, the Talmud, and even the books of the Old
Testament, to be taken from them; their rabbis ought to be forbidden to teach,
and be compelled to gain their livelihood by hard labor." The Inquisition, at
least, did not proceed against the Jews, but against the Judaizers; that is,
against those who, after being converted to Christianity, relapsed into their
errors, and added sacrilege to their apostacy, by the external profession of a
creed which they detested in secret, and which they profaned by the exercise
of their old religion. But Luther extended his severity to the Jews themselves;
so that, according to his doctrines, no reproach can be made against the sovereign
who expelled the Jews from their dominions.</p>

<p>The Moors and the Mooriscoes no less occupied the attention of the Inquisition
at that time; and all that has been said on the subject of the Jews may
be applied to them with some modifications. They were also an abhorred race&mdash;a
race which had been contended with for eight centuries. When they
retained their religion, the Moors inspired hatred; when they abjured it, mistrust;
the Popes interested themselves in their favor also in a peculiar manner.
We ought to remark a Bull issued in 1530, which is expressed in language
quite evangelical: it is there said, that the ignorance of these nations is one of
the principal causes of their faults and errors; the first thing to be done to
render their conversion solid and sincere was, according to the recommendation
contained in this Bull, to endeavor to enlighten their minds with sound doctrine.</p>

<p>It will be said that the Pope granted to Charles V. the Bull which released
him from the oath taken in the Cortes of Saragossa in the year 1519; an oath,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[Pg 210]</a></span>
by which he had engaged not to make any change with respect to the Moors;
whereby, it is said, the Emperor was enabled to complete their expulsion. But,
we must observe, that the Pope for a long time resisted that concession; and,
that if he at length complied with the wishes of the Emperor, it was only
because he thought that the expulsion of the Moors was indispensable to secure
the tranquillity of the kingdom. Whether this was true or not, the Emperor,
and not the Pope, was the better judge; the latter, placed at a great distance,
could not know the real state of things in detail. Moreover, it was not the
Spanish monarch alone who thought so; it is related that Francis I., when a
prisoner at Madrid, one day conversing with Charles V., told him that tranquillity
would never be established in Spain, if the Moors and Mooriscoes were
not expelled.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXVII" id="CHAPTER_XXXVII">CHAPTER XXXVII.</a><br />

<small>SECOND EPOCH OF THE INQUISITION IN SPAIN</small>.</h2>


<p>It has been said that Philip II. founded a new Inquisition in Spain, more
terrible than that of the Catholic sovereigns; at the same time the Inquisition
of Ferdinand and Isabella receives a certain degree of indulgence, which is
refused to that of their successors. At the very outset, we find an important
historical mistake in this assertion. Philip did not establish a new Inquisition;
he maintained that which the Catholic sovereigns had left him, and which
Charles V., his father and predecessor, had particularly recommended to him
by will. The Committee of the Cortes of Cadiz, in the project for the abolition
of the tribunal of the Inquisition, excuses the conduct of the Catholic sovereigns,
and blames with severity that of Philip II.; it attempts to make all the
fault and odium fall on that prince. An illustrious French writer, very recently
treating of this important question, has allowed himself to be led into the same
errors, with that candor which sometimes accompanies genius. "There were,"
says M. Lacordaire, "in the Spanish Inquisition, two solemn periods, which
must not be confounded; the one at the end of the fifteenth century, under
Ferdinand and Isabella, before the Moors were expelled from Granada, their
last asylum; the other, in the middle of the sixteenth, under Philip II., when
Protestantism threatened to propagate itself in Spain. The Committee of the
Cortes has perfectly distinguished these two epochs; and while it stigmatizes
the Inquisition of Philip II., expresses itself with moderation with respect to
that of Ferdinand and Isabella." After these words the writer quotes a text,
where it is affirmed that Philip II. was the real founder of the Inquisition; if
that institution attained in the end to a high degree of power, it was owing, it
says, to the refined policy of that prince. We read, a little further on, that
Philip II. was the inventor of the <i lang="pt">auto-da-fé</i>, to terrify heretics; and that the
first of these bloody spectacles was seen at Seville in 1559. (<cite>Mémoire pour le
rétablissement de l'Ordre des Frères Precheurs</cite>, chap, vi.) Setting aside the
historical mistake with respect to the <i lang="pt">auto-da-fés</i>, it is well known that neither
the <i lang="es">san-benitos</i> nor the fagots were the invention of Philip II. Such mistakes
easily escape a writer who is satisfied with alluding to a fact incidentally; if we
bring forward this one, it is because it contains an accusation against a monarch
to whom, for a long time, too little justice has been done. Philip II.
continued the work which had been begun by his predecessors; if they are
excused, he ought not to be treated with greater severity. Ferdinand and
Isabella directed the Inquisition against the apostate Jews; why could not
Philip II. avail himself of it against Protestants? But I shall be told he
abused his right and carried rigor to excess. Certainly there was not more<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[Pg 211]</a></span>
indulgence in the times of Ferdinand and Isabella. Are the numerous executions
at Seville and other places forgotten? Or what Mariana says in his
history, and the public measures taken by the Popes for the purpose of checking
the excessive severity? The words quoted against Philip II. are taken
from the work called <cite>La Inquicitión sin mascura</cite> (the Inquisition unveiled,)
published in Spain in 1811. We may judge of the value of this authority,
when we know that the author of the book was distinguished till his death by
a deep hatred to the Spanish kings. The book bears the name of Nathanael
Jomtob; but the real author is a well-known Spaniard, who, in his latter writings,
seems to have undertaken to avenge, by his unbounded exaggerations and
furious invectives, all that he had previously attacked; a writer who assails,
with an intolerable partiality, all that presents itself before him&mdash;religion,
country, classes of society, individuals, and opinions&mdash;insulting and tearing to
pieces all, as if he had been seized with a sally of passion, and not even sparing
the men of his own party. Is it, then, surprising that this writer regarded
Philip II. as Protestants and philosophers do, that is, as a monarch placed on
the earth for the disgrace and misfortune of humanity,&mdash;a monster of Machiavellianism,
anxious to diffuse darkness, in order to maintain himself in safety
in his cruelty and perfidy? I will not undertake to justify, on all points, the
policy of Philip II.; I will not deny that there are exaggerations in the eulogiums
which some Spanish writers have given to that prince. But, on the other
hand, it cannot be doubted, that Protestants and the political enemies of
Philip II. have ever been careful to denounce him. And do you know why
Protestants have done this? It is because it was he who prevented Protestantism
from penetrating into Spain; it was he who, at that period of agitation,
maintained the cause of Catholicity. Let us set aside the great events of the
rest of Europe, of which each one will judge as he pleases; let us limit ourselves
to Spain. We do not fear to assert, that the introduction of Protestantism
into that country was imminent and inevitable without the system which
he pursued. Whether Philip used the Inquisition for political purposes, in
certain cases, is not the question we have to examine here; but at least it must
be acknowledged that it was not a mere instrument of ambitious projects; it
was an institution strengthened and maintained in presence of an imminent
danger.</p>

<p>It appears, from the proceedings of the Inquisition at this time, that Protestantism
began to spread in an incredible manner in Spain; eminent ecclesiastics,
monks, nuns, seculars of distinction, in a word, individuals of the most
influential classes, were attached to the new errors. Could the efforts of Protestants
to introduce their creed into Spain remain altogether unproductive,
when they employed every stratagem in their ardor to introduce their books?
They went so far as to place their prohibited writings in casks of Champagne
and Burgundy wine, with so much art as to deceive the custom-house men:
thus wrote the Spanish Ambassador at Paris.</p>

<p>To perceive the whole danger, it is enough to observe with attention the state
of minds in Spain at this time; besides, incontestable facts come in support of
conjectures. The Protestants, taking great care to declaim against abuses,
represented themselves as reformers, and labored to draw to their side all who
were animated by an ardent desire for reform. This desire for reform had existed
for a long time in the Church; but with some it was inspired by bad intentions;
in other words, the specious name of reform concealed the real intention
of many, which was to destroy. At the same time, with some sincere Catholics,
this desire, although pure in principle, went to imprudent zeal, and reached an
ill-regulated ardor. It is probable that such zeal, carried to too great an extent,
was, with many, changed into acrimony; thence a certain facility in receiving
the insidious suggestions of the enemies of the Church. Many people who had<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[Pg 212]</a></span>
begun with indiscreet zeal, perhaps fell into exaggeration, then into bitterness,
and finally into heresy. Spain was not exempt from this disposition of mind,
from whence the course of events might have drawn very bitter results, if Protestantism
had obtained any footing on our soil. We know that the Spaniards
at the Council of Trent distinguished themselves by their reforming zeal, and
their boldness in expressing their opinions. Let us remark, moreover, that religious
discord being once introduced into a country, minds are excited by disputes,
they are irritated by frequent shocks, and it sometimes happens that
respectable men precipitate themselves into excesses which they would have
abhorred a short time before. It is difficult to say with precision what would
have happened if the rigor had been at all relaxed on this point. Certain it is,
that, when reading some passages of Luis Vives, of Arias Montanus, of Carranza,
and of the consultation of Melchior Cano, we can fancy we find, at the
bottom of their minds, a sort of disquietude and agitation, which may best be
compared to those heavy murmurings which announce from afar the commencement
of a tempest.</p>

<p>The famous trial of the Archbishop of Toledo, Fray Bartolomé de Carranza,
is one of the facts which are most frequently cited to show the arbitrary nature
of the proceedings of the Spanish Inquisition. We certainly cannot see without
emotion, shut up in prison for many years, one of the most learned men in
Europe, the Archbishop of Toledo, honored with the intimate confidence of
Philip II. and the Queen of England, allied in friendship with the most distinguished
men of the time, and known to all Christendom by the brilliant part
which he had played at the Council of Trent. The process lasted seventeen
years; and although the cause was carried to Rome, where the Archbishop
must have found powerful friends, a declaration of innocence in his favor could
not be obtained. Without staying to notice the many incidents of a cause so
long and so complicated, without insisting on the more or less reason which the
discourses and writings of Carranza may have afforded for suspicions against his
faith, I am quite certain, in my own mind, that, in his own conscience and before
God, he was perfectly innocent. Here is a proof that places my opinion
beyond a doubt. A short time after the judgment was given, he fell ill; his
malady was supposed to be mortal, and the sacraments were administered to
him. At the moment of receiving the Viaticum, in the presence of a large
concourse, he declared, in the most solemn manner, that he had never left the
Catholic faith, that his conscience acquitted him of all the accusations made
against him; and he confirmed his declaration by calling to witness God, in
whose presence he was, whom he was about to receive under the most sacred
species, and before whose awful tribunal he was in a few moments to appear.
This pathetic act drew tears from all present; all suspicions against him were dissipated
as by a breath, and a new sympathy was added to that which his continued
misfortunes had excited. The Sovereign Pontiff did not doubt the sincerity of
the declaration, as a magnificent epitaph was placed upon his tomb, which certainly
would not have been allowed if there had been the least doubt of it. It
certainly would be rash to refuse to believe a declaration so explicit from the
mouth of such a man as Carranza, expiring, and in the presence of Jesus Christ
Himself.</p>

<p>After having paid this tribute to the knowledge, virtues, and misfortunes of
Carranza, it remains for us to examine whether, whatever may have been the
purity of his conscience, it can be justly said that his trial was a perfidious
intrigue, carried on by envy and hatred. This is not the place to examine the
immense procedure in this case; but since allusion has been made to it to condemn
Philip II. and the adversaries of Carranza, I wish, in my turn, to make
some observations, to endeavor to place the affair in its proper light. In the
first place, is it not astonishing that a trial devoid of all foundation should have<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[Pg 213]</a></span>
had so extraordinary a duration? At least there must have been some appearance
of it. Besides, if the cause had been decided in Spain, the length of the
trial might not have been so extraordinary. But it was not so; the cause remained
pending in Rome many years. Were the judges so blind or so wicked
that they could not discover the calumny, or that they wanted the virtue to
destroy it, supposing it to have been as clear and evident as it has been pretended?
It may be replied to this, that the intrigues of Philip II., who was
determined on the destruction of the Archbishop, prevented the truth from
appearing; in proof of this assertion, have we not the difficulties which the king
made to allow the prisoner to be transferred to Rome? It was necessary, it is
said, for Pius V. to effect this by the threat of excommunication. I will not
deny that Philip II. attempted to aggravate the situation of the Archbishop,
and wished for a sentence little favorable to the illustrious accused. Yet, before
deciding that the conduct of the king was criminal, we must know whether he
acted thus from personal resentment, from conviction, or from the suspicion that
the Archbishop inclined towards Lutheranism. Carranza, before his disgrace,
was highly favored and esteemed by Philip, as appears from the missions which
were confided to him in England, and from his elevation to the first ecclesiastical
dignity in Spain. How, then, can we presume that so much good-will was
converted on a sudden into personal and violent hatred? Is it not, at least,
necessary that history should afford a fact in support of this conjecture? Now,
I find this nowhere in history, nor am I aware that others have done so. If
Philip took so decided a part against the Archbishop, it was evidently because
he believed, or strongly suspected him of being heretical. In that case, Philip
may have been rash, imprudent&mdash;all that you please; but it cannot be said
that, in the pursuit, he was moved by the spirit of vengeance, or by low animosity.</p>

<p>Other men of the time were equally accused. Among the rest, Melchior
Cano. Carranza himself seemed to be suspicious; he bitterly complained that
Melchior Cano had ventured to say that the Archbishop was as heretical as
Luther. But Salazar de Mendoza, when relating the fact in the life of Carranza,
asserts that Cano, hearing this, openly denied it, saying, that he had said
nothing of the kind. Indeed, the mind is easily inclined to believe him; men
with intellects as favored as his, have, in their own dignity, too powerful a preservative
against baseness, to allow them to be suspected of playing the infamous
part of calumniators.</p>

<p>I do not believe that it is necessary to seek for the cause of the misfortunes
of Carranza in private hatred or jealousy; it is found in the critical circumstances
of the time, and in the character of this illustrious man himself. The
grave symptoms which produced alarm lest Protestantism might make proselytes
in Spain; the efforts of the Protestants to introduce their books and emissaries
there; the experience of what happened in other countries, and particularly
in the kingdom of France, created so much dread in men's minds, rendered
them so fearful and mistrustful, that the least suspicion of error, above all, in
persons elevated in dignity or distinguished for their knowledge, occasioned disquietude
and apprehension. We are aware of the hot disputes which took place
with respect to the Polyglot of Antwerp and Arias Montanus, and we are not
ignorant of the sufferings of the famous Fray Luis de Leon, and some other
illustrious men of that time. Another conjuncture which contributed to push
things to extremes was, the political situation of Spain with respect to strangers.
The Spanish monarchy had too many enemies and rivals for her not to have
reason to fear that heresy, in the hands of her adversaries, would become a
means of introducing discord and civil war into her bosom. These causes united,
naturally rendered Philip suspicious and mistrustful; the hatred of heresy combining
in his mind with the desire of self-preservation, he showed himself severe<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[Pg 214]</a></span>
and inexorable with respect to all that could affect the purity of the Catholic
faith in his empire.</p>

<p>On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that the character of Carranza
was not exactly what was required, in such critical times, to avoid all dangerous
wanderings. We perceive, in reading his commentaries on the Catechism, that
he was a man of acute penetration, of vast erudition, of profound learning, of
severe character, and of a heart generous and frank. He spoke his thoughts
without circumlocution, without regard to the displeasure which his words might
give to this person or that. When he believed that he had discovered an abuse,
he pointed it out and condemned it openly, wherein he resembled his supposed
adversary, Melchior Cano, in more features than one. The accusations against
him in the trial were founded, not only on his writings, but also on some of his
sermons and private conversations. I know not to what extent he exceeded the
just limits; but I hesitate not to affirm, that a man who wrote in the tone which
we find in his works, must have expressed himself <i lang="la">viva voce</i> with great force,
and perhaps with excessive boldness. It must be added, to speak the whole
truth, that when treating of justification, in his commentaries on the Catechism,
he does not explain himself with all the clearness desirable, and is wanting in
the simplicity required by the unhappy circumstances of the times. Men versed
in this delicate matter know how delicate certain points are. These points were
then the subject of the errors of Germany; and it may be easily imagined how
much the attention must have been fixed on the words of Carranza, and how
alarming the least shadow of ambiguity must have been. It is certain that, at
Rome he was not acquitted of all the accusations; he was compelled to abjure
a series of propositions, with respect to which he was judged liable to suspicion;
and some penances were imposed on him. Carranza on his death-bed protested
his innocence; but he took care to declare that he did not regard the sentence
of the Pope as unjust. The explanation of the enigma is this: the innocence
of the heart is not always accompanied by the prudence of the lips.</p>

<p>I have dwelt upon this famous cause because it involves considerations which
strikingly exhibit the spirit of the age. These considerations have, besides, the
advantage of showing the truth in its proper light, and prevent every thing
being explained according to the wretched measure of the malice of men. There
is unhappily a tendency to explain all in this way; and it may be truly said,
that men too often give a just foundation for it; yet, whenever there is no evident
necessity to do so, we ought to abstain from condemnation. The picture
of the history of humanity is sombre enough in itself; let us not take pleasure
in darkening it still more by new stains. We often call crime that which was
only ignorance. Man is inclined to evil; but he is not less subject to error, and
error is not always culpable.</p>

<p>Moreover, I believe that to Protestants themselves were owing the rigor and
anxious mistrust which the Inquisition of Spain displayed at that time. They
excited a religious revolution; and it is a constant law, that all revolutions
either destroy the power assailed, or render it more harsh and severe. What
before was looked upon as indifferent, is now considered as suspected; and what,
in all other circumstances, would only have appeared a fault, is now regarded
as a crime. Men are in continual dread of seeing liberty converted into licentiousness;
and as revolutions destroy all, while they profess to reform, whoever
ventures to speak of reform, runs the risk of being blamed as a disturber. Even
prudent conduct is stigmatized as hypocritical caution; frank and sincere language
is termed insolence and dangerous suggestion; reserve is a concealment
full of cunning; even silence itself assumes a meaning&mdash;it becomes alarming
dissimulation. We have seen so many things come to pass in our days, that we
are placed in an incomparable situation easily to understand the various phases
of the history of humanity. It is an undoubted fact, that Protestantism pro<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[Pg 215]</a></span>duced
a reaction in Spain. Its errors and excesses were the reason why the
ecclesiastical and civil power infinitely restrained the liberty which had been
previously enjoyed in all that related to religion. Spain was preserved from the
Protestant doctrines, when all the probabilities were in favor of their being
introduced there, in one way or another. It is clear that this could not be
obtained without extraordinary efforts. Spain, at that time, appears to me like
a place besieged by a powerful enemy, where the leaders continually watched,
not only against attacks from without, but also against treason from within. I
will confirm these observations by an example, which will serve for many others.
Let us remember what took place with respect to Bibles in the vulgar tongue;
we shall then have an idea of what passed with relation to all the rest, according
to the natural order of things. I have before me a testimony of what I
have just said, as respectable as it is worthy of interest&mdash;that of Carranza himself.
Hear what he says in his prologue to his commentaries on the Christian
Catechism: "Before the heresies of Luther had come from the infernal regions
to the light of this world, I do not know that the Holy Scriptures in the vulgar
tongue were anywhere forbidden. In Spain, Bibles were translated into it by
order of the Catholic sovereigns, at the time when the Moors and Jews were
allowed to live among the Christians according to their own law. After the
expulsion of the Jews from Spain, the judges of religion found that some of
those who had been converted to our holy faith instructed their children in
Judaism, and taught them the ceremonies of the law of Moses by means of
those Bibles in the vulgar tongue, which they took care to have printed in Italy,
in the town of Ferrara. This is the real cause why Bibles in the vulgar tongue
were forbidden in Spain; but the possession and reading of them were always
allowed to colleges and monasteries, as well as to persons of distinction above
all suspicion." Carranza continues to give, in a few words, the history of these
prohibitions in Germany, France, and other countries; then he adds: "In
Spain, which was, and still is, by the grace and goodness of God, pure from the
cockle, care was taken to forbid generally all the translations of the Scriptures
in the vulgar tongue, in order to prevent strangers having an opportunity of
holding controversy with simple and ignorant persons, and also because they
had, and still have, experience of certain particular cases, and of the errors
which began to arise in Spain from the ill-understood reading of certain passages
of the Bible. What I have just stated is the real history of what took place;
this is why the Bible in the vulgar tongue was prohibited."</p>

<p>This curious passage of Carranza shows us, in a few words, the progress of
things. At first there was no prohibition; but the abuse committed by the
Jews provoked one, although still confined, as we have just seen, within certain
limits. Afterwards came the Protestants, upsetting all Europe by means of
their Bibles; Spain is threatened with the introduction of the new errors; it is
discovered that some persons have been misled by the false interpretation of
certain passages of the Bible; they are compelled to take away this weapon
from these strangers, who attempt to use it to seduce simple people: from that
time the prohibition becomes rigorous and general.</p>

<p>To return to Philip II., let us not forget that this monarch was one of the
firmest defenders of the Catholic Church; and that in him was personified the
policy of the faithful ages, amid the vertigo which, under the impulse of Protestantism,
had taken possession of European policy. If the Catholic Church,
amid these great perturbations, could reckon on a powerful protection from the
princes of the earth, it was in great measure owing to Philip II. This age
was critical and decisive in Europe. If it is true that he was unfortunate in
Flanders, it is not less undoubted that his power and ability afforded a counterpoise
to the Protestant power, which prevented it making itself master of Europe.
Even supposing that the efforts of Philip had only the result of gaining<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[Pg 216]</a></span>
time, by breaking the first shock of the Protestant policy, this was not a slight
service rendered to the Catholic Church, then attacked on so many sides. What
would have happened to Europe, if Protestantism had been introduced into
Spain as into France? if the Huguenots had been able to count on the assistance
of the Peninsula? And what would have happened in Italy, if she had
not been held in respect by the power of Philip? Would not the sectaries of
Germany have succeeded in introducing their errors there? Here I appeal to
all men who are acquainted with history, whether, if Philip had abandoned his
much-decried policy, the Catholic religion would not have run the risk of finding
itself, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, under the hard necessity
of existing only as a tolerated religion in the generality of the kingdoms of
Europe? Now, we know what this toleration is worth to the Catholic Church;
England has told us for centuries; Prussia shows us at this moment, and Russia
adds her testimony in a manner still more lamentable. Such is the point of
view in which we must consider Philip II. One is forced to allow that, considered
in this way, that prince is a great historical personage,&mdash;one of those who
have left the deepest marks on the policy of the age which followed,&mdash;one of
those who exert the greatest influence after them on the course of events.</p>

<p>Spaniards, who anathematize the founder of the Escurial, have you, then, forgotten
our history, or do you esteem it of no value? Do you stigmatize him
as an odious tyrant? Do you not know that, in denying his glory, in covering
it with ignominy, you efface a feature of your own glory, and throw into the
mud the diadem which encircled the brows of Ferdinand and Isabella? If you
cannot pardon Philip II. for having sustained the Inquisition,&mdash;if that reason
alone obliges you to load his name with execration, do the same with his
illustrious father, Charles V.; and, going back to Isabella of Castille, write
also on the list of the tyrants and scourges of humanity that name which was
venerated by both worlds, and which is the emblem of the glory and power of
the Spanish monarchy. They all took part in the fact which excites your indignation;
do not curse some, while you lavish hypocritical indulgence on the
others. If that indulgence is found in your words, it is that the feeling of nationality
which beats in your bosom compels you to partiality&mdash;to inconsistency;
you recoil when you are about to efface the glories of Spain with a stroke of
the pen&mdash;to wither all her laurels&mdash;to deny your country. We have nothing
left, unfortunately, but great recollections; let us at least avoid despising them:
these recollections are, in a nation, like the titles of ancient nobility in a fallen
family; they raise the mind, they fortify the soul in adversity; and, nourishing
hope in the bottom of the heart, they serve to prepare what is to come.</p>

<p>The immediate effect of the introduction of Protestantism into Spain would
have been, as in other countries, civil war; and this war would have been more
fatal to us than to other people, because the circumstances were much more
critical for us. The unity of the Spanish monarchy could not have resisted the
shocks and disturbances of intestine dissension; the different parts were so
heterogeneous among themselves, and were so slightly united, that the least
blow would have parted them. The laws and manners of the kingdoms of Navarre
and Aragon were very different from those of Castille; a lively feeling of
independence, supported by frequent meetings of their own Cortes, was kept
alive in the hearts of those unconquered nations; they would certainly have
availed themselves of the first opportunity to shake off a yoke which was not
pleasing to them. Moreover, in the other provinces, factions were not wanting
to distract the country. The monarchy would have been miserably divided at a
time when it was necessary to make head in the affairs of Europe, Africa, and
America. The Moors were still in sight of our coasts; the Jews had not had
time to forget Spain: certainly both would have availed themselves of the conjuncture
to raise themselves by means of our discords. On the policy of Philip<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[Pg 217]</a></span>
depended not only the tranquillity, but perhaps even the existence of the Spanish
monarchy. He is now accused of having been a tyrant; if he had pursued
another course, he would have been taxed with incapacity and weakness.</p>

<p>One of the most unjust attacks of the enemies of religion against her friends
is, to attribute bad faith to them, to accuse them of having in every thing false
intentions, tortuous and interested views. When they speak of the Machiavellianism
of Philip II., they suppose that the Inquisition, while apparently only
religious in its object, was, in reality, an obedient instrument of policy in the
hands of a crafty monarch. Nothing is more specious to the man in whose
eyes history is only a matter for piquant and malicious observations; but nothing
is more false according to facts. Some people, seeing in the Inquisition
an extraordinary tribunal, have not been able to imagine the existence of that
exceptional tribunal, without supposing, in the monarch who sustained and encouraged
it, profound reasons, and views carried much further than appears on
the surface of things. They have not been willing to see that an epoch has its
spirit, its own manner of regarding things, its own system of action, both in
doing good and in preventing evil. During those times, when all the nations of
Europe appealed to fire and sword to decide questions of religion, when Protestants
and Catholics burnt their adversaries, when England, France, and Germany
assisted at the bloodiest scenes, to bring a heretic to the scaffold was a
natural and customary thing, which gave no shock to prevailing ideas. We
feel our hair grow stiff on our heads at the mere idea of burning a man alive.
Placed in society where the religious sentiment is considerably diminished;
accustomed to live among men who have a different religion, and sometimes
none at all; we cannot bring ourselves to believe that it could be at that time
quite an ordinary thing to see heretics or the impious led to punishment. But,
if we read the authors of the time, we shall see the immense difference on this
point between their manners and ours; and we shall remark, that our language
of moderation and toleration would not even have been understood by the man of
the sixteenth century.</p>

<p>Do you know what Carranza himself, who suffered so much from the Inquisition,
thought of this matter? Every time that he has occasion to touch on
this point in the work which I have quoted, he expresses the ideas of his time,
without even staying to prove them; he gives them as undoubted principles.
In England, with Queen Mary, he did not fear to express his opinions as to the
rigor with which heretics ought to be treated; and he was certainly far from
suspecting that his name would one day be made use of to attack this intolerance.
Kings and peoples, ecclesiastics and seculars, were all agreed on this
point. What would be said now-a-days of a king who would carry with his own
hands the wood to burn heretics, and would condemn blasphemers to have their
tongues pierced with a hot iron? Now, the first of these things is related of
St. Ferdinand, and we know that the second was done by St. Louis. We now
exclaim in seeing Philip II. assisting at an <i lang="pt">auto-da-fé</i>; but, if we consider that
the court, the great men, all that was most select in society, surrounded the
king on these occasions, we shall understand that, if this spectacle is horrible
and intolerable to us, it was not so in the eyes of those men, widely different
from us in ideas and feelings. And let it not be said that they were forced
there by the will of the monarch,&mdash;that they were compelled to obey: this was
not the effect of the monarch's will; it was only a consequence of the spirit of
the age. No monarch would have been sufficiently powerful to perform such a
ceremony, if the spirit of the age had been opposed to it; besides, no monarch
is so hard and insensible as not to feel the influence of the times in which he
lives. Suppose the most absolute despot of our time, Napoleon, at the height
of his power, or the present Emperor of Russia, and see whether they could
thus violate the manners of the age.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[Pg 218]</a></span></p>

<p>An anecdote is related which is little adapted to confirm the opinion of those
who assert that the Inquisition was a political instrument in the hands of Philip.
As it paints in a curious and interesting manner the customs and ideas of the
age, I will insert it here. Philip II. held his court at Madrid; a certain
preacher, in a sermon delivered in presence of the king, advanced, that <em>sovereigns
had an absolute power over the persons as well as over the property of their
subjects</em>. The proposition was not of a nature to displease a king; the preacher
at one blow relieved kings from all control over the exercise of their power.
Now, it seems that at that time all men were not in such abject subjection to
despotic control as we have been led to believe; some one was found to denounce
to the Inquisition the words in which the preacher had not been ashamed to
flatter the absolute power of kings. Surely the orator had chosen a secure
asylum; and our readers may well suppose that this denunciation coming into
collision with the power of Philip, the Inquisition would have maintained a
prudent silence. Yet it was not so: the Inquisition made an inquiry, found
the proposition contrary to sound doctrine, and the preacher, who was perhaps
far from expecting such a reward, had divers penances imposed on him, and was
condemned to retract publicly his proposition in the same place where he had
made it. The retractation took place with all the ceremonies of a juridical proceeding;
the preacher declared that he retracted his proposition as erroneous;
he explained the reasons by reading, as he had been directed, the following
words, well worthy of remark: "<em>Indeed, messieurs, kings have no other power
over their subjects than that which is given to them by the divine and human law;
they have none proceeding from their own free and absolute will.</em>" This is related
by D. Antonio Perez, as may be seen at length in the note which corresponds
to the present chapter. We know, moreover, that he was not a fanatical
partisan of the Inquisition.</p>

<p>This took place at the time which some persons never mention without stigmatizing
it with the words obscurantism, tyranny, and superstition. Yet I
doubt whether, at a time nearer to us&mdash;that, for example, when it is asserted
that light and liberty dawned on Spain under the reign of Charles III.&mdash;a
public and solemn condemnation of despotism would have been carried so far.
This condemnation, at the time of Philip II., did as much honor to the tribunal
which ordered it as to the monarch who consented to it.</p>

<p>With respect to knowledge, it is a calumny to say that a design was formed
to maintain and perpetuate ignorance. Certainly the conduct of Philip does
not indicate such a design, when we see this prince, not content with favoring
the great enterprise of the Polyglot of Antwerp, recommending to Arias Montanus
to devote to the purchase of chosen works, printed or manuscript, the
money which would revert to the printer Plantinus, to whom the king
had advanced a large sum to aid in the enterprise. This chosen collection was
to be placed in the library of the monastery of the Escurial, which was then
built. The king had also charged <em>Don Francis de Alaba, his ambassador in
France, to collect in that kingdom the best books which it was possible for him to
procure</em>, as he himself says in his letter to Arias Montanus. No; the history
of Spain, with respect to intolerance in religious matters, is not so black as it
has been represented. When foreigners reproach us with cruelty, we will reply
that, when Europe was stained with blood by civil wars, Spain was at peace.
As to the number of persons who perished on the scaffold or died in exile, we
challenge the two nations who claim to be at the head of civilization, France
and England, to show us their statistics on that subject at the same time, and
to compare them with ours: we do not fear the comparison.</p>

<p>In proportion as the danger of the introduction of Protestantism into Spain
diminished, so did the rigor of the Inquisition. We may observe, moreover,
that the procedure of that tribunal always became milder, in accordance with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[Pg 219]</a></span>
the spirit of criminal legislation in the other countries of Europe. Thus we
see the <i lang="pt">auto-da-fé</i> becoming more rare as we approach our own times, so that,
at the end of the last century, the Inquisition was only a shadow of what it
had been. It is useless to insist on this point, which nobody denies, and on
which we are in unison with the most ardent enemies of that tribunal; and this
it is which, in our eyes, proves, in the most convincing manner, that we must
seek in the ideas and manners of the time, what people have attempted to find
in the cruelty, in the wickedness, or in the ambition of men. If the doctrines
of those who plead for the abolition of the punishment of death are carried
into effect, posterity, when reading the executions of our time, will be seized
with the same horror with which we view the punishment of times past, and
the gibbet and the guillotine will figure in the same rank as the ancient
Quemaderos.<a href="#Note_26" class="fnanchor">26</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXVIII" id="CHAPTER_XXXVIII">CHAPTER XXXVIII.</a><br />

<small>RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THEMSELVES</small>.</h2>


<p>Religious institutions are another of those points whereon Protestantism
and Catholicity are in complete opposition to each other: the first abhors, the
second loves them; the one destroys them, the other establishes and encourages
them. One of the first acts of Protestantism, whenever it is introduced, is to
attack religious institutions by its doctrines and its acts; it labors to destroy
them immediately; one would say that the pretended Reformation cannot behold
without irritation those holy abodes, which continually remind it of the ignominious
apostacy of its founder. Religious vows, especially that of chastity,
have been the subject of the most cruel invectives on the part of Protestants;
but it must be observed, that what is said now, and what has been repeated for
three centuries, is only the echo of the first voice which was raised in Germany;
and what was that voice? It was the voice of a monk without modesty,
who penetrated into the sanctuary and carried away a victim. All the pomp
of learning employed to combat a sacred dogma is insufficient to hide so impure
an origin. Through the excitement of the false prophet we perceive the impure
flames which devour his heart.</p>

<p>Let us observe in passing, that the same thing took place with respect to the
celibacy of the clergy. Protestants, from the beginning, could not endure this;
they threw off the mask, and condemned it without disguise; they attempted
to combat it with a certain ostentation of learning; but, at the bottom of all
their declamation, what do we find? The clamor of a priest who has forgotten
his duty; who strives against the remorse of his conscience, and endeavors to
hide his shame by diminishing the horror of the scandal by the allegations of
falsehood. If such conduct had been pursued by the Catholics, all the arms of
ridicule would have been employed to cover them with contempt, to stamp it,
as it deserves, with the brand of infamy; but it was a man who declared deadly
war against Catholicity: that was enough to turn away the contempt of philosophers,
and find indulgence for the declamation of a monk whose first argument
against celibacy was, to profane his vows and consummate a sacrilege.</p>

<p>The rest of the disturbers of that age imitated the example of so worthy a
master. All demanded and required from Scripture and philosophy a veil to
cover their weakness and baseness. Just punishment! blindness of the mind
was the result of corruption of the heart; impudence sought and obtained the
companionship of error. Never is the mind more vile than when, to excuse a
fault, it becomes the accomplice of it; then it is not deceived, but prostituted.</p>

<p>This hatred of religious institutions has been inherited by philosophy from
Protestantism. This is the reason why all revolutions, excited and guided by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[Pg 220]</a></span>
Protestants or philosophers, have been signalized by their intolerance towards
the institutions themselves, and by their cruelty towards those who belonged to
them. What the law could not do was completed by the dagger and the torch
of the incendiary. What escaped the catastrophe was left to the slow punishment
of misery and famine. On this point, as well as on many others, it is
manifest that the infidel philosophy is the daughter of the Reformation. It is
useless to seek for a more convincing proof of this than the parallel of the histories
of both, in all that relates to the destruction of religious institutions;
the same flattery of kings, the same exaggeration of the civil power, the same
declamation against the pretended evil inflicted on society, the same calumnies;
we have only to change the names and the dates. And we must also remark
this peculiarity, that, in this matter, the difference which, apparently, ought to
have resulted from the progress of toleration and the softening of manners in
recent times, has scarcely been felt.</p>

<p>But is it true that religious institutions are as contemptible as they have been
represented? is it true that they do not even deserve attention, and that all the
questions relating to them can be solved by merely pronouncing the word
fanaticism? Does not the man of observation, the real philosopher, find in
them any thing worthy of attracting his attention? It is difficult to believe
that such was the nullity of these institutions, whose history is so grand, and
which still preserve in their existence the promise of a great future. It is
difficult to believe that such institutions are not worthy of attention in the
highest degree, and that their study is wholly devoid of lively interest and
solid profit. We see them appear at every epoch of Church history; their
memorials and monuments are found every moment under our feet; they are
preserved in the regions of Asia, in the sands of Africa, in the cities and solitudes
of America; in fine, when, after so much adversity, we see them more
or less prosperous in the various countries of Europe, sending forth again fresh
shoots in those lands where their roots had been the most deeply torn up, there
naturally arises in the mind a spirit of curiosity to examine this phenomenon,
to inquire what is the origin, the genius, and the character of these institutions.
Those who love to descend into the heart of philosophical questions discover, at
first sight, that there must be there an abundant mine of the most precious information
for the science of religion, of society, and of man. He who has read
the lives of the ancient fathers of the desert without being touched, without
feeling profound admiration, and being filled with grave and lofty thoughts; he
who, treading under his feet with indifference the ruins of an ancient abbey,
has not called up in fancy the shades of the cenobites who lived and died there;
he who passes coldly through the corridors and cells of convents half-demolished,
and feels no recollections, and not even the curiosity to examine,&mdash;he
may close the annals of history, and may cease to study the beautiful and the
sublime. There exist for him no historical phenomena, no beauty, no sublimity;
his mind is in darkness, his heart is in the dust.</p>

<p>With the intention of hiding the intimate connection which subsists between
religious institutions and religion herself, it has been said that she can exist
without them. This is an incontrovertible truth, but abstract and wholly useless&mdash;a
barren and isolated assertion, which can throw no light upon science,
nor serve as any practical guide&mdash;an insidious truth, which only tends entirely
to change the whole state of the question, and persuade men that when religious
institutions are concerned, religion has nothing to do with the matter.
There is here a gross sophism, which is too much employed, not only on this
question, but on many others. This consists in replying to all difficulties by a
proposition perfectly true in itself, but which has nothing to do with the question.
By this means, attention is turned another way; the palpable truth which
is presented to the mind makes men wander from the principal object, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[Pg 221]</a></span>
induces them to take that for a solution which is only a distraction. With
respect, for example, to the support of the clergy and divine worship, it is said,
"Temporals are altogether different from spirituals." When the ministers of
religion are systematically calumniated, "Religion," they say, "is one thing,
and her ministers are another." If it is wished to represent the conduct of
Rome for many centuries as an uninterrupted chain of injustice, of corruption,
and of invasion of right, all reply is anticipated by saying, "The supremacy of
the Sovereign Pontiff has nothing to do with the vices of Popes or their ambition."
Reflections perfectly just, and truths palpable, no doubt, which are very
useful in certain cases, but which writers of bad faith cunningly employ to conceal
from the reader the real object they have in view. Such are the jugglers
who attract the attention of the simple multitude on one side, while their companions
perform their criminal operations on the other.</p>

<p>Because a thing is not necessary to the existence of another, it does not follow
that the first does not originate in the second,&mdash;does not find in the spirit
of the latter its peculiar and permanent existence, and that a system of intimate
and delicate relation does not subsist between them. The tree can subsist without
flowers and fruits; these can certainly fall without destroying the trunk;
but as long as the tree shall exist, will it ever cease to give proofs of its vigor
and its beauty, and to offer its flowers to the eye, and its fruits to the taste?
The stream may constantly flow in its crystal bed without the green margin
which embellishes its sides; but while its source is not dried up&mdash;as long as the
fertilizing water penetrates the ground, can its favored banks remain dry, barren,
without color and ornament? Let us apply these images to our subject.
It is certain that religion can exist without religious communities, and that their
ruin does not necessarily entail that of religion herself. More than once it has
been seen that in countries where religious institutions have been destroyed, the
Catholic faith has been long preserved. But it is not less certain, that there is
a necessary dependence between them and religion; that is, that she has given
being to them, that she animates them with her spirit, and nourishes them with
her substance: this is the reason why they immediately germinate wherever the
Catholic faith takes root; and if they have been driven from a country where
she continues to exist, they will reappear. Without alluding to the examples
of other countries, do we not see this phenomenon take place in France in a
remarkable manner? The number of convents of men and women which are
again established on the French soil is already very considerable. Who would
have told the men of the Constituent Assembly, the Legislative Assembly, the
Convention, that half a century should not elapse without seeing religious institutions
reappear and flourish in France, in spite of all their efforts to destroy
even their memory? "If that happen," they would have said, "it will be because
the revolution which we are making will not be allowed to triumph&mdash;because
Europe will have again imposed despotism upon us; then, and then
only, will be witnessed in France&mdash;in Paris&mdash;in this capital of the Christian
world&mdash;the re-establishment of religious institutions, that legacy of fanaticism
and superstition, transmitted to us by the ideas and manners of an age which
has passed away, never to return."</p>

<p>Senseless men! your revolution <em>has</em> triumphed; you <em>have</em> conquered Europe;
the old principles of the French monarchy <em>have</em> been erased from legislation,
institutions, and manners; the genius of war has led your doctrines in triumph
over Europe, and they were gilded by the rays of your glory. Your principles,
all your recollections have again triumphed at a recent period; they still live in
all their force and pride, personified in some men who glory in being the heirs
of what they call the glorious Revolution of '89; and yet, in spite of so many
triumphs, although your revolution has only receded as much as was necessary the
better to secure its conquests, religious institutions have again arisen&mdash;they ex<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[Pg 222]</a></span>tend,
they are propagated everywhere, and they regain an important place in the
annals of our times. To prevent this revival, it would have been necessary to
extirpate religion; it was not enough to persecute her; faith remained like a
precious germ covered by stones and thorns; Providence sends down a ray of
that divine star which softens stones, and gives life and fertility; the tree rises
again in all its beauty, in spite of the ruins which hindered its growth and development,
and its leaves are immediately covered with charming blossoms:&mdash;behold
the religious institutions which you thought were for ever annihilated!</p>

<p>The example which we have just mentioned clearly shows the truth of what
we wish to establish, with respect to the intimate connection which exists between
religion and religious institutions. Church history furnishes proofs in
support of this truth. Besides, the mere knowledge of religion, and of the
nature of the institutions of which we speak, would suffice to prove it to us,
even if we had not history and experience in our favor.</p>

<p>The force of general prejudice on this subject is such, that it is necessary to
descend to the root of things, to show the complete mistake of our adversaries.
What are religious institutions considered generally? Putting aside the differences,
the changes, the alterations necessarily produced by variety of times,
countries, and other circumstances, we will say that a religious institute is a
society of Christians living together, under certain rules, for the purpose of practising
the Gospel precepts. We include, in this definition, even the orders which
are not bound by a vow. It will be seen that we have considered the religious
institution in its most general sense, laying aside all that theologians and canonists
say with respect to the conditions indispensable to constitute or complete its
essence. We must, moreover, observe that we ought not to exclude from the
honorable denomination of religious institutes, those associations which possess
all the conditions except the vows. The Catholic religion is fertile enough to
produce good by means and forms widely different. In the generality of religious
institutions, she has shown us what man can do by binding himself by a
vow, for his whole life, to a holy abnegation of his own will; but she has also
wished to show us that, while leaving him at liberty, she could attach him by a
variety of ties, and make him persevere until death, as if he had been obliged
by a perpetual vow. The congregation of the oratory of St. Philip Neri, which
is found in this latter category, is certainly worthy of figuring among religious
institutions as one of the finest monuments of the Catholic Church. I am aware
that the vow is comprised in the essence of religious institutes, as they are commonly
understood; but my only object now is, to vindicate this kind of association
against Protestants. Now we know that they condemn indiscriminately,
associations bound by vows and those which only consist of the permanent and
free adhesion of the persons who compose them. All that has the form of a
religious community is regarded by them with a look of anger. When they
proscribed the religious orders, they included in the same fate those which had
vows and those which had not. Consequently, when defending them, we must
class them together. Moreover, this will not prevent our considering the vow
in itself, and justifying it before the tribunal of philosophy.</p>

<p>I do not imagine that it is necessary to say more to show that the object of
religious institutions&mdash;that is, as we have just said, the putting in practice of
the Gospel counsels&mdash;is in perfect uniformity with the Gospel itself. And let us
well observe that, whatever may be the name, whatever may be the form of
the institutions, they have always for their object something more than the
simple observance of the precepts; the idea of perfection is always included,
then, either in the active or the contemplative life. To keep the Divine commandments
is indispensable to all Christians who wish to possess eternal life; the
religious orders attempt a more difficult path; they aim at perfection. This is
the object of the men who, after having heard these words from the mouth of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">[Pg 223]</a></span>
their Divine Master: "If you wish to be perfect, go sell all you have, and give
it to the poor," have not departed sorrowful, like the young man in the Gospel,
but have embraced with courage the enterprise of quitting all and following
Jesus Christ.</p>

<p>We have now inquired whether association is the best means to carry into
execution so holy an object. It would be easy for me to show this by adducing
various texts of Scripture, where the true spirit of the Christian religion, and
the will of our Divine Master, are clearly shown on this point; but the taste of
our age, and the self-evidence even of the truths in question, warn us to avoid,
as much as possible, all that savors of theological discussion. I will remove
the question, then, from this level, to consider it in a light purely historical
and philosophical; that is to say, without accumulating citations and texts, I
will prove that religious institutes are perfectly conformable to the spirit of the
Christian religion; and that consequently that spirit has been deplorably mistaken
by Protestants, when they have condemned or destroyed them. If philosophers,
while they do not admit the truth of religion, still avow that it is
useful and beautiful, I will prove to them that they cannot condemn those
institutions which are the necessary result of it. In the cradle of Christianity,
when men preserved, in all their energy and purity, the sparks from the
tongues of the Holy Spirit; in those times, when the words and examples of its
Divine Founder were still fresh, when the number of the faithful who had had
the happiness of seeing and hearing Him was still very great in the Church,
we see the Christians, under the direction of the Apostles themselves, unite,
have all their property in common; thus forming only one family, the Father
of which was in heaven, and <em>which had only one heart and one soul</em>.</p>

<p>I will not dispute as to the extent of this primitive proceeding; I will abstain
from analyzing the various circumstances which accompanied it, and from examining
how far it resembled the religious institutions of latter times; it is
enough to state its existence, and show therefrom what is the true spirit of
religion with respect to the most proper means to realize evangelical perfection.
I will only allude to the fact, that Cassian, in the description which he gives
of the commencement of religious institutions, assigns as their cradle the proceeding
we have just mentioned, and which is reported in the Acts of the
Apostles. According to the same author, this kind of life was never wholly
interrupted; so that there were always some fervent Christians who continued
it; thus attaching, by a continued chain, the existence of the monks to the
primitive associations of the apostolical times. After having described the
kind of life of the first Christians, and traced the alterations of the times that
followed, Cassian continues thus: "Those who preserved the apostolical fervor
in this way, recalling primitive perfection, quitted towns, and the society of
those who believed that they were allowed to live with less severity; they began
to choose secret and retired places, where they could follow in private the rules
which they remembered to have been appointed by the Apostles for the whole
body of the Church in general. Thus commenced the formation of the discipline
of those who had quitted that contagion, as they lived separate from the
rest of the faithful; abstaining from marriage, and having no communication
with the world, even with their own families. In the progress of time, the
name of monks was given to them, in consideration of their singular and solitary
life." (<cite>Collat.</cite> 18, cap. 5.)</p>

<p>Times of persecution immediately followed, which, with some interruptions,
that may be called moments of repose, lasted till the conversion of Constantine.
There were, then, during this time, some Christians who attempted to continue
the mode of life of the apostolical years. Cassian clearly indicates this in the
passage which we have just read. He omits to say that this primitive life was
necessarily modified, in its exterior form, by the calamities with which the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">[Pg 224]</a></span>
Church was afflicted at that period. In all that time we ought not to look for
Christians living in community; we shall find them confessing Jesus Christ,
with imperturbable calmness, on the rack, amid all torments, in the circus,
where they were torn to pieces by wild beasts, on the scaffold, where they
quietly gave up their heads to the axe of the executioner. But observe what
happened even during the time of persecution; the Christians, of whom the
world was not worthy, pursued in the towns like wild beasts, wandered about
in solitude, seeking refuge in the deserts. The solitudes of the East, the sand
and rocks of Arabia, the most inaccessible places of the Thebaïd, receive those
troops of fugitives, who dwell in the abodes of wild beasts, in abandoned graves,
in dried-up cisterns, in the deepest caverns, only asking for an asylum for meditation
and prayer. And do you know the result of this? These deserts, in
which the Christians wandered, like a few grains of sand driven by the wind,
became peopled, as it were by magic, with innumerable religious communities.
There they meditated, prayed, and read the Gospel; hardly had the fruitful
seed touched the earth, when the precious plant arose in a moment.</p>

<p>Admirable are the designs of Providence! Christianity, persecuted in the
towns, fertilizes and embellishes the deserts; the precious grain requires for its
development neither the moisture of the earth nor the breeze of a mild atmosphere;
when carried through the air on the wings of the storm, the seed loses
nothing of its vitality; when thrown on a rock, it does not perish. The fury
of the elements avails nothing against the work of God, who has made the
north wind His courser: the rock ceases to be barren when He pleases to fertilize
it. Did He not make pure water spring forth at the mysterious touch of
His Prophet's rod?</p>

<p>When peace was given to the Church by the conqueror of Maxentius, the
germs contained in the bosom of Christianity were able to develop themselves
everywhere; from that moment the Church was never without religious communities.
With history in our hands, we may defy the enemies of religious
institutions to point out any period, however short, when these institutions had
entirely disappeared. Under some form or in some country, they have always
perpetuated the existence which they had received in the early ages of Christianity.
The fact is certain and constant, and is found in every page of ecclesiastical
history; it plays an important part in all the great events in the annals
of the Church. It is found in the west and in the east, in modern and in ancient
times, in the prosperity and in the adversity of the Church; when the
pursuit of religious perfection was an honor in the eyes of the world, as well
as when it was an object of persecution, raillery, and calumny. What clearer
proof can there be that there is an intimate connection between religious institutions
and religion herself? What more is required to show us that they are
her spontaneous fruit? In the moral and in the physical order of things, the
constant appearance of the one following the other, is regarded as a proof of the
reciprocal dependence of two phenomena. If these phenomena have towards
each other the relations of cause and effect&mdash;if we find in the essence of the one
all the principles that are required in the production of the other, the
first is called the cause and the other the effect. Wherever the religion of
Jesus Christ is established, religious communities are found under some form or
other; they are, therefore, its spontaneous effect. I do not know what reply
can be made to so conclusive an argument.</p>

<p>By viewing the question in this way, the favor and protection which religious
institutions always found with the Pontiff is naturally explained. It was his
duty to act in conformity with the spirit which animates the Church, of which
he is the chief ruler upon earth; it is certainly not the Pope who has made the
regulation, that one of the means most apt to lead men to perfection is to unite
themselves in associations under certain rules, in conformity with the instruc<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">[Pg 225]</a></span>tions
of their Divine Master. The Eternal Lord thus ruled in the secrets of
His infinite wisdom, and the conduct of the Popes could not be contrary to the
designs of the Most High. It has been said that interested views interposed;
it has been said that the policy of the Popes found in these institutions a powerful
means of sustaining and aggrandizing itself. But can you not see any thing
but the sordid instruments of cunning policy in the societies of the primitive
faithful, in the monasteries of the solitudes of the East, in that crowd of institutions
which have had for their object only the sanctification of their own members
and the amelioration of some of the great evils of humanity? A fact so
general, so great, so beneficent, cannot be explained by views of interest and
narrow designs; its origin is higher and nobler; and he who will not seek for
it in heaven ought at least to seek for it in something greater than the projects
of a man or the policy of a court; he ought to seek for lofty ideas, sublime
feelings, capable, if they do not mount to heaven, at least of embracing a large
part of the earth; nothing less is here required than one of those thoughts which
preside over the destinies of the human race.</p>

<p>Some persons may be inclined to imagine private designs on the part of the
Popes, because they see their authority interfere in all the foundations of later
ages, and their approbation constitute the validity of the rules of religious institutions;
but the course pursued in this respect by ecclesiastical discipline shows
us that the most active intervention of the Popes, far from emanating from private
views, has been called for by a necessity of preventing an excessive multiplication
of the religious orders in consequence of an indiscreet zeal. This vigilance in
preventing abuses was the origin of this supreme intervention. In the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries the tendency to new foundations was so strong that the
most serious inconveniences would have resulted from it, without a continual
watchfulness on the part of the ecclesiastical authority. Thus we see the Sovereign
Pontiff Innocent III. ordain, in the Council of Lateran, that whoever
wished to found a new religious house shall be bound to adopt one of the approved
rules and institutions.</p>

<p>But let us pursue our design. I can understand how those who deny the
truth of the Christian religion, and turn into ridicule the counsels of the Gospel,
bring themselves to deny all that is celestial and divine in the spirit of the religious
communities; but the truth of religion once established, I cannot conceive
how men who boast of following its laws can declare themselves the enemies of
these institutions considered in themselves. How can he who admits the principle
refuse the consequence? How can he who loves the cause reject the effect?
They must either affect a religion hypocritically, or they profess without comprehending
it.</p>

<p>In default of any other proof of the anti-evangelical spirit which guided the
leaders of the pretended Reformation, their hatred to an institution so evidently
founded on the Gospel itself should suffice. Did not these enthusiasts for
reading the Bible <em>without note or comment</em>&mdash;they who pretend to find all its
passages so clear&mdash;did they not remark the plain and easy sense of that multitude
of passages which recommend self-abnegation, the renunciation of all possessions,
and the privation of all pleasures? These words are plain&mdash;they cannot
be taken in any other signification&mdash;they do not require for their comprehension
a profound study of the sacred sciences, or that of languages; and yet
they have not been heard: we should rather say, they have not been listened to.
The intellect has understood, but the passions have rejected them.</p>

<p>As to those philosophers who have regarded religious institutions as vain and
contemptible, if not dangerous, it is clear that they have meditated but little on
the human mind, and on the deep feelings of our hearts, full as they are of
mystery. As their hearts have felt nothing at the sight of those numbers of
men and women assembled for the purpose of sanctifying themselves or others,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[Pg 226]</a></span>
or of relieving wants, and consoling the unfortunate, it is but too clear that their
souls have been dried up by the breath of skepticism. To renounce for ever all
the pleasures of life; to live in solitude, there to offer one's self, in austerity
and penance, as a holocaust to the Most High: this, certainly is a matter of
horror to those philosophers who have only viewed the world through their own
prejudices. But humanity has other thoughts; it feels itself attracted by those
objects which philosophers find so vain, so devoid of interest, so worthy of horror.</p>

<p>Wonderful are the secrets of our hearts! Although enervated by pleasure,
and involved in the whirlwind of amusement and mirth, we cannot avoid being
seized with deep emotion at the sight of austerity and recollection of soul. Solitude,
and even sadness itself, exert an inexpressible influence over us. Whence
comes that enthusiasm which moves a whole nation, excites and makes it follow,
as if by enchantment, the steps of a man whose brow is marked by recollection,
whose features display austerity of life, whose clothes and manners show freedom
from all that is earthly, and forgetfulness of the world? Now, it is a fact,
proved by the history both of true and of false religions; so powerful a means of
attracting respect and esteem has not remained unknown to imposture: licentiousness
and corruption, desirous of making their fortunes in the world, have more
than once felt the imperious necessity of disguising themselves under the mantle
of austerity and purity. What at first sight might appear the most opposed to
our feelings, the most repugnant to our tastes&mdash;this shade of sadness diffused
over the recollection and solitude of the religious life&mdash;is precisely what enchants
and attracts us the most. The religious life is solitary and pensive; therefore
it is beautiful, and its beauty is sublime. Nothing is more apt than this sublimity
to move our hearts deeply, and make indelible impressions on them. In
reality, our soul has the character of an exile; it is affected by melancholy objects
only; it has not attained to that noisy joy which requires to borrow a tint of
melancholy only for the sake of a happy contrast. In order to clothe beauty
with its most seductive charms, it is necessary that a tear of anguish should
flow from her eyes, that her forehead should assume an air of sadness, and her
cheeks grow pale with a melancholy remembrance. In order that the life of a
hero excite a lively interest in us, it is requisite that misfortune be his companion,
lamentation his consolation&mdash;that disaster and ingratitude be the reward of his
virtues. If you wish that a picture of nature or art should strongly attract our
attention, take possession of and absorb the powers of our soul, it is necessary
that a memorial of the nothingness of man, and an image of death, should be
presented to our minds; our hearts should be appealed to by the feelings of a
tranquil sadness; we desire to see sombre tints on a monument in ruins&mdash;the
cross reminding us of the abode of the dead, the massive walls covered with
moss, and pointing out the ancient dwelling of some powerful man, who, after
having lived on earth for a short time, has disappeared.</p>

<p>Joy does not satisfy us, it does not fill our hearts; it intoxicates and dissipates
them for a few moments; but man does not find there his happiness, because
the joys of earth are frivolous, and frivolity cannot attach a traveller who, far
from his country, walks painfully through the valley of tears. Thence it comes
that, while sorrow and tears are accepted&mdash;we should rather say, are carefully
sought for by art&mdash;whenever a deep impression is to be made upon the soul,
joy and smiles are inexorably banished. Oratory, poetry, sculpture, painting,
music, have all constantly followed the same rule; or, rather, have always been
governed by the same instinct. It certainly required a lofty spirit and a heart
of fire to declare <em>that the soul is naturally Christian</em>. In these few words an
illustrious thinker has known how to express all the relations which unite the
faith, morality, and counsels of this divine religion, with all that is most
intimate, delicate, and noble in our hearts. Do you know Christian pensiveness;
that grave and elevated feeling which is painted on the forehead of the Christian,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">[Pg 227]</a></span>
like a memorial of sorrow on that of an illustrious proscribed one; this feeling
which moderates the enjoyments of life by the image of the tomb, and lights up the
depths of the grave with the rays of hope; that pensiveness so natural and consoling,
so grave and noble, which causes diadems and sceptres to be trodden
under foot like dust, and the greatness and splendor of the world to be despised
as a passing illusion? This melancholy, carried to its perfection, vivified and
fertilized by grace, and subjected to a holy rule, is what presides over the foundation
of religious institutions, and accompanies them as long as they preserve
their primitive fervor, which they received from men who were guided by
divine light, and animated by the Spirit of God. This holy melancholy, which
carries with it freedom from all earthly things, is the feeling which the Church
wishes to instil into and preserve in, the religious orders, when she surrounds
their silent abodes with a shade of retirement and meditation.</p>

<p>That amid the fury and the convulsions of parties, a mad and sacrilegious
hand, secretly excited by malice, should plunge a fratricidal dagger into an innocent
heart, or set fire to a peaceful dwelling, may be conceived; for, unhappily,
the history of man abounds in crimes and frenzies; but that the essence of
religious institutions should be attacked, that their spirit should be considered
narrow and imbecile, that they should be deprived of the noble titles which
give honor to their origin, and the beauties which adorn their history, can be
allowed neither by the intellect nor by the heart. A false philosophy, which
dries up and withers all that it touches, has undertaken so mad a task. But,
setting aside religion and reason, literature and the fine arts have rebelled
against this attempt; literature and the fine arts, which have need of old recollections,
and which are indebted for their wonders to lofty thoughts, to grave
and noble scenes, and deep and melancholy feelings; literature and the arts,
which delight in transporting the mind of man into regions of light, in guiding
the imagination through new and unknown paths, and in ruling the heart by
mysterious charms.</p>

<p>No; a thousand times no! As long as the religion of that God made man,
who had not where to repose his head, and who sat down by a well on the wayside
to rest, like an humble traveller, shall last; of that God-man, whose appearance
was announced to the nations by a mysterious voice coming from the
desert&mdash;by the voice of a man clothed in a goat-skin, whose reins were bound
with a leathern girdle, and who lived on nothing but locusts and wild honey:
as long as this divine religion shall last, nothing will be more holy or more
worthy of our respect than those institutions, the true and original object of
which is to realize what Heaven intended to teach man by such eloquent and
sublime lessons. Times, vicissitudes, and revolutions, succeed each other; the
institution will change its form, will undergo alterations, will be affected more or
less by the weakness of men, by the corrosive action of time, and the destructive
power of events; but it will live&mdash;it will never perish. If one society
rejects it, it will seek an asylum in another; driven from towns, it will take
refuge in forests; if there pursued, it will flee to the horrors of the desert.
There will always be, in some privileged hearts, an echo for the voice of that
sublime religion, which, holding in her hand a standard of sorrow and love&mdash;the
sacred standard of the sufferings and death of the Son of God&mdash;the Cross,
will proclaim to men: "Watch and pray, that you enter not into temptation;
if you assemble to pray, the Lord will be in the midst of you; all flesh is but
grass; life is a dream; above your heads is an ocean of light and happiness;
under your feet an abyss; your life on earth is a pilgrimage, an exile." Then
she marks his forehead with the mysterious ashes, telling him, "Thou art dust,
and unto dust thou shalt return."</p>

<p>We shall perhaps be asked why the faithful cannot practise evangelical perfection
while living in the bosom of their families, without assembling in com<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">[Pg 228]</a></span>munities?
We shall reply, that we have no intention of denying the possibility
of that practice, even in the midst of the world; and we willingly acknowledge
that a great number of Christians have done so at all times, and do so now;
but this does not prove that the surest and easiest means is not that of the life
in community with others who have the same object in view, and in retirement
from all the things of this world. Laying aside for a moment all consideration
of religion, are you not aware of the ascendency which the spirit of repeated
examples exerts on those with whom we live? Do you not know how easily
our spirit fails when we find ourselves alone in a difficult enterprise? Do you
not know that, in the greatest misfortunes, it is a consolation to behold others
participate in our sorrows? On this point, as well as on all others, religion
accords with sound philosophy, and both unite in explaining to us the profound
meaning contained in those words of Scripture: "<em>Væ soli! Wo to him who is
alone!</em>"</p>

<p>Before concluding this chapter, I wish to say a few words on the vows which
commonly accompany religious institutes. Perhaps they are one of the principal
causes of the violent antipathy of Protestantism against these institutions.
Vows render things fixed and stable; and the fundamental principle of Protestantism
does not admit of fixity or stability. Essentially separating and
anarchical, this principle rejects unity and destroys the hierarchy; dissolving
in its nature, it allows the mind neither to remain in a permanent faith nor to
be subject to rule. For if virtue itself is only a vague entity, which has no
fixed foundation&mdash;a being which is fed on illusions, and which cannot endure
the application of any certain and constant rule, this holy necessity of doing
well, of constantly walking in the path of perfection, must be incomprehensible
to it, and in the highest degree repugnant; this necessity must appear to
it inconsistent with liberty; as if man, by binding himself by a vow, lost his
free will; as if the sanction which a promise given to God imparts to a design,
at all diminished the merit of him who has the firmness necessary to accomplish
what he had the courage to promise.</p>

<p>Those who, to condemn this necessity which man imposes on himself, invoke
the rights of liberty against it, seem to forget that this effort of man to make
himself the slave of good, and secure his own future, besides the sublime disinterestedness
which it supposes, is the vastest exercise which man can make of
his liberty. By one act alone, he disposes of his whole life, and by fulfilling
the duties resulting from that act, he continually fulfils his own will. But we
shall be told that man is so inconstant: this is the reason why, in order to prevent
the effects of this inconstancy, he finds himself penetrating into the vicissitudes
of the future, renders himself superior to them, and governs them in
advance. But, it will be said, in that case, good is done from necessity: this
is true; but do you not know that the necessity of doing good is a happy one,
and in some measure assimilates man with God? Do you not know that Infinite
Goodness is incapable of doing evil, and Infinite Holiness can do nothing
that is not holy? Theologians explain why a created being is capable of sinning
by pointing out this profound reason. "It is," they say, "because the
creature is made out of nothing." When man forces himself, as far as he can,
to do well, when he thus fetters his will, he ennobles it, he renders himself more
like to God, he assimilates himself to the state of the blessed, who have no
longer the melancholy liberty of doing evil, and who are under the happy
necessity of loving God.</p>

<p>The name of liberty, from the time when Protestants and false philosophers
took possession of it, seems condemned to be ill understood in all its applications.
In the religious, moral, social, and political order, it is enveloped in such
obscurity, that we can perceive the many efforts which have been made to darken
and misrepresent it. Cicero gives an admirable definition of liberty when he<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">[Pg 229]</a></span>
says, that it consists in being the slave of law. In the same way it may be said,
that the liberty of the intellect consists in being the slave of truth; and the
liberty of the will in being the slave of virtue; if you change this, you destroy
liberty. If you take away the law, you admit force; if you take away the
truth, you admit error; if you take away virtue, you admit vice. If you venture
to exempt the world from the external law, from that law which embraces
man and society, which extends to all orders, which is the divine wisdom applied
to reasonable creatures; if you venture to seek for an imaginary liberty
out of that immense circle, you destroy all; there remains in society nothing
but the empire of brute force, and in man that of the passions; with tyranny,
and consequently slavery.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXIX" id="CHAPTER_XXXIX">CHAPTER XXXIX.</a><br />

<small>OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN HISTORY.&mdash;THE FIRST SOLITARIES</small>.</h2>


<p>I have just examined religious institutions in a general point of view, by
considering them in their relations with religion and the human mind. I am
now going to take a glance at the principal points of their history. This examination,
I think, will show us an important truth: viz. that the appearance of
these institutions under different forms has been the expression and the fulfilment
of great moral necessities, and a powerful means, in the hands of Providence,
of promoting not only the spiritual good of the Church, but also the
salvation and regeneration of society. It will be understood that it is not possible
for me to enter into details, or pass in review the numerous religious
institutions which have existed; besides, this is not necessary for my object. I
shall limit myself, therefore, to running over the principal phases of religious
institutes, and making a few remarks on each of them; I shall act like the
traveller who, being unable to make a stay in the country through which he
passes, looks at it for a short time from the highest points. I will begin with
the solitaries of the East.</p>

<p>The Colossus of the Roman Empire threatened an approaching and stunning
fall: the spirit of life was rapidly becoming extinguished, and there was no
longer any hope of a breath to reanimate it. The blood circulated slowly in its
veins; the evil was incurable: the symptoms of corruption everywhere manifested
themselves, and this agony was exactly coincident with the critical and
formidable hour when it was necessary to collect all its forces to resist the
violent shock which was about to destroy it. The barbarians appeared on the
frontiers of the empire, like the carnivorous animals attracted by the exhalations
of a dead body; and at this crisis society found itself on the eve of a
fearful catastrophe. All the world was about to undergo an alarming change;
the next day was not likely to resemble the last; the tree was about to be torn
up; but its roots were too deep for it to be extirpated without changing the
whole face of the soil where it was planted. The greatest refinement had to
contend with barbarian ferocity,&mdash;the effeminate luxury of southern nations
with the energy of the robust sons of the forest; the result of the struggle
could not be doubtful. Laws, customs, manners, monuments, arts and sciences,&mdash;all
the civilization and refinement acquired during the course of many ages
was all in peril, all foreboded approaching ruin, all understood that God had
appointed an end to the power, and even the existence of the rulers of the
globe. The barbarians were only the instrument of Providence; the hand which
had given a mortal blow to the mistress of the world, the queen of nations, was
that formidable hand which touches mountains with fire, and reduces them to
ashes, which touches the rocks and melts them like metal; it was the hand of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">[Pg 230]</a></span>
Him who sends forth His fiery breath upon the nations, and burns them up
like straw.</p>

<p>The world must be the prey of chaos for a short time; but was not light
again to come upon it? Was mankind to be melted, like gold in the furnace,
in order to come out more brilliant and more pure? Were ideas respecting God
and man to be corrected? Were more delicate and exalted notions of morality
to be diffused? Was it reserved for the heart of man to receive more grave
and sublime inspirations, to emerge from its corrupt state, and live in an atmosphere
higher and more worthy of an immortal being? Yes! Providence thus
decreed, and His infinite wisdom has brought about this end by ways which
man could not understand.</p>

<p>Christianity was already spread over the face of the world; her holy doctrines,
rendered fruitful by grace, prepared the complete regeneration of the
world; but it was necessary that mankind should again receive a new impulse
from her divine hands, that the mind of man should be moved by a new shock,
that it might take its proper flight, and raise itself at once to the exalted position
which was intended for it, and from which it was never to descend. History
tells us of the obstacles which opposed the establishment and development
of Christianity. According to the warlike expression of the Prophet, God was
compelled to assume His sword and buckler; by the strength of wonderful prodigies,
He broke the resistance of the passions, destroyed every knowledge
which raised itself against the knowledge of God, scattered all the powers
which rebelled against Him, and extinguished the pride and obstinacy of hell.
When, after three centuries of persecution, victory declared itself throughout
the world in favor of the true religion; when the temples of the false gods
were deserted, and those idols which were not yet overthrown trembled on their
pedestals; when the sign of Calvary was inscribed on the Labarum of the
Cæsars, and the legions of the empire bowed religiously before the Cross, then
had the moment arrived for Christianity to realize, in a permanent manner, in
those sublime institutions conceived and established by herself alone, the lofty
counsels given three centuries before in Palestine. The wisdom of philosophers
had been vain; the time was come to realize the wisdom of the Carpenter of
Nazareth, of Him who, without having consulted human learning, had proclaimed
and taught truths unknown to the most privileged of mortals.</p>

<p>The virtues of the Christians had already emerged from the obscurity of the
catacombs; they were to be resplendent in the light of heaven and amid peace,
as they had formerly shone in the depths of dungeons and amid the flames.
Christianity had obtained possession of the sceptre of command, as of the
domestic hearth; her disciples, who now were multitudinous, no longer lived in
a community of goods; it is clear that entire continence, and complete freedom
from all earthly things, could no longer be the mode of life of the regenerated
families. The world was to continue; the duration of the human race was not
to cease at this point of its career; therefore, all Christians were not to observe
the lofty counsels which convert the life of man on earth into the angelic. A
great number of them were to belong to those who, in order to obtain eternal
life, were satisfied with keeping the precepts, without aspiring to the sublime
perfection which results from the renouncement of all that is earthly, and the
complete abnegation of self. Yet the Founder of the Christian religion was
unwilling that the counsels which He had given to men should be for a moment
without some disciples amid the coldness and dissipation of the world. He had
not given them in vain; and, besides, the practice of them, although confined
to a limited number of the faithful, exerted on all sides a beneficent influence
which facilitated and secured the observance of the precepts. The force of
example exerts so powerful an ascendency over the human heart, that it is often
sufficient of itself to triumph over the strongest and most obstinate resistance;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">[Pg 231]</a></span>
there is something in our hearts which inclines them to sympathize with all
that approaches them, whether good or evil; and there seems to be a secret
stimulus urging us to follow others, whatever direction they may take. Therefore
it is that there are so many advantages in the establishment of religious
institutions, in which the virtues and austerity of life are given as an example to
the generality of men, and make an eloquent reproach to the errors of passion.</p>

<p>Providence desired to attain this great end by singular and extraordinary
means; the Spirit of God breathed on the earth, and immediately the men and
power to commence this great work appeared. The frightful deserts of Thebaïd,
the burning solitudes of Arabia, Palestine, and Syria, show us men rudely clad,
with a mantle of goat-skin on their shoulders, and a plain cowl on their heads:
behold all the luxury with which they confound the vanity and pride of worldlings!
Their bodies, exposed to the rays of the most burning sun and the
most severe cold, besides being attenuated by long fasts, resemble walking
spectres who have arisen from the dust of their sepulchres. The herbs of the
earth are their only food, water their only drink; the labor of their hands procures
for them the scanty resources they require. Under the direction of a
venerable old man, whose claims to rule are a long life passed in the desert, and
hairs grown white amid privations and austerities, they constantly keep the
profoundest silence; their lips are opened only to pronounce the words of
prayer; their voice is only heard to intone a hymn of praise to God. For them
the world has ceased to exist; the relations of friendship, the sweet ties of
family and relationship, are all broken by a spirit of perfection, carried to an
extent which surpasses all earthly considerations. The cares of property do
not disturb them; before retiring to the desert, they have abandoned all to him
who was to succeed them; or they have sold all they had, and given the price
to the poor. The Holy Scriptures are the nourishment of their minds; they
learn by heart the words of that divine book; they meditate on them unceasingly,
beseeching the Lord to grant that they may understand them aright. In
their retired meetings, nothing is heard but the voice of some venerable cenobite,
explaining with naïve simplicity and touching unction the sense of the
sacred text; but always in such a way as to draw profit for the purification of
souls.</p>

<p>The number of these solitaries was so great that we could not credit it, if it
were not vouched for by eye-witnesses worthy of the highest respect. As to
their sanctity, spirit of penance, and purity of life, we cannot doubt them after
the testimonies of Rufinus, Palladius, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine,
and all the other illustrious men who distinguished themselves at that
time. The fact is singular, extraordinary, prodigious; but no one can question
its historical truth; it is attested by all who came to the desert from all parts to
seek for light in their doubts, cures for their evils, and pardon for their sins. I
could quote a thousand authorities to prove what I have said; but I will content
myself with one, which shall suffice for all&mdash;that of St. Augustine. Hear how
this holy doctor describes the life of these extraordinary men: "These fathers,
not only very holy in their manners, but very learned in the Christian doctrine,
excellent men in all respects, do not govern with pride those whom they justly
call their sons, on account of the high authority of those who command, and the
ready will of those who obey. At the decline of day, one of them, still fasting,
quits his habitation, and all assemble to hear their master. Each of these
fathers <em>has at least three thousand under his direction; for the number is sometimes
much greater</em>. They listen with incredible attention, in profound silence,
manifesting by their groans, or tears, or by their modest and tranquil joy, the
various feelings which the discourse excites in their souls." (St. Augustin. lib. 1,
<cite>De Moribus Ecclesiæ</cite>, cap. 31.)</p>

<p>But it will be said, Of what use were these men, except for their own sancti<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">[Pg 232]</a></span>fication?
what good did they do to society? what influence did they exert on
ideas? what change did they make in manners? If we admit that this plant
of the desert was beautiful and fragrant, yet what did it avail? it remained
sterile. It certainly would be an error to think that so many thousands of solitaries
did not exercise great influence. In the first place, and to speak only of
what relates to ideas, we must observe, that the monasteries of the East arose
within reach, and under the eyes of, the schools of philosophy. Egypt was the
country where the cenobitic life flourished the most. Now every one is aware
of the high renown which the schools of Alexandria enjoyed a short time before.
On all sides of the Mediterranean&mdash;on that border of land which, beginning in
Libya, terminates in the Black Sea&mdash;men's minds were at that time in a state
of extraordinary motion. Christianity and Judaism, the doctrines of the East
and those of the West&mdash;all was collected and accumulated in this part of the
world; the remains of the ancient schools of Greece were formed of the treasures,
which the course of ages and the passage of the most famous nations of
the earth had brought to those countries. New and gigantic events were come
to throw floods of light upon the character and the value of ideas; minds had
felt shocks which did not allow them any longer to be contented with the quiet
lessons contained in the dialogues of the ancient masters. From these famous
countries came the most eminent men of the early ages of Christianity; and we
know from their works the extent and elevation of mind which man had attained
at that time. Was it possible that a phenomenon so extraordinary&mdash;a girdle of
monasteries and hermitages, embracing this zone of the world, and showing
themselves in the face of the schools of philosophy&mdash;should not exert great influence
on men's minds? The ideas of the solitaries passed incessantly from the
desert into the towns; since, in spite of all the care which they took to avoid
the contact of the world, the world sought and approached them, and continually
came to receive their inspirations.</p>

<p>When we see the nations crowd to the solitaries the most eminent for their
sanctity, to implore from their wisdom a remedy for suffering and a consolation
in misfortunes; when we see these venerable men impart, together with the
unction of the Gospel, the sublime lessons which they had learned during long
years of meditation and prayer in the silence of solitude, it is impossible not to
understand how much these communications must have contributed to correct
and elevate ideas relating to religion and morality, and to amend and purify
morals. Let us not forget that the human mind was, as it were, materialized by
the corruption and grossness of the pagan religion. The worship of nature, of
sensible forms, was so deeply rooted that, in order to raise minds to the conception
of superior things, a strong and extraordinary reaction was required; it
was necessary in some measure to annihilate matter in order to present to man
only the mind. The life of the solitaries was the best adapted to produce this
effect. In reading the history of these times, we seem to find ourselves transported
out of this world; the flesh has disappeared, and there remains nothing
but the spirit; and the force which has been employed in order to subdue the
flesh is such&mdash;they have insisted so much on the vanity of earthly things&mdash;that
reality itself is changed into illusion, and the physical world vanishes to make
way for the moral and intellectual; all the ties of earth have been broken; man
puts himself in intimate communication with Heaven. Miracles multiply exceedingly
in these lives; apparitions continually appear; the abodes of the solitaries
are arenas where earthly means are nothing; good angels struggle against demons,
heaven against hell, God against Satan: the earth is there only to serve
as a field of battle; the body exists no longer except to be consumed as a holocaust
on the altars of virtue, in the presence of the demon who struggles
furiously to render it the slave of vice.</p>

<p>What has become of the idolatrous worship which Greece paid to sensible<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">[Pg 233]</a></span>
forms, that adoration which it offered to nature by deifying all that was delicious
and beautiful, all that could interest the senses and the heart? What a
profound change! the same senses are subjected to the most severe privations;
they are most strictly circumcised in heart; and man, who then scarcely attempted
to raise his mind above the earth, now keeps it constantly fixed on
Heaven. It is impossible to form an idea of what we are attempting to describe,
without having read the lives of these solitaries; to understand all the effect of
their great prodigies, it is necessary to have spent many hours over these pages,
where, so to speak, nothing is found which follows the natural course of things.
It is not enough to imagine pure lives, austerities, visions, and miracles; it is
necessary to see all this collected together, and carried to the most wonderful
extent in the path of perfection.</p>

<p>If you refuse to acknowledge the action of grace in facts so surprising; if you
will not see any supernatural effect in this religious movement; I say more, if
you go so far as to suppose that the mortification of the flesh and the elevation
of the soul are carried to blamable exaggeration, still you cannot help allowing
that such a reaction was very likely to spiritualize ideas, to awaken the moral
and intellectual forces in man, and to concentrate all within himself, by giving
him the sentiment of that interior, intimate, and moral life, with which, until
then, he had not been occupied. The forehead which, till then, had been bent
towards the earth, was raised towards the Divinity; something nobler than
material enjoyments was offered to the mind, and the brutal excesses authorized
by the example of the false divinities of paganism, at length appeared an offence
against the high dignity of human nature.</p>

<p>In the moral order, the effect must have been immense. Man, until then,
had not even imagined that it was possible to resist the impetuosity of his passions.
There were found, it is true, in the cold morality of a few philosophers,
certain maxims intended to restrain the dangerous passions; but this morality
was only in the books, the world did not regard it as practicable, and if some
men attempted to realize it, they did so in such a manner that, far from giving
it credit, they rendered it contemptible. What did it avail to abandon riches
and profess freedom from all earthly things, as some philosophers did, if at the
same time they appeared so vain, so full of themselves, that it was evident that
they only sacrificed on the altar of pride? It was to overturn all the idols in
order to place themselves on the altar, and reign there without rival gods; this
was not to direct the passions, to subject them to reason, but to create a monster
passion surpassing and devouring all. Humility, the foundation-stone
whereon the solitaries raised the edifice of their virtue, placed them immediately
in a position infinitely superior to that of the ancient philosophers who were distinguished
for a life more or less severe. In fine, men were taught to avoid vice
and practise virtue, not for the futile pleasure of being regarded and admired,
but for superior motives founded on the relations of man with God, and the
destinies of eternity. From that moment man knew that it was not impossible
for him to triumph over evil, in the obstinate struggle which he felt continually
going on within himself. At the sight of so many thousands of persons of
both sexes who followed a rule of life so pure and austere, mankind took fresh
courage, and were convinced that the paths of virtue were not impracticable for
them.</p>

<p>The generous confidence with which man was inspired by the sight of such
sublime examples, lost nothing of its strength in presence of the Christian
dogma, which does not allow actions meritorious of eternal life to be attributed
to man himself, and teaches him the necessity of divine aid, if he wishes to
escape the paths of perdition. This dogma, which, on the other hand, accords
so well with the daily lessons of experience as to human frailty, far from destroying
the strength of the mind or diminishing its courage, on the contrary, ani<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">[Pg 234]</a></span>mates
it more and more to persevere in spite of all obstacles. When man thinks
himself alone, when he does not feel himself supported by the powerful hand
of Providence, he walks with the tottering steps of infancy; he wants confidence
in himself, in his own strength; the object he has in view seems too
distant, the enterprise too arduous, and he is discouraged. The dogma of grace,
as it is explained by the Catholic Church, is not that fatalist doctrine, the mother
of despair, which has hardened the heart among Protestants, as Grotius
laments. It is a doctrine which, leaving man all his free will, teaches him the
necessity of superior aid; but that aid will be abundantly furnished him by the
infinite goodness of God, who has shed His blood for him in torments and ignominy,
and has breathed out for him His last sigh on Mount Calvary.</p>

<p>It seems as if Providence had been pleased to choose a climate where mankind
could make a trial of their strength vivified and sustained by grace. It
was under a sky apparently the most fatal for the corruption of the soul, in
countries where the relaxation of the body naturally leads to relaxation of mind,
and where even the air that they breathed inclined to pleasure,&mdash;it was there
that the greatest energy of mind was displayed, that the greatest austerities
were practised, and the pleasures of the senses were proscribed and banished
with the greatest severity. The solitaries fixed their abodes in deserts within
the influence of the balmy breezes of the neighboring lands; from their mountains
and sandy hills their eyes could distinguish the peaceful and smiling countries
which invited to pleasure and enjoyment; like the Christian virgin who
abandoned her obscure cave to go and place herself in the hollow of a rock,
whence she saw the palace of her fathers overflowing with riches, pleasures,
and delights, while she herself lamented like a solitary dove in the holes of the
rock. From that time all climates were good for virtue; austerity of morals
did not at all depend on the proximity of the equatorial line; the morality of
man, like man himself, could live in all climates. When the most perfect continence
was practised in so wonderful a manner under the sky which we have
described, the monogamy of Christianity could well be established and preserved.
When, in the secrets of the Eternal, the time had arrived for calling
a people to the light of truth, it mattered not whether they lived amid the
snows of Scandinavia, or on the burning plains of India. The spirit of the
divine laws was not to be confined within the narrow circle which the <cite>Esprit
des Lois</cite> of Montesquieu has attempted to assign it.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XL" id="CHAPTER_XL">CHAPTER XL.</a><br />

<small>ON RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE EAST</small>.</h2>


<p>The influence exercised by the lives of the solitaries of the East over religion
and morality is beyond a doubt; in truth it is not easy to appreciate it in
all its extent and in all its effects; but it is not the less true and real on that
account. It has not marked the doctrines of humanity like those thundering
events the effects of which are often inadequate to their promises; but it is like
a beneficial rain which, diffusing itself gently over the thirsty earth, fertilizes
the meadows and the fields. If it were possible for man to comprehend and
distinguish the vast assemblage of causes which have contributed to raise his
mind, to give him a lively consciousness of his immortality, and to render a
return to his ancient degradation almost impossible, perhaps it would be found
that the wonderful phenomenon of the Eastern solitaries had a considerable
share in that immense change. Let us not forget that from thence did the great
men of the East receive their inspiration; St. Jerome lived in a cave at Beth<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">[Pg 235]</a></span>lehem,
and the conversion of St. Augustine was accompanied by a holy emulation
excited in his mind by reading the life of St. Anthony the Abbot.</p>

<p>The monasteries which were founded in the East and West in imitation of
these early establishments of the solitaries, were a continuation of them, although
with many differences, in consequence of times and circumstances. Thence came
the Basils, the Gregories, the Chrysostoms, and so many distinguished men, the
glory of the Church. If a miserable spirit of dispute, ambition, and pride,
sowing the seeds of discord, had not prepared the rupture which was to deprive
the East of the vivifying influence of the Roman See, perhaps the ancient monasteries
of the East would have served, like those of the West, to prepare a
social regeneration, by forming one people out of the conquerors and the conquered.</p>

<p>It is evident that the want of unity was one of the causes of the weakness
of the East; I will not deny that their position was very different from ours;
the enemy opposed to them did not at all resemble the barbarians of the North;
but I am not sure that it was easier to subdue the latter than it was to rule the
nations by whom the East was conquered. In the East, the victory remained
with the aggressors, as with us; but a conquered nation is not dead; its defeat
does not take from it all the great advantages which are able, by giving it a
moral ascendency over the conquerors, to prepare, in silence, their transformation,
if not their expulsion. The northern barbarians conquered the South of
Europe; but the South, in its turn, triumphed over them by the Christian religion;
the barbarians were not driven out, but they were transformed. Spain
was conquered by the Arabs, and the Arabs could not be transformed; but they
were driven out in the end. If the East had preserved unity, if Constantinople
and the other episcopal sees had remained subject to Rome like those of the
West; in a word, if all the East had been contented to be a member of a great
body, instead of having the ambitious pretensions of being a great body itself,
I consider it certain that, after the conquest of the Saracens, a struggle, at once
intellectual, moral, and physical, would have been engaged in; a profound
change would have been worked in the conquered nation, or the struggle
would have ended by the conquering barbarians being driven back to their
deserts.</p>

<p>It will be said that the transformation of the Arabs was the work of ages.
But was not that of the barbarians of the North so likewise? Was this great
work finished by their conversion to Christianity? A considerable part of them
were Arians; and besides, they understood the Christian ideas so ill, they
found the practice of Gospel morality so difficult, that for a long time it was
almost as difficult to treat with them as with nations of a different religion. On
the other hand, let us not forget that the irruption of the barbarians was not a
solitary event; an event which, when once finished, did not recur; it was continued
for ages. But the force of the religious principle in the West was such,
that all the invading nations were compelled to retire, or were forced to bend
to the ideas and manners of the countries they had recently acquired. The
defeat of the hordes of Attila, the victories of Charlemagne over the Saxons
and the other nations beyond the Rhine, the successive conversion of the various
idolatrous nations of the North by means of the missionaries sent from Rome,&mdash;in
fine, the vicissitudes and the final result of the invasions of the Normans,
and the ultimate triumph of the Christians of Spain over the Moors after a war
of eight centuries, are so many decisive proofs of what I have just laid down&mdash;viz.
that the West, vivified and fortified by Catholic unity, had had the secret
of assimilating and appropriating to itself all that it was not able to reject, and
the force to reject all that it could not make its own.</p>

<p>This is what was wanting in the East: the enterprise was not more difficult
there than in the West. If the West alone was able to liberate the Holy Se<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">[Pg 236]</a></span>pulchre,
the West and East together would never have lost it; or, at least, after
having freed it, they would have kept it for ever. The same cause prevented
the monasteries of the East from attaining to the same vitality and energy
which distinguished those of the West; therefore, they have always been seen
to grow weak with time, without producing any thing great, and capable of preventing
social dissolution, of silently preparing and slowly elaborating regeneration
for posterity, after the calamities with which it pleased Providence to
afflict ancient times. He who has seen in history the brilliant commencement
of the Eastern monasteries, cannot behold without pain the decline of their
strength and splendor in the course of ages, after the ravages caused by invasion,
wars, and finally, the deadly influence of the schism of Constantinople;
the ancient abodes of so many men illustrious for science and sanctity gradually
disappeared from the page of history like expiring lamps, or the dying fires of
an abandoned camp.</p>

<p>Immense injury was done to all the branches of human knowledge by this
decline, which, after having rendered the East barren, ended by destroying it.
If we pay attention, we shall see that, amid the great shocks and revolutions
which disturbed Europe, Africa, and Asia, the natural refuge for the remains
of ancient knowledge, was not the West, but the East. It was not in our monasteries
that the books, and other intellectual riches, of which quieter and
happier generations were one day to enjoy the benefit, should naturally have
been preserved; this, it would seem, belonged to the monasteries of the eastern
countries; those lands, where the most different civilizations were brought
together and commingled as on neutral ground; those regions, where the
human mind had displayed the greatest activity, and taken the highest flights;
where the most abundant treasures of tradition and sciences, and the beauties
of art were accumulated; in a word, it was in this vast mart of all the riches
of the civilization and refinement of all nations,&mdash;it was in this sanctuary and
museum of antiquity, that the intellectual patrimony of future generations
ought to have been preserved.</p>

<p>Let it not, however, be supposed that the monasteries of the East were of no
service to the human mind; the science and literature of Europe are still mindful
of the impulse which was communicated to them, by the arrival of the precious
materials thrown upon the coasts of Italy, after the taking of Constantinople:
but even these riches, brought to Europe by a few men, driven upon
our shores by a tempest, came to us, like the remains of a shipwrecked crew,
who, after having with difficulty saved their lives from the fury of the waves,
have only preserved in their benumbed hands some gold and a few precious
stones.</p>

<p>For this reason, precisely, do we lament, because from the example we have
adduced, we are enabled the better to understand the immense riches of the
vessel which was lost; this makes us grieve the more bitterly that the early
times of the illustrious cenobites of the East have not been brought down to
our day by a continued chain. When we see their works overflow with sacred
and profane learning, when their labors show us proofs of indefatigable activity,
we think with sorrow of the inestimable treasures which their libraries must
have contained.</p>

<p>Yet, in spite of the justness of the melancholy reflections we have here made,
it must be allowed that the influence of these monasteries never ceased to be
extremely useful to the preservation of knowledge. The Arabs, in the times
of their success, showed themselves to be intelligent and cultivated; and Europe,
in many respects, is indebted to them for much advancement. Bagdad
and Grenada, during the middle ages, are two brilliant centres of intellectual
movement and art, which serve not a little to diminish the sombre effect of the
barbarities of Islamism: they are two tranquil and pleasing features in a fright<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">[Pg 237]</a></span>ful
picture. If it were possible to follow the history of intellectual development
among the Arabs, through the transformations and catastrophes of the
East, perhaps we should find in the sciences of the nations which they conquered
or destroyed the origin of much of their progress. It is certain that
their own civilization did not contain any vital principle favorable to the
development of the mind; we have a proof of this in their religious and social
organization, and in the small results which they obtained, after having been
for so many centuries peacefully established in the conquered countries. Their
whole system, with respect to letters and intellectual cultivation, is founded on
that stupid maxim, uttered by one of their chiefs, when he condemned an immense
library to the flames: "If these books are contrary to the Alcoran, they
should be burnt as pernicious; if they are not contrary to it, they should be
burnt as useless."</p>

<p>We read in Palladius, that the monks of Egypt did not content themselves
with working with rude and simple objects, but that they devoted themselves
to labors of all kinds. These thousands of men, who, belonging to all classes
and to all countries, embraced the solitary life, must have brought to the desert
a large treasure of knowledge. We know how far the human mind can go
when left to itself, and applied to a fixed occupation; there is always some
reason for thinking that a great part of the valuable ideas on the secrets of
nature, the utility and properties of certain ingredients, the principles of some
of the arts and sciences, knowledge which formed the rich patrimony of the
Arabs at the time when they appeared in Europe, were nothing but the remains
of ancient learning, gathered by them in countries which had formerly been
inundated by men from all parts. We must remember that at the time of the
first invasions of the northern barbarians, when Spain, the south of France,
Italy, the north of Africa, and all the islands adjacent to these countries, were
ravaged by these terrible men, the East became a refuge, an asylum, for all
those who could undertake the voyage. Thus the treasures of Western science
accumulated every day in these countries; this emigration from all the Western
regions may have contributed, in an extraordinary manner, to convey to the East
the remains of ancient knowledge, which afterwards came to us transformed and
disfigured by the hands of the Arabs.</p>

<p>Deeply convinced of the nothingness of the world by so long a succession of
heavy misfortunes, these unfortunate men felt the religious sentiment strengthened
in their hearts; the fugitives assembled in the East listened with lively
emotion to the energetic words of the solitary of the cave of Bethlehem. A
great many of them retired into the monasteries, where they found relief for
their wants, and consolation for their souls; thus did the Eastern monasteries
gain a great addition of valuable knowledge and information of all sorts.</p>

<p>If European civilization one day become complete mistress of the countries
which now groan under the Mussulman yoke, perhaps it will be given to the
history of science to add a noble page to its labors, when, through the obscurities
of the times, and by means of manuscripts discovered by curiosity or
chance, she shall have found the thread which shall lead to a knowledge of the
connection of Arabian science with that of antiquity. The succession of transformations
will then be displayed, and we shall understand how the science of
the sons of Omar has appeared to have a different origin in our eyes. The
archives of Spain contain, in documents relating to the dominion of the Saracens,
riches, the examination of which may be said not yet to be commenced;
perhaps they will throw some light on this point. There is no doubt that they
afford matter for careful investigation, extremely curious for appreciating these
two very different civilizations, the Mohammedan and the Christian.</p>

<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">[Pg 238]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XLI" id="CHAPTER_XLI">CHAPTER XLI.</a><br />

<small>OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE HISTORY OF THE WEST</small>.</h2>


<p>Let us now examine religious institutions, such as they appear in the West,
but laying aside those which, although established in various parts of the
West, were only a sort of ramification of the Eastern monasteries. We observe
that the religious establishments among us added to the Gospel spirit, the principle
of their foundation, a new character, that of conservative, restorative, and
regenerative associations. The monks of the West were not content with sanctifying
themselves; from the first they influenced society. The light and life
which their holy abodes contained, labored to enlighten and fertilize the chaos
of the world. I do not know in history a nobler or more consoling spectacle
than that which is presented to us by the foundation, existence, and development
of the religious institutions of Europe. Society had need of strong efforts
to preserve its life in the terrible crisis through which it had to pass. The secret
of strength is in the union of individual forces, in association; and it is remarkable
that this secret has been taught to European society as if by a revelation
from heaven. Every thing shakes, falls to pieces, and perishes. Religion,
morality, public authority, laws, manners, sciences, and arts&mdash;every thing has
sustained immense losses, every thing goes to ruin; and judging of the future
fate of the world according to human probabilities, the evils are so great and
numerous that a remedy appears impossible.</p>

<p>The observer who, fixing his eyes upon those desolate times, finds there St.
Bennet giving life to and animating the religious institutions, organizing them,
giving them his wise rule and stability, imagines that he sees an angel of light
issuing from the bosom of darkness. Nothing can be imagined better calculated
to restore to dissolved society a principle of life capable of reorganizing
it, than the extraordinary and sublime inspiration which guided this man. Who
does not know what at that time was the condition of Italy&mdash;I should rather
say, of the whole of Europe? What ignorance, what corruption, what elements
of social dissolution! What desolation everywhere! and it is amid this deplorable
state of things that the holy solitary appears, the child of an illustrious
family of Norcia, resolved to combat the evil which threatens to invade the
world. His arms are his virtues; the eloquence of his example gives him an
irresistible ascendency; elevated above the whole age, burning with zeal, and
yet full of prudence and discretion, he founds that institution which is to remain
amid the revolution of ages, like the pyramids unmoved by the storms of
the desert.</p>

<p>What idea has there been more grand, more beneficent, more full of foresight
and wisdom? At a time when knowledge and virtue had no longer an
asylum, when ignorance, corruption, and barbarism rapidly extended their conquests,
was it not a grand idea to raise a refuge for misfortune, to form a
sacred deposit for the precious monuments of antiquity, and to open schools of
knowledge and virtue, where men destined one day to figure in the vortex of
the world might come for instruction? When the reflecting man fixes his
attention on the silent abode of Monte Cassino, where the sons of the most
illustrious families of the empire are seen to come from all parts to that monastery;
some with the intention of remaining there for ever, others to receive a
good education, and soon to carry back to the world a recollection of the serious
inspirations which the holy founder had received at Subiaco; when the monasteries
of the order are seen to multiply everywhere, to be established as great
centres of activity in all places&mdash;in the plains, in the forests, in the most uninhabited
countries; he cannot help bending, with profound veneration, before<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">[Pg 239]</a></span>
the extraordinary man who has conceived such grand designs. If we are
unwilling to acknowledge in St. Bennet a man inspired by Heaven, at least we
ought to consider him as one of those geniuses who, from time to time, appear
on earth to become the tutelary angels of the human race.</p>

<p>Not to acknowledge the powerful effect of such institutions would be to show
but little intelligence. When society is dissolved, it requires not words, not
projects, not laws, but strong institutions, to resist the shock of the passions,
the inconstancy of the human mind, and the destructive power of events; institutions
which raise the mind, pacify and ennoble the heart, and establish in
society a deep movement of reaction and resistance to the fatal elements which
lead it to destruction. If there exists, then, an active mind, a generous heart,
a soul animated by a feeling of virtue, they will all hasten to seek a refuge in
the sacred asylums; it is not always granted to them to change the course of
the world, but at least, as men of solitude and sacrifice, they labour to instruct
and calm their own minds, and they shed a tear of compassion over the senseless
generations who are agitated by great disasters. From time to time they
succeed in making their voices heard amid the tumult, to alarm the hearts of
the wicked by accents which resemble the formidable warnings of Heaven;
thus they diminish the force of the evil while it is impossible to prevent it
entirely; by constantly protesting against iniquity, they prevent its acquiring
prescriptive right; in attesting to future generations, by a solemn testimony,
that there were always, amid darkness and corruption, men who made efforts to
enlighten the world and to restrain the torrent of vice and crime, they preserve
faith in truth and virtue, and they reanimate the hopes of those who are afterwards
placed in similar circumstances. Such was the action of the monks in
the calamitous times of which we speak; such was their noble and sublime
mission to promote the interests of humanity.</p>

<p>Perhaps it will be said that the immense properties acquired by the monasteries
were an abundant recompense for their labors, and perhaps also a proof
that their exertions were little disinterested. No doubt, if we look at things in
the light in which certain writers have represented them, the wealth of the
monks will appear as the fruit of unbounded cupidity, of cruelty, and perfidious
policy; but we have the whole of history to refute the calumnies of the enemies
of religion; and impartial philosophy, while acknowledging that all that
is human is liable to abuse, takes care to assume a higher position, to regard
things <i lang="fr">en masse</i>, and to consider them in the vast picture where so many centuries
have painted their features. It therefore despises the evil, which is only
the exception, while it contemplates and admires the good, which is the rule.</p>

<p>Besides the numerous religious motives which brought property into the
hands of the monks, there is another very legitimate one, which has always
been regarded as one of the justest titles of acquisition. The monks cultivated
waste lands, dried up marshes, constructed roads, restrained rivers within their
beds, and built bridges over them; that is to say, in countries which had undergone
another kind of general deluge, they renewed, in some measure, what the
first nations had done to restore the revolutionized globe to its original form.
A considerable portion of Europe had never received cultivation from the hands
of men; the forests, the rivers, the lakes, the thorny thickets, were as rough as
they had been left by the hands of nature. The monasteries which were
founded here and there may be regarded as the centres of action, which the
civilized nations established in the new countries, the faces of which they proposed
to change by their powerful colonies. Did there ever exist a more legitimate
title for the possession of large properties? Is not he who reclaims a
waste country, cultivates it, and fills it with inhabitants, worthy of preserving
large possessions there? Is not this the natural course of things? Who knows
how many cities and towns arose and flourished under the shadow of the abbeys?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">[Pg 240]</a></span></p>

<p>Monastic properties, besides their substantial utility, had another, which perhaps
has not been sufficiently noticed. The situation of a great part of the
nations of Europe, at the time we speak of, much resembled the state of fluctuation
and inconstancy in which nations are found, who have not yet made any
progress in the career of civilization and refinement. The idea of property,
one of the most fundamental in all social organization, was but little rooted.
Attacks on property at that time were very frequent, as well as attacks on persons.
The man who is constantly compelled to defend his own, is also constantly
led to usurp the property of others; the first thing to do to remedy so
great an evil, was to locate and fix the population by means of the agricultural
life, and to accustom them to respect for property, not only by reasons drawn
from morality and private interest, but also by the sight of large domains belonging
to establishments regarded as inviolable, and against which a hand
could not be raised without sacrilege. Thus religious ideas were connected with
social ones, and they slowly prepared an organization which was to be completed
in more peaceable times.</p>

<p>Add to this a new necessity, the result of the change which took place at
that time in the habits of the people. Among the ancients, scarcely any other
life than that of cities was known; life in the country, that dispersion of an
immense population, which in modern times forms a new nation in the fields,
was not known among the ancients; and it is remarkable that this change in
the mode of life was realized exactly when the most calamitous circumstances
seemed to render it the most dangerous and difficult. It is to the existence of
the monasteries in fields and in retired places that we owe the establishment
and consolidation of this new kind of life, which, no doubt, would have been
impossible without the ascendency and the beneficial influence of the powerful
abbeys. These religious foundations joined all the riches and the power of feudal
lords with the mild and beneficent influence of religious authority.</p>

<p>How much does not Germany owe to the monks! Did they not bring her
lands into cultivation, make her agriculture flourish, and cover her with a
numerous population? How much are not France, Spain, and England indebted
to them! It is certain that this latter country would never have reached the
high degree of civilization of which she now boasts, if the apostolic labors of the
missionaries who penetrated thither in the sixth century had not drawn her out
of the darkness of gross idolatry. And who were these missionaries? Was
not the chief of them Augustine, a monk full of zeal, sent by a Pope who had
also been a monk, St. Gregory the Great? Where do you find, amid the confusion
of the middle ages, the great writers of knowledge and virtue, except in
those solitary abodes whence issue St. Isidore, the Archbishop of Seville; the
holy abbot St. Columbanus; St. Aurelian, Bishop of Arles; St. Augustine, the
Apostle of England; that of Germany, St. Boniface; Bede, Cuthbert, Auperth,
Paul, monks of Monte Cassino; Hincmar of Rheims, brought up at the monastery
of St. Denis; St. Peter Damiens, St. Ives, Lanfranc, and so many others,
who form a generation of distinguished men, resembling in no respect the other
men of their time.</p>

<p>Besides the service rendered to society by the monks in religion and morals,
they conferred inestimable benefits on letters and science. It has already been
observed more than once, that letters took refuge in the cloisters, and that the
monks, by preserving and copying the ancient manuscripts, prepared the materials
which were one day to assist in the restoration of human learning. But
we must not limit their merit to that of mere copyists. Many of them advanced
far in science, many ages in advance of the times in which they lived. Not
content with the laborious task of preserving and putting into order the ancient
manuscripts, they rendered the most eminent service to history by compiling
chronicles. Thereby, while continuing the tradition of the most important<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">[Pg 241]</a></span>
branches of study, they collected the contemporary history, which, perhaps,
without their labor would have been lost. Adon, Archbishop of Vienne,
brought up in the Abbey of Ferrière, writes a universal history, from the beginning
of the world to his own time; Abbon, monk of St. Germain-des-Prés,
composes a Latin poem, in which he relates the siege of Paris by the Normans;
Aymon of Aquitaine writes the history of the French in four books; St. Ives
publishes a chronicle of their kings; the German monk Witmar leaves us the
chronicle of Henry I., of the Kings Otho and Henry II., which is much
esteemed for its candor, and has been published many times; Leibnitz has used
it to throw light on the history of Brunswick. Adhemar is the author of a
chronicle, which embraces the whole time from 829 to 1029. Glaber, monk
of Cluny, has composed a much-esteemed history of the events which happened
in France from 980 to his own time; Herman, a chronicle which embraces the
six ages of the world down to the year 1054. In fine, we should never finish
if we were to mention the historical labors of Sigebert, Guibert, Hugh, Prior
of St. Victor, and so many other illustrious men, who, rising above their times,
applied themselves to labors of this kind; of which we cannot easily appreciate
the difficulty and the high degree of merit, we who live in an age when the
means of knowledge are become so easy, when the accumulated riches of so
many ages are inherited, and when we find on all sides wide and well-beaten
paths. Without the existence of religious institutions, without the asylum of
the cloisters, these eminent men would never have been formed. Not only had
the sciences and letters been lost sight of, but ignorance was so great, that
seculars who knew how to read and write were very rare. Surely such circumstances
were not well adapted to form men of merit enough to do honor to advanced
ages. Who has not often paused to contemplate the distinguished triumvirate,
Peter the Venerable, St. Bernard, and the Abbot Suger? May it not
be said that the twelfth century is elevated above its rank in history, by producing
a writer like Peter the Venerable, an orator like St. Bernard, and a
statesman like Suger?</p>

<p>These ages show us another celebrated monk, whose influence on the progress
of knowledge has not been rated at its just value by many critics who love only
to point out defects: I mean Gratian. Those who have declaimed against him,
eager to look for his mistakes, should have placed themselves in the position of
a compiler in the thirteenth century, at a time when all resources were wanting,
when the lights of criticism were yet to be created; they would then have seen
whether the bold enterprise of the monk was not attended with more success
than there was reason to hope for. The profit which was drawn from the collection
of Gratian is incalculable. By giving in a small compass a great part
of what was most precious in antiquity with respect to civil and canon law; by
making an abundant collection of texts from the holy fathers, applied to all
kinds of subjects, he awakened a taste for that species of research; he created
the study of them; he made an immense step towards satisfying one of the first
necessities of modern nations, the formation of civil and ecclesiastical codes. It
will be said that the errors of Gratian were contagious, and that it would have
been better to have recourse directly to the originals; but to read the originals
it was necessary to know them; it was necessary to be informed of their existence,
to be excited by the desire of explaining a proposed difficulty, to have
acquired a taste for researches of that kind; all this was wanting before Gratian;
all this was brought out by his enterprise. The general favor with
which his labors were received is the most convincing proof of their merit; and
if it be objected that this favor was owing to the ignorance of the time, I will
reply, that we owe a tribute of gratitude to any one who throws a ray of light
on the darkness, however feeble and wavering this ray may be.</p>

<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">[Pg 242]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XLII" id="CHAPTER_XLII">CHAPTER XLII.</a><br />

<small>OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS DURING THE SECOND HALF OF THE MIDDLE
AGES.&mdash;THE MILITARY ORDERS</small>.</h2>


<p>The rapid view which we have just taken of religious institutions from the
irruption of the barbarians to the twelfth century, has shown us that the monastic
foundations, during that time, were a powerful support for that remaining
portion of society which was ready to fall to pieces in the universal ruin; an
asylum for misfortune, for virtue, and for knowledge; a storehouse for the precious
monuments of antiquity, and in some measure an assemblage of civilizing
associations, which labored in silence at the reconstruction of the social edifice,
by neutralizing the force of the dissolving principles which had ruined its basis;
they were, besides, a nursery for forming the men who were required for the
elevated posts in Church and State. In the twelfth and the following centuries,
these institutions take a new form, and assume a character very different
from that which we have just pointed out. Their aim remains not less highly
religious and social; but the times are changed, and we must remember the
words of the Apostle, <i lang="la">omnia omnibus</i>. Let us examine the causes and the
results of these novelties.</p>

<p>Before going further, I will say a few words on the religious military orders,
the name of which sufficiently indicates their double character of monk and soldier.
The union of the monastic state with war: what a monstrous mixture!
will be the cry. In spite of the supposed monstrosity, this union was in conformity
with the natural and regular order of things; it was a strong remedy
applied to very great evils; a rampart against imminent dangers; in a word,
the expression of a great European necessity. This is not the place to relate
the annals of the military orders, annals which, like the most illustrious history,
afford wonderful and interesting pictures, with that mixture of heroism and religious
inspiration which assimilates history with poetry. It is enough to pronounce
the names of the knights of the Temple, of St. John of Jerusalem, of
the Teutonic order, of St. Raymond, of the Abbot of Fitero, of Calatrava,
instantly to remind the reader of a long series of marvellous events, forming
one of the noblest pages in the history of that time. Let us omit these narrations,
which do not regard us; but let us pause for a moment to examine the
origin and spirit of these famous institutions.</p>

<p>The Cross and the Crescent were enemies irreconcilable by nature, and urged
to the greatest fury by a long and bloody struggle. Both had great power and
vast designs; both were supported by brave nations, full of enthusiasm and
ready to throw themselves on each other; both had great hopes of success
founded on former achievements; on which side will the victory remain? What
course ought the Christians to pursue in order to avoid the dangers which
threaten them? Is it better quietly to await the attack of the Mussulmen in
Europe, or make a levy <i lang="fr">en masse</i> to invade Asia and seek the enemy in his own
country, where he believes himself to be invincible? The problem was solved
in the latter way; the Crusades took place, and centuries have given their suffrage
as to the wisdom of that resolution. What avails a little declamation
affecting to favor the cause of justice and humanity? Let no one allow himself
to be dazzled; the philosophy of history taught by the lessons of experience,
enriched with a more abundant treasure of knowledge, the fruit of a more attentive
study of the facts, has given a decisive judgment in this case; in this, as
in other cases, religion has retired in triumph from the tribunal of philosophy.
The Crusades, far from being considered as an act of barbarism and rashness,
are justly regarded as a <i lang="fr">chef-d'œuvre</i> of policy, which, after having secured the
independence of Europe, gave to the Christian nations a decided preponderance<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">[Pg 243]</a></span>
over the Mussulmen. The military spirit was thereby increased and strengthened
among European nations; they all received a feeling of fraternity, which
transformed them into one people; the human mind was developed in many
ways; the state of feudal vassals was improved, and feudality was urged towards
its entire ruin; navies were created, commerce and manufactures were encouraged;
thus society received from the Crusades a most powerful impulse in the
career of civilization. We do not mean to say, that the men who conceived
them, the Popes who excited, the nations who undertook, the princes and lords
who promoted them with their power, were aware of the whole extent of their
own works, or even had a glimpse of the immensity of their results; it is enough
that they settled the existing question in the way the most favorable to the
independence and prosperity of Europe; this, I repeat, is enough. I would
observe, moreover, that we should attribute so much the more importance to
things as human foresight has had little share in the events; now these things
are nothing less than the principles and feelings of religion in connection with
the preservation and happiness of society, Catholicity covering with her ægis
and animating with her breath the civilization of Europe.</p>

<p>Such were the Crusades. Now, remember that this idea, so great and
generous, was conceived with a degree of vagueness, and executed with that
precipitation which is the fruit of the impatience of ardent zeal; remember that
this idea&mdash;the offspring of Catholicity, which always converts its ideas into
institutions&mdash;was to be realized in an institution, which faithfully represented
it, and served, as it were, as its organ, in order that it might render itself felt,
and gain strength and fruitfulness for its support. After this, you will look for
some means of uniting religion and arms; and you will be filled with joy when,
under a cuirass of steel, you shall find hearts zealous for the religion of Jesus
Christ&mdash;when you shall see this new kind of men, who devote themselves without
reserve to the defence of religion, while they renounce all that the world
can offer&mdash;gentler than lambs, bolder than lions, in the words of St. Bernard.
Sometimes they assembled in community, to raise their voices to Heaven in
fervent prayer; sometimes they boldly marched to battle, brandishing their
formidable lances, the terror of the Saracens. No; there does not exist in the
annals of history an event so colossal as the Crusades, and you might search
there in vain for an institution more generous than the military orders. In the
Crusades we see numberless nations arise, march across deserts, bury themselves
in countries with which they are unacquainted, and expose themselves to all the
rigors of climates and seasons; and for what purpose? To deliver a tomb!
Grand and immortal movement, where hundreds of nations advance to certain
death&mdash;not in pursuit of a miserable self-interest&mdash;not to find an abode in milder
and more fertile countries&mdash;not from an ardent desire to obtain for themselves
earthly advantages&mdash;but inspired only by a religious idea, by a jealous desire to
possess the tomb of Him who expired on the cross for the salvation of the
human race! When compared with this, what becomes of the lofty deeds of
the Greeks, chanted by Homer? Greece arises to avenge an injured husband;
Europe to redeem the sepulchre of a God.</p>

<p>When, after the disasters and the triumphs of the Crusades, we see the military
orders appear, sometimes fighting in the oriental regions, sometimes in the
islands of the Mediterranean, sustaining and repelling the rude assaults of
Islamism, which, emboldened by its victories, again longs to throw itself on
Europe, we imagine that we behold those brave men, who, on the day of a great
battle, remain alone upon the field, one against a hundred, securing by their
heroism, and at the hazard of their lives, the safety of their companions in arms
who retire behind them. Honor and glory to the religion which has been
capable of inspiring such lofty thoughts, and has been able to realize such great
and generous enterprises!</p>

<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">[Pg 244]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XLIII" id="CHAPTER_XLIII">CHAPTER XLIII.</a><br />

<small>CONTINUATION OF THE SAME SUBJECT&mdash;EUROPE IN THE THIRTEENTH
CENTURY</small>.</h2>


<p>Perhaps they who are the most opposed to religious communities may be
reconciled to the solitaries of the East, when they perceive in them a class of
men who, by practising the most sublime and austere counsels of religion, have
communicated a generous impulse to humanity, have raised it from the dust
where Paganism had held it, and made it wing its flight towards purer regions.
To accustom man to grave and strict morality; to bring back the soul within
itself; to give a lively feeling of the dignity of his nature, of the loftiness of
his origin and his destiny; to inspire him, by means of extraordinary examples,
with confidence that the mind, aided by divine grace, can triumph over the
animal passions, and make man lead an angelic life upon earth: these are
benefits so signal, that a noble heart must show itself grateful and full of lively
interest for the men who have given them to the world. As to the monasteries
of the West, the benefits of their civilizing influence are so visible, that no man
who loves humanity can regard them with animadversion; in fine, the military
orders present us with an idea so noble, so poetical, and realize in so admirable
a manner one of those golden dreams which cross the human mind in moments
of enthusiasm, that they must certainly find respectful homage in every heart
which beats at a noble and sublime spectacle.</p>

<p>There yet remains a more difficult task, that of presenting at the tribunal of
philosophy&mdash;that philosophy so indifferent in religious matters&mdash;the other religious
communities which are not comprised in the sketch which I have just
made. Judgments of great severity have been passed upon those institutions
which I have now to speak of; but in such things justice cannot be prescriptive.
Neither the applause of irreligious men, nor the revolutions which upset
all that stand in their way, can prevent the truth being placed in its true light,
and folly and crime being stigmatized with disgrace.</p>

<p>The thirteenth century has just commenced; there appears a new kind of
men, who, under different titles, denominations, and forms, profess a singular and
extraordinary way of life. Some put on clothing of coarse cloth; they renounce
all wealth and property; they condemn themselves to perpetual mendicity,
spreading themselves over the country and the towns for the sake of gaining
souls for Jesus Christ. Others bear on their dress the distinctive mark of the
redemption of man, and undertake the mission of releasing from servitude the
numberless captives who, from the misfortune of the times, have fallen into the
hands of the Mussulmen. Some erect the cross in the midst of a people who
eagerly follow them, and they institute a new devotion&mdash;a constant hymn of
praise to Jesus and to Mary; at the same time they indefatigably preach the
faith of the Crucified. Others go in search of all the miseries of man, bury
themselves in hospitals, in all the asylums of misfortune, to succour and console.
They all bear new standards; all show equal contempt for the world;
they all form a portion separate from the rest of mankind; but they resemble
neither the solitaries of the East, nor the sons of St. Bennet. The new monks
arise not in the desert, but in the midst of society: their object is not to live
shut up in monasteries, but to spread themselves over the fields and hamlets,
to penetrate to the heart of the great masses of the population, and to make
their voices heard both in the cottage of the shepherd and in the palace of the
monarch. They increase on all sides in a prodigious manner. Italy, Germany,
France, Spain, England, receive them; numerous convents arise as if by
enchantment in the villages and towns; the Popes protect them and enrich
them with many privileges; kings grant them the highest favors, and support<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245">[Pg 245]</a></span>
them in their enterprises; the people regard them with veneration, and listen
to them with respectful docility. A religious movement appears on all sides;
religious institutions, more or less resembling each other, arise like the branches
from the same trunk. The observer, when he sees this immense and astonishing
picture, asks himself, What are the causes of so extraordinary a phenomenon?
whence this singular movement? what is its tendency? what will be
its effects on society?</p>

<p>When a fact of such high importance is realized all at once in many different
countries, and lasts for centuries, it is a proof that there existed very powerful
means to produce it. It is vain to be entirely forgetful of the views of Providence:
no one can deny that such a fact must have had its root in the essence
of things; consequently it is useless to declaim against the men and the institutions.
Acknowledging this, the true philosopher will not lose his time in
anathematizing the fact, but he will examine and analyze it. No declamation
or invectives against the monks can efface their history; they have existed for
many centuries, and centuries do not retrace their steps.</p>

<p>We will not inquire if there was here some extraordinary design of Providence,
and we will lay aside the reflections which religion suggests to every true
Catholic; we will confine ourselves to considering the religious institutions of
modern times in a purely philosophical point of view; we can show that they
were not only very conformable to the well-being of society, but also perfectly
adapted to the situation in which it was placed; we can show that they displayed
neither cunning, malice, nor vile self-interest; that their object was highly
advantageous, and that they were at the same time the expression and the
fulfilment of great social necessities.</p>

<p>The question of its own accord assumes the position in which we have just
regarded it; and it is strange that men have not acknowledged all the importance
of the magnificent points of view which here present themselves.</p>

<p>In order the better to clear up this important matter, I will enter upon an
examination of the social condition of Europe at the time of which we speak.
As soon as we take the first glance at this epoch, we observe that, in spite of the
intellectual rudeness which one would imagine must have kept nations in abject
silence, there was at the bottom of men's minds an anxiety which deeply moved
and agitated them. These times are ignorant; but it is an ignorance which is
conscious of itself and which longs for knowledge. There is felt a want of
harmony in the relations and institutions of society; but that want is everywhere
felt and acknowledged, and a continual agitation indicates that this harmony is
anxiously desired and ardently sought for. I know not what singular character is
stamped upon the nations of Europe, but we do not find there the symptoms of
death; they are barbarous, ignorant, corrupt, any thing you please; but, as if
they constantly heard a voice calling them to light, to civilization, to a new life,
they incessantly labor to leave the fatal condition into which unhappy circumstances
have plunged them. They never sleep in tranquillity amid the darkness;
they never live without remorse amid the corruption of manners. The echo of
virtue continually resounds in their ears; flashes of light appear in the darkness;
a thousand efforts are made to advance a step in the career of civilization; a
thousand times they are vain; but they are renewed as often as they are repulsed;
the generous attempt is never abandoned; they fail a thousand times; but they
never lose courage. Courage and ardour are never wanting. There is this
remarkable difference between the nations of Europe, and those nations among
whom the Christian religion has not yet penetrated, or from whose bosom it has
been banished. Ancient Greece falls, never to rise again; the Republics of the
shore of Asia disappear, and do not rise out of their ruins. The ancient civilization
of Egypt is broken to pieces by the conquerors, and posterity has scarcely
preserved a remembrance of them. Certainly none of the nations on the coast<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">[Pg 246]</a></span>
of Africa can show us signs which reveal the ancient country of St. Cyprian, of
Tertullian and St. Augustine. Still more; a considerable portion of Asia has
preserved Christianity, but a Christianity separated from Rome; and this has
been unable to establish or regenerate any thing. Political power has aided
and protected it, but the nation remains feeble; it cannot stand erect; it is a
dead body, incapable of advancing; it is not like Lazarus, who has just heard
the all-powerful voice: "Lazarus, come forth; <i lang="la">Lazare veni foras</i>."</p>

<p>This anxiety, this agitation, this extreme eagerness towards a greater and
happier future, this desire for reformation in manners, for enlargement and correction
in ideas, for amelioration in institutions&mdash;the distinctive characteristics
of modern nations&mdash;made themselves felt in a fearful manner at the time to
which we allude. I will say nothing of the military history of those times, which
would furnish us with abundant proofs of our assertion; I will confine myself
to facts which, owing to their religious and social character, have the greatest
analogy with the subject which now occupies us. A formidable energy of mind,
a great fund of activity, a simultaneous development of the most ardent passions,
an enterprising spirit, a lively desire of independence, a decided inclination to
employ violent means, an extraordinary zeal for proselytism, ignorance combined
with a thirst for knowledge, even combined with enthusiasm and fanaticism for
all that bears the name of science; a high esteem for the titles of nobility, and
of illustrious blood, united with the spirit of democracy, and a profound respect
for merit, wherever it may be found; a childlike candor, an excessive credulity,
and, at the same time, the most obstinate indocility; a tenacious spirit of
resistance, fearful stubbornness, corruption, and licentiousness of manners, allied
with admiration for virtue; a taste for the most austere practices, combined with
an inclination for the most extravagant habits and manners; such are the traits
which history exhibits among these nations.</p>

<p>So singular a mixture appears strange at first sight; and yet nothing was
more natural. Things could not be otherwise: societies are formed under the
influence of certain principles, and of certain particular circumstances, which
impart to them their genius, character, and countenance. It is the same with
society as with individuals; education, instruction, temperament, and a thousand
other physical and moral circumstances, concur in forming a collection of influences
which produce qualities the most different, and sometimes the most contradictory.
This concurrence of different causes was shown in a singular and extraordinary
manner among the nations of Europe; it is on this account that we
observe there the most extravagant and discordant effects. Let us recollect the
history of those nations since the fall of the Roman empire to the end of the
Crusades; never did an assemblage of nations present a combination of more
varied elements, and a spectacle of greater events. The moral principles which
preside over the development of these nations were in direct opposition to their
genius and situation. These principles were essentially pure, unchangeable as
the God who had established them; radiant with light, because they emanated
from the source of all light and life: the nations, on the contrary, were ignorant,
rude, fluctuating, like the waves of the sea, and corrupted, as was to be
expected of every thing which was the result of an impure mixture. Wherefore
a terrible struggle took place between principles and facts; wherefore there
were witnessed the most extraordinary contradictions, according as good and evil
alternately preponderated. Never was the struggle between elements which
could not remain at peace, more clearly seen; the genii of good and of evil
seemed to descend into the arena, and to fight hand to hand.</p>

<p>The nations of Europe were not in their infancy, for they were surrounded
by old institutions. Full of the recollections of ancient civilization, they preserved
various remains of it. They were themselves produced by the mixture
of a hundred nations, differing in laws, customs, and manners. They were not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">[Pg 247]</a></span>
yet adult nations; as this denomination cannot be applied either to individuals
or to society before they have reached a certain development, from which the
nations of Europe were still far removed. It is very difficult to find a word to
express this social state; it was neither a state of civilization, nor that of barbarism;
for a number of laws and institutions existed there, which certainly did
not deserve the epithet of barbarous. If we call these nations semi-barbarous,
perhaps we shall approach the truth. Words are of little importance, if we
have a clear idea of the things.</p>

<p>It cannot be denied that the European nations, owing to a long series of revolutions,
and the extraordinary mixture of races, of ideas, and manners, of the
conquerors with each other, and of the conquerors with the nations conquered,
had a large portion of barbarism, and a fruitful germ of agitation and disorder.
But the malignant influence of these elements was combated by the action of
Christianity, which had obtained a decided preponderance over minds, and
which, besides, was supported by powerful institutions. Christianity, to accomplish
this difficult work, had the assistance of great material force. The Christian
doctrines, which penetrated on all sides, tended, like a sweetening liquid,
to soften and improve every thing; but, at every step, the mind comes into
collision with the senses, morality with the passions, order with anarchy, charity
with ferocity, and law with fact. Thence a struggle, which, although general
to a certain extent in all times and countries, since it is founded on the nature
of man, was then more rude, violent, and clamorous. The two most opposite
principles, barbarism and Christianity, were then face to face in the same arena,
with no one between them. Observe these nations with attention, read their
history with reflection, and you will see that those two principles are constantly
struggling, and constantly contending for influence and preponderance; thence
the most strange situations, and the most singular contrasts. Study the character
of the wars of that time, and you will hear the holiest maxims constantly
proclaimed; legitimacy, law, reason, and justice are invoked; the tribunal of
God is incessantly appealed to: this is the influence of Christianity. But, at
the same time, you will be afflicted at the sight of numberless acts of violence,
of cruelties, atrocities, pillages, rapines, murders, fires, and disasters without
end: this is barbarism. If you look at the Crusades, you will observe that
grand ideas, vast plans, noble inspirations, social and political views of the
highest importance, fermented in men's heads; that all hearts overflowed with
noble and generous feelings, and that a holy enthusiasm, transporting men out
of themselves, rendered them capable of heroic actions: this is the influence
of Christianity. But, if you examine the execution, you will see disorder, improvidence,
want of discipline in the armies, injuries, and acts of violence; you
will seek in vain for concert and harmony among those who take part in the
gigantic and perilous enterprise: there is barbarism. Youths, thirsting for
knowledge, crowd to the lectures of the famous masters, from the most distant
countries; Italians, Germans, English, Spanish, and French are mingled and
confounded around the chairs of Abelard, Peter Lombard, Albertus Magnus,
and St. Thomas of Aquin; a powerful voice resounds in their ears, calling them
to leave the shades of ignorance and raise themselves to the regions of science;
the love of knowledge animates them; the longest journeys cannot stop them;
the enthusiasm for illustrious masters is carried to an indescribable extent:
behold the influence of Christianity; behold her constantly stirring and illuminating
the mind of man, never allowing him to repose tranquilly in obscurity,
and continually exciting him to new intellectual labors and researches after
truth! But behold these same youths, who exhibit such noble dispositions, and
inspire such legitimate and consoling hopes; are they not also those licentious,
restless, and turbulent young men, giving way to the most deplorable acts of
violence, continually fighting in the streets, and forming in the midst of great<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">[Pg 248]</a></span>
cities a small republic, an unruly democracy, where there is much difficulty in
maintaining law and good order? Behold here barbarism!</p>

<p>It is good, it is perfectly conformable to the spirit of religion, that the guilty
man who raises a repentant and humiliated heart to God, should manifest his
feeling and the affliction of his soul by external acts; that he should labor to
fortify his mind, and restrain his evil inclinations, by employing the rigors of
gospel austerity against his flesh: all this is sovereignly reasonable, just, holy,
and conformable to the maxims of the Christian religion, which thus ordains
for the justification and sanctification of the sinner, to repair the injury done
to the souls of others by the scandal of a bad life. But that penitents, half
naked, should wander about loaded with chains, carrying horror and alarm
everywhere, as happened at this time, when we see ecclesiastical authority compelled
to repress the abuse: this marks the spirit of rudeness and ferocity which
always accompany the state of barbarism. Nothing is more true, noble, and
salutary for society, than to imagine God always ready to defend innocence, to
protect it against injustice and calumny, and to raise it above humiliation and
disgrace, by restoring to it, sooner or later, the purity and lustre of which they
have attempted to deprive it. This supposition is an effect of faith in Providence&mdash;that
faith emanating from Christian ideas, which represent to us God
as embracing the whole world in his view, reaching with his penetrating eye the
deepest recesses of the heart, and not even excluding the meanest of his
creatures from his paternal love. But who does not perceive the infinite distance
which separates this pure faith from the trials by fire, water, and single combat?
Who does not here discover rudeness confounding all things&mdash;the spirit
of violence laboring to subject every thing to a rigorous law&mdash;attempting, in
some measure, to oblige God himself to comply with our wants and caprices, in
order to interpose the testimony of his solemn miracles, whenever it suits our
pleasure or convenience to find out the truth?</p>

<p>I introduce these contrasts here in order to awaken the recollections of those
who have read history, and to enable me to establish, in a few words, the simple
and general formula which sums up all those periods: "Barbarism tempered by
religion; religion disfigured by barbarism."</p>

<p>In the study of history we constantly encounter a serious obstacle, which
renders it always difficult, and sometimes impossible, to understand it perfectly.
We make the mistake of referring every thing to ourselves, and to the objects
which surround us&mdash;a mistake which is excusable, no doubt, since it has its root
in our own nature, but against which we must be carefully on our guard, if we
wish to avoid deplorable errors. We imagine the men of other times to be like
ourselves; without thinking of it, we communicate to them our own ideas,
manners, inclinations, and even temperaments; and, after having fashioned men
who exist only in our own imaginations, we desire and demand that the real
men should act in the same manner as these imaginary men; and at the slightest
discord between the historical facts and our unreasonable suppositions, we cry
out that it is strange and monstrous, taxing with being strange and monstrous
what was perfectly regular and ordinary according to the epoch.</p>

<p>It is the same with respect to laws and institutions: when we do not find
them according to the types which we have under our eyes, we declaim against
the ignorance, iniquity, and cruelty of the men who have conceived and established
them. If we wish to form an exact idea of an epoch, it is necessary to
transport ourselves there&mdash;to make an effort of imagination, in order, as it
were, to live and converse with its men; it is not enough to hear the recital of
the events, it is necessary to witness them, to become one of the spectators, one
of the actors, if possible; it is necessary to call forth generations from the
tomb, and make them act under our eyes. I shall be told that this is very difficult.
I grant it; but it is necessary, if we wish that our knowledge of history<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">[Pg 249]</a></span>
should be something more than a mere notion of names and dates. It is quite
sure that we do not know an individual well, unless acquainted with his ideas,
character, and conduct. It is the same with a society: if we are ignorant by
what doctrines it was guided, what was its manner of considering and feeling
things, we shall see the events only superficially&mdash;we shall know the words of
the law, but we shall not penetrate its spirit or genius; when contemplating an
institution, we shall see only the external frame-work, without reaching the
mechanism, or guessing the moving machinery. If we attempt to avoid these
defects, it is certain that the study of history becomes the most difficult of all;
but this knowledge has been wanting for a long time. The secrets of man and
the mysteries of society are, at the same time, the most important subject which
can be proposed to the human mind, and the most arduous, the most difficult,
and the least accessible to the generality of intellects.</p>

<p>The individual in the times to which we allude was not the individual of
to-day; his ideas were very different, his manner of seeing and feeling was not
ours, his soul was of quite another temper from our own; what is inconceivable
to us, was perfectly natural to men of those times; they took pleasure in what
is now repugnant to us.</p>

<p>At the beginning of the thirteenth century, Europe had already experienced
the powerful shock of the Crusades; the sciences began to germinate; the spirit
of commerce was in some degree developed; the taste for industry made itself
felt; and the inclination of men to enter into communication with other men,
and of nations to mingle with other nations, was every day extended and increased.
The feudal system, already shaken, was about to fall to pieces; the power of the
commonalty rapidly increased; the spirit of enfranchisement showed itself
everywhere; in fine, owing to the almost complete abolition of slavery, and to
the change effected by the Crusades in the condition of vassals and serfs, Europe
was covered with a numerous population who knew not slavery, and who bore
with difficulty the feudal yoke. Yet this population was still far from possessing
all that is necessary to rise to the rank of free citizens. Modern democracy
already offered itself to the view, with its great advantages, its numerous difficulties,
its immense problems, which still embarrass and disconcert us, after so
many centuries of trial and experience. The lords preserved in great measure
their habits of barbarism and ferocity, by which they had been unfortunately
distinguished at former periods; the royal power was far from having acquired
that force and <em>prestige</em> necessary for ruling such opposite elements, and to raise
itself in the midst of society as a symbol of respect for all interests&mdash;a centre of
reunion for all forces, and a sublime personification of reason and justice.</p>

<p>In the same century, wars began to assume a character more popular, and
consequently more vast and important; the agitations of the people began to
wear the aspect of political commotions. Already we discover something more
than the ambition of emperors attempting to impose their yoke on Italy; we
have no longer petty kings who contend for a crown or a province, or counts or
barons who, followed by their serfs, fight with each other or with the neighboring
municipalities, covering the land with blood and rapine. We observe
in the movements of that period something more important and alarming.
Numerous nations arise and crowd around a banner on which, instead of the
ensigns of a baron or of a monarch, appears the name of a system of doctrines.
No doubt, the lords take part in the struggle, and their power raises them still
far above the crowd which surrounds and follows them; but the cause in question
is not that of these men; they are accounted something in the problems
of the times; but mankind looks beyond the horizon of castles. This agitation
and movement, produced by the appearance of new religious and social doctrines,
is the announcement and the beginning of that chain of revolutions
which Europe has to undergo.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250">[Pg 250]</a></span></p>

<p>The evil did not consist in the disposition of nations to carry out their ideas,
and refuse to take as their only guide the interests and doctrines of a few
tyrants. On the contrary, this was a great step gained in the path of civilization;
men thus showed that they felt and understood their own dignity better,
that they took a more extended view, and had a better understanding of their
own situation and interests. This progress was the natural result of the higher
flight which was every day taken by the faculties of the mind. The Crusades
had greatly contributed to this new movement; from that great epoch the different
nations of Europe were accustomed no longer to fight for the possession
of a small territory, or to gratify private ambition or revenge. The nations
fought in support of a principle by laboring to avenge the outrage offered to
the true religion; in a word, they became accustomed to be moved, to contend,
to die, for an idea which, far from being limited to a small territory, embraced
heaven and earth. Thus, we will observe in passing, that the popular movement,
the movement in ideas, began in Spain much sooner than in the rest of
Europe, because the war against the Moors had advanced the period of the
Crusades for that country. The evil, I repeat it, was not in the interest which
the people took in ideas, but in the imminent danger of seeing those nations, on
account of their rudeness and ignorance, allow themselves to be abused and
deceived by the first fanatic who came. At a moment when the movement
was so vast, the fate of Europe depended on the direction which was about to
be given to the universal activity: unless I am deceived, the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries were the critical epochs, when, in the face of great probabilities
on both sides, there was decided the great question of knowing whether Europe,
in its twofold social and political relations, was to take advantage of the benefits
of Christianity, or permit all the promise of a better future to be lost and
annihilated.</p>

<p>When we fix our eyes on this period, we find, in different parts of Europe, a
certain germ and index of the greatest disasters; the most horrible doctrines
arise among the masses who begin to be agitated; the most fearful disorders
signalize the first step of these nations in the career of life. Before this, we
have discovered only kings and lords, but now the people appear on the scene.
Thus we see that some rays of light and heat have penetrated this shapeless
mass. At this sight the heart is dilated and encouraged, presaging the new
future which is reserved for humanity. But, at the same time, the observer is
alarmed, for he is aware that this heat may produce excessive fermentation,
engender corruption, and multiply impure insects in the field which promises
soon to become an enchanting garden.</p>

<p>The extravagances of the human mind at this time appear under so alarming
an aspect, and with a turbulence of character so fearful, that apprehensions
apparently the most exaggerated are supported by facts, and become terrible
probabilities. Let me recall some of those facts which so vividly paint the
condition of minds at that time; facts which besides are connected with the
principal point which we are examining. At the beginning of the twelfth century,
we find the famous Tanchème, or Tanquelin, teaching the maddest theories
and committing the greatest crimes; yet at Antwerp, in Zealand, in the country
of Utrecht, and in many other towns in the same countries, he draws after
him a numerous crowd. This wretched man advanced that he was more worthy
of supreme worship than Jesus Christ himself, "for," said he, "if Jesus Christ
had received the Holy Spirit, he (Tanchème) had received the plenitude of that
Holy Spirit." He added that the whole Church was comprised in his own person
and in his disciples. The pontificate, episcopate, and priesthood were, according
to him, mere chimeras. His instructions and discourses were particularly
addressed to women; the result of his doctrines and proceedings was the most
revolting corruption. Yet the fanaticism which was excited by this abominable<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251">[Pg 251]</a></span>
man went so far that the sick eagerly drank the water in which he had bathed,
believing it to be the most salutary remedy for body and soul. Women thought
themselves happy to have obtained the favors of the monster; mothers considered
it an honor for their daughters to be selected as the victims of his profligacy,
and husbands were offended when their wives were not stained with this
disgrace. Tanchème, knowing all the ascendency which he was able to exert
over minds, was not backward in making use of the fanaticism of his followers;
one of the principal virtues with which he labored to inspire them was liberality
in favor of his own interest.</p>

<p>One day when he was surrounded with a large concourse of people, he had a
picture of the Virgin brought to him; touching it with his sacrilegious hand,
he said that he took the Virgin as his wife. Then, turning toward the spectators,
he added, that as he had contracted marriage with the Queen of Heaven,
as they had just seen, it was their duty to make the wedding presents. He
immediately placed two boxes, one on the right and the other on the left of the
picture, to receive on one side the offerings of the men, and on the other those
of the women; for the purpose of learning, as he said, which of the two sexes
had the greater affection for him. This artifice, as low and gross as it was sacrilegious,
seemed only calculated to excite the indignation of those who were
present; yet the results corresponded with the expectations of the artful impostor.
The women, always jealous of the affection of Tanchème, surpassed in
liberality; in a perfect frenzy, they stripped themselves of their necklaces,
golden rings, and most precious jewels.</p>

<p>When he felt himself strong enough, Tanchème did not content himself with
preaching; he was desirous of surrounding himself with an armed troop, in
order to give him in the eyes of the world a far different appearance from that
of an apostle. Three thousand men accompanied him everywhere. Surrounded
by this respectable escort, clothed in magnificent apparel, and preceded by his
standard, he moved with all the pomp of a king. When he stopped to preach,
the three thousand satellites stood armed around him with drawn swords. It is
evident, the aggressive character of the heretical sects of succeeding ages was
already traced out.</p>

<p>Every one knows how numerous were the partisans of Eon. This unhappy
man was excited by hearing the frequent repetition of the words: "Per eum
qui judicaturus est vivos et mortuos:" and he became persuaded and he asserted,
that he himself was the judge who was to judge the living and the dead.
We are also aware of the troubles excited by the seditious speeches of Arnauld
of Brescia, the iconoclastic fanaticism of Pierre de Bruis and Henri. If I did
not fear to fatigue the attention of my readers, it would be easy for me to relate
here the most revolting scenes which represent to the life the spirit of the
sects of those times, and the unfortunate predisposition which led men's minds
to novelty, to extravagant spectacles, and I know not what fatal giddiness,
whereby they were precipitated into the most strange errors and the most deplorable
excesses. At all events, I must say a few words of the Cathari, Vaudois,
Paterins of Arras, Albigenses, and poor men of Lyons. These sects,
besides the influence which they had on the times of which we speak and on the
later events of European history, will be of great use in making us fathom
more deeply the question now before us. From the first ages of the Church,
the sect of the Manichees was remarkable for errors and extravagances. Under
different names, with more or less of followers, and with doctrines more or less
various, it continued from age to age until the eleventh century, when it excited
disturbances in France. From that time, Heribert and Lisoy acquired an unhappy
celebrity by their obstinacy and fanaticism. In the time of St. Bernard,
the sects called apostolical were distinguished by their dislike to marriage;
while, on the other hand, they gave themselves up to the basest and most un<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252">[Pg 252]</a></span>bridled
licentiousness. Nevertheless, all these irregularities were favorably
received by the ignorance or the corruption of the people. This is proved by
the rapidity with which they gained the masses and spread like a pestilence
wherever they appeared. Besides the hypocrisy, which is common to all the
sects, that of the Manichees imagined an artifice the most apt to seduce rude
and ignorant people: they appeared with the most rigid austerity and the most
miserable clothes. Before the year 1181, we see the Manichees bold enough
to venture out of their conventicles and openly teach their doctrines in the light
of day. They associated with the celebrated bandits called <i lang="fr">Cottereaux</i>, and
feared not to commit all sorts of excesses, as they had seduced some knights and
had secured the protection of some seigneurs of the country of Toulouse; they
succeeded in exciting a formidable insurrection, which could be repressed only
by force of arms. An eye-witness, Stephen, Abbot of St. Genevieve, at that
time sent to Toulouse by the king, describes to us in a few words the acts of
violence committed by these sectaries: "I have seen on all sides," he says,
"churches burnt and ruined to their foundations: I have seen the dwellings of
men changed into the dens of beasts."</p>

<p>About the same time, the Vaudois, or poor men of Lyons, became famous.
This last name was given to them on account of their extreme poverty, their
contempt for all riches, and the rags with which they were covered. Their
shoes also gave them the name of Sabatathes. They were perverse imitators of
another kind of poor, celebrated at that time, and who were distinguished by
their virtues, and particularly by their spirit of humility and disinterestedness.
These latter, who formed a kind of association, comprising priests and laymen,
attracted the respect and esteem of real Christians, and obtained the Pope's
permission to teach publicly. The disciples showed a profound contempt for
Church authority; they afterwards entertained monstrous errors, and in the end
became a sect in opposition to religion, injurious to good morals, and incompatible
with public tranquillity.</p>

<p>These errors, which were the germs of so many calamities and troubles, could
not be extirpated; with time they became more and more rooted in various
countries, and the progress of things was so fatal, that at the beginning of the thirteenth
century the period of short-lived seditions and isolated troubles was already
long gone by, the errors had already spread on a large scale, and appeared with
formidable resources for the contest. Already the south of France, agitated by
civil discord, and precipitated into a fearful war, was in a state of terrible conflict.
In the political organization of that time, the throne had not strength enough
to exercise a controlling power, the lords had still the means of resisting kings
and doing violence to the people. When a spirit of disobedience, agitation,
and movement is spread throughout the masses, there is only one means of
restraining them, that of religion; and this very ascendency of religious ideas
was taken advantage of by the wicked and the fanatical; and to mislead the
multitude they availed themselves of violent declamation, where religion and
politics formed a confused mixture, and where the spirit of austerity and disinterestedness
was the subject of hypocritical affectation. The new errors were
no longer confined to subtile attacks on particular dogmas, they assailed the
fundamental ideas of religion, penetrated to the sanctuary of the family, on the
one side condemning marriage, and on the other promoting infamous abominations:
in fine, the evil was not limited to countries which by a tardy and incomplete
initiation into the doctrines of Christianity, or for any other reason,
had not fully participated in the European movement. The arena principally
chosen was the south; that is, the country where the human mind was developed
in the most prompt and lively manner.</p>

<p>In the midst of such a concourse of unfortunate circumstances, all attested
and placed beyond a doubt by history, was not the future of Europe very dark<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253">[Pg 253]</a></span>
and tempestuous? Ideas and manners were in imminent danger of taking a
wrong direction; the bands of authority, the ties of family, seemed ready to
break asunder; the nations might be led away by fanaticism or superstition;
Europe was in danger of being replunged into the chaos whence it had emerged
with so much difficulty. At that time the Crescent shone in Spain, it reigned
in Africa, it triumphed in Asia. Was Europe at such a moment to lose her
religious unity, and see new errors penetrate everywhere, sowing schism in all
countries, and with it discord and war? Were all the elements of civilization
and refinement created by Christianity to be dispersed and stricken with sterility
for ever? Were the great nations formed under the influence of Catholicity,
the laws and institutions impregnated with that divine religion, to be corrupted,
falsified, and destroyed by changes in the ancient faith? In fine, was the course
of European civilization to be violently diverted, and were the nations who were
already advancing towards a peaceful, prosperous, and glorious future, to be
condemned to see their most flattering hopes dissipated in a moment, and miserably
to retrograde towards barbarism? Such was then the vast problem placed
before society; and I fear not to assert that the religious movement which at
that time displayed itself in so extraordinary a manner, and the new religious
institutions, so inconsiderately accused of folly and extravagance, were a powerful
means employed by Providence to save religion and society. If the illustrious
Spaniard, St. Dominic de Guzman, and the wonderful man of Assisi, did
not occupy a place on our altars, there to receive the veneration of the faithful
for their eminent sanctity, they would deserve to have statues raised to them by
the gratitude of society and humanity. But what! are our words an object of
scandal to you, who have only read and considered history through the deceitful
medium of Protestant and philosophical prejudices? Tell us, then, what
you find reprehensible in these men, whose establishments have been the subject
of your endless diatribes, as if they had been the greatest calamities of the
human race? Their doctrines are those of the Gospel; they are the same doctrines,
to the loftiness and sanctity whereof you have been compelled to render
solemn homage, and their lives are pure, holy, heroic, and conformable in every
thing to their teachings. Ask them what is the object they have in view; that
of preaching the Catholic truth to all men, they will tell you; of making every
effort, of exerting every energy to destroy error and reform morals; of inspiring
nations with the respect which is due to all legitimate authorities, civil
and ecclesiastical. That is to say, you will find among them a firm resolution
to devote their lives to remedy the evils of Church and State.</p>

<p>They do not content themselves with barren wishes; they are not satisfied
with a few discourses and transitory efforts; they do not confine their plans to
their mere personal sphere, but, extending their views to all countries and
future times, they found institutions whereof the members may spread themselves
over the whole surface of the world, and transmit to future generations
the apostolical spirit which has inspired them with their grand ideas. The
poverty to which they condemn themselves is extreme; the dress they wear is
rude and miserable; but do you not see the profound reasons for this conduct?
Remember that they propose to renew the gospel spirit, so much forgotten in
their time; that they frequently happen to meet face to face the emissaries of
the corrupt sects, who, endeavoring to imitate Christian humility, and affecting
an absolute disinterestedness, make a parade of presenting themselves in public
in the garb of beggars; remember, in fine, that they go to preach to semi-barbarous
nations, and that to preserve them from the giddiness of error which has
begun to take possession of their heads, words are not enough, even accompanied
by a regular and uniform conduct; extraordinary examples, a mode of
life which bears with it the most powerful edification, and sanctity clothed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254">[Pg 254]</a></span>
with an exterior adapted to make a lively impression on the imagination, are
required.</p>

<p>The number of the new religious is very considerable; they increase without
measure in all the countries where they are established; they are found, not
only in the country and in the hamlets, but they penetrate into the midst of the
most populous cities. Observe, that Europe is no longer composed of a collection
of small towns and wretched cottages erected round feudal castles, and
humbly obedient to the authority or the influence of a proud baron; Europe
no longer consists of villages grouped round rich abbeys, listening with docility
to the instructions of the monks, and receiving with gratitude the benefits conferred
on them. A great number of vassals have already thrown off the yoke
of their lords; powerful municipalities arise on all sides, and in their presence
the feudal system is frequently compelled to humble itself in alarm. Towns
become every day more populous&mdash;every day, from the effects of the emancipation
which takes place in the country, they receive new families. Reviving
industry and commerce display new means of subsistence, and excite an increase
of population. It results from all this that religion and morality must act upon
the nations of Europe on a larger scale; more general means, issuing from a
common centre, and freed from ordinary fetters, are necessary to satisfy the new
necessities of the time. Such are the religious institutions of the time of which
we speak; this is the explanation of their astonishing number, of their numerous
privileges, and of that remarkable regulation which places them under the
immediate control of the Pope.</p>

<p>Even the character which marked these institutions&mdash;a character in some degree
democratic, not only because men of all classes are there united, but also
because of the special organization of their government&mdash;was eminently calculated
to give efficacy to their influence over a democracy, fierce, turbulent, and
proud of its recent liberty, and consequently little disposed to sympathize with
any thing which might have been presented to it under aristocratic or exclusive
forms. This democracy found in these new religious institutions a certain analogy
with its own existence and origin. These men come from the people, they
live in constant communication with them, and, like them, they are poor and
meanly clad; and as the people have their assemblies where they choose their
municipal officers and bailiffs, so do the religious hold their chapters, where
they name their priors and provincials. They are not anchorites living in remote
deserts, nor monks sheltered in rich abbeys, nor clergy whose functions and
duties are confined to any particular country. They are men without fixed
abodes, and who are found sometimes in populous cities and sometimes in miserable
hamlets&mdash;to-day in the midst of the old continent, to-morrow on a vessel
which bears them to perilous missions in the remotest countries of the globe;
sometimes they are seen in the palaces of kings, enlightening their councils, and
taking part in the highest affairs of state; sometimes in the dwellings of obscure
families, consoling them in misfortune, making up their quarrels, and giving
them advice on their domestic affairs. These same men, who are covered with
glory in the chairs of the universities, teach catechism to children in the humblest
boroughs; illustrious orators who have preached in courts, before kings
and great men, go to explain the Gospel in obscure villages. The people find
them everywhere, meet them at every step, in joy and in sorrow; these men
are constantly ready to take part in the happy festivities of a baptism which
fills the house with joy, or to lament a misfortune which has just covered it with
mourning.</p>

<p>We can imagine without difficulty the force and ascendency of such institutions.
This influence on the minds of nations must have been incalculable;
the new sects which tended to mislead the multitude by their pestilential doctrines,
found themselves face to face with an adversary who completely con<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255">[Pg 255]</a></span>quered
them. They wished to seduce the simple by the ostentation of great
austerity and wonderful disinterestedness; they desired to deceive the imagination,
by striking it with the sight of exterior mortification, of poor and mean
clothing. The new institutions united these qualities in an extraordinary manner.
Thus the true doctrine had the same attributes which error had assumed.
From among the classes of the people there come forth violent declaimers, who
captivate the attention and take possession of the minds of the multitude by
fiery eloquence. In all parts of Europe we meet with burning orators, pleading
the cause of truth, who, well versed in the passions, ideas, and tastes of the
multitude, know how to interest, move, and direct them, making use, in defence
of religion, of what others attempt to avail themselves of in attacking
her. They are found wheresoever they are wanted to combat the efforts of
sects. Free from all worldly ties, and belonging to no particular church, province,
or kingdom, they have all the means of passing rapidly from one place to
another, and are found at the proper time wherever their presence is urgently
required.</p>

<p>The strength of association, known to the sectaries, and used by them with
so much success, is found in a remarkable degree in these new religious institutions.
The individual has no will of his own: a vow of perpetual obedience
has placed him at the disposal of another's will; and this latter is in his turn
subject to a third; thus there is formed a chain, whereof the first link is in the
hands of the Pope; the strength of association, and that of unity, are thus
united in authority. There is all the motion, all the warmth of a democracy;
all the vigor, all the promptitude of monarchy.</p>

<p>It has been said that these institutions were a powerful support to the authority
of the Popes; this is certain: we may even add, that if these institutions had
not existed, the fatal schism of Luther would perhaps have taken place centuries
earlier. But, on the other hand, we must allow that the establishment of
them was not due to projects of the papacy; the Sovereign Pontiffs did not conceive
the idea of them; isolated individuals, guided by superior inspiration,
formed the design, traced out the plan, and submitting that plan to the judgment
of the Holy See, asked for authority to realize their enterprise. Civil
institutions, intended to consolidate and aggrandize the power of kings, emanate
sometimes from monarchs themselves, sometimes from some of their ministers,
who, identifying themselves with their views and interests, have formed and
executed the idea of the throne. It is not thus with the power of the Popes;
the support of new institutions contributes to sustain that power against the
attacks of dissenting sects; but the idea of founding the institutions themselves
comes neither from the Popes nor their ministers. Unknown men suddenly
arise among the people; nothing which has taken place affords reason to suspect
them of having any previous understanding with Rome; their entire lives attest
that they have acted by virtue of inspiration, communicated to themselves, an
inspiration which does not allow them any repose, until they have executed
what was prescribed to them. There are not, there cannot be, any private designs
of Rome; ambition has no share. From this, all sensible men should
draw one of these two consequences: either the appearance of these new institutions
was the work of God, who was desirous of saving His Church by sustaining
her against new attacks, and protecting the authority of the Roman Pontiff;
or, Catholicity herself contained within her breast a saving instinct which
led her to create these institutions, which were required to enable her to come
triumphant out of the fearful crisis in which she was engaged. To Catholics,
these two propositions are identical: in both we see only the fulfilment of the
promise, "<em>On this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall never
prevail against her.</em>" Philosophers who do not regard things by the light of
faith, in order to explain this phenomenon, may make use of what terms they<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256">[Pg 256]</a></span>
please; but they will be compelled to acknowledge that wonderful wisdom and
the highest degree of foresight appear at the bottom of these facts. If they
persist in not acknowledging the finger of God, and in seeing in the course of
events only the fruit of well-concerted plans, or the result of organization combined
with art, at least they cannot refuse a sort of homage to these plans and
that organization. Indeed, as they confess that the power of the Roman Pontiff,
considered in relations merely philosophical, is the most wonderful of all the
powers which have appeared on earth, is it not evident that the society called
the Catholic Church shows in her conduct, in the spirit of life which animates
her, and in the instinct which makes her resist her greatest enemies, the most
incomprehensible combination of phenomena which have ever been witnessed in
society? It is of little importance to the truth, whether you call this instinct,
mystery, spirit, or whatever name you please. Catholicity defies all societies,
all sects, and all schools, to realize what she has realized, to triumph over what
she has triumphed over, and to pass through, without perishing, the crises
through which she has passed. A few examples, where the work of God was
more or less imitated, may be alleged against us; but the magicians of Egypt,
placed in the presence of Moses, came to an end of their artifices; the envoy of
God performed wonders which they could not; and they were compelled to exclaim,
"<em>The finger of God is here&mdash;the finger of God is here!</em>"</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XLIV" id="CHAPTER_XLIV">CHAPTER XLIV.</a><br />

<small>THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS FOR THE REDEMPTION OF CAPTIVES</small>.</h2>


<p>When viewing the religious institutions produced by the Church during the
thirteenth century, we did not pause to consider one among them, which, to the
merit of participating in the glory of the others, adds a peculiar character of
beauty and sublimity, and which is inexpressibly worthy of our attention: I
speak of that institution, the object of which was to redeem captives from the
hands of the Infidels. If I make use of this general designation, it is because
I do not intend to enter into a particular examination of the various branches
which compose it. I consider the unity of the object, and, on account of that
unity, I attribute unity to the institution itself. Thanks to the happy change
which has taken place in the circumstances which occasioned its foundation, we
can now scarcely estimate the institution at its just value, and appreciate in a
proper manner the beneficent influence and the holy enthusiasm which it must
have produced in all Christian countries.</p>

<p>In consequence of the long wars with the Infidels, a very great number of
the faithful groaned in fetters, deprived of their liberty and country, and often
in danger of apostatizing from the faith of their fathers. The Moors still occupied
a considerable part of Spain; they reigned exclusively on the coasts of
Africa, and proudly triumphed in the East, where the Crusaders had been vanquished.
The Infidels thus held the south of Europe closely confined, and were
constantly able to seize favorable moments, and procure multitudes of Christian
slaves. The revolutions and disorders of those times continually offered favorable
opportunities; both hatred and cupidity urged them to gratify their revenge
on the Christians taken unawares. We may be sure that this was one of the
severest scourges which the human race had to endure at that time in Europe.
If the word charity was to be any thing more than a mere name, if the nations
of Europe were not to allow their bonds of fraternity and the ties which connected
their common interests to be destroyed, there was an urgent necessity for them
to come to an understanding, in order to remedy this evil. The veteran who,
instead of a reward for his long services to religion and his country, had found<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257">[Pg 257]</a></span>
slavery in the depths of a dungeon; the merchant who, ploughing the seas to
carry provisions to the Christian armies, had fallen into the power of an implacable
enemy, and paid by heavy chains for the boldness of his enterprise; the
timid virgin who, playing upon the sea-shore, had been perfidiously carried
away by the merciless pirates, like a dove borne away by a hawk:&mdash;all these
unfortunate beings had undoubtedly some right to be looked at with compassion
by their brethren in Europe, and to have an effort made to restore them to
liberty.</p>

<p>How shall this charitable end be attained? Can means be employed to
accomplish an enterprise which cannot be confided either to force or stratagem?
Nothing is more fertile in resources than Catholicity. Whatever may be the
necessity which presents itself, she immediately finds proper means of succor
and remedy, if allowed to act with freedom. The remonstrances and negotiations
of Christian princes could obtain nothing in favor of the captives; new
wars undertaken for this purpose only served to increase the public calamities&mdash;they
deteriorated the lot of those who groaned in slavery, and perhaps increased
their number, by sending them fresh companions in misfortune; pecuniary
means, without a central point of action and direction, produced but little fruit,
and were lost in the hands of agents. What resource, then, does there remain?
The powerful resource which is always found in the hands of the Catholic religion&mdash;the
secret whereby she accomplishes her greatest enterprises, viz. <em>charity</em>.</p>

<p>But how ought this charity to act? In the same way as all the virtues of
Catholicity. This divine religion, which has come down from the loftiest regions,
and constantly raises the human mind to sublime meditations, presents at the
same time a singular characteristic, whereby she is distinguished from all the
schools and sects who have attempted to imitate her. In spite of the spirit of
abstraction, if I may so speak, which holds her continually detached from earthly
things, she has nothing vague, unsubstantial, or merely theoretical. With her,
all is speculative and practical, sublime and simple; she adapts and accommodates
herself to all that is compatible with the truth of her dogmas and the
severity of her maxims. While her eyes are fixed on heaven, she forgets not
that she is on earth, and that she has to deal with mortal men, subject to miseries
and calamities. With one hand she shows them eternity, with the other she
succors their misfortunes, solaces their pains, and dries up their tears. She
does not content herself with barren words; the love of our neighbor is to her
nothing, if that love does not manifest itself in giving bread to him who is
hungry, drink to him who is thirsty; in clothing the naked, consoling the
afflicted, visiting the sick, solacing the prisoner, and redeeming the captive. To
make use of an expression of this age, I will say that religion is eminently
<em>positive</em>. Wherefore she labors to realize her ideas by means of beneficent and
fruitful institutions, thereby distinguishing herself from human philosophy, the
pompous language and gigantic projects of which form so miserable a contrast
with the littleness and nothingness of its works. Religion speaks little, but she
meditates and executes as the worthy daughter of that infinite Being who,
although absorbed in the contemplation of an ocean of light, His own essence
and His impenetrable nature, has not the less created the universe the object of
our admiration, and ceases not to preserve it with ineffable goodness, while
governing it with incomprehensible wisdom.</p>

<p>It was necessary to go to the succor of the unhappy captives; assuredly,
therefore, we should applaud the idea of a vast association, which, extending
over all the countries of Europe, and placing itself in connection with all the
Christians who would give alms in favor of so holy a work, would have in its
service a certain number of individuals always ready to traverse the seas, and
resolved to brave slavery and death for the redemption of their brethren. Numerous
means would be thus combined, and the good employment of the funds<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258">[Pg 258]</a></span>
would be secured. There was a certainty that the negotiations for the redemption
of captives would be conducted by men of zeal and experience; in a word, such
an association would completely fulfil its object; and when it was established,
the Christians might hope for the most prompt and efficacious succor. Now,
this was precisely the idea realized in the foundation of the religious orders for
the redemption of captives.</p>

<p>The religious who embraced these orders bound themselves by vow to the
accomplishment of this work of charity. Free from the embarrassments of
family relations and worldly interests, they could devote themselves to their
task with all the ardor of their zeal. Long voyages, the perils of the sea, the
danger of unhealthy climates, or the ferocity of the Infidels&mdash;nothing stopped
them. In their dress, in the prayers of their institution, they found a constant
remembrance of the vow which they had taken in the Divine presence. Neither
repose, comfort, nor even their very lives, any longer belong to them; all are
become the property of the unhappy captives, who groan in the dungeons or
wear heavy chains in presence of their masters, on the other side of the Mediterranean.
The families of the unhappy victims, fixing their eyes on the religious,
required of him the accomplishment of his promise; their groans and
lamentations continually urge him to find means, and to expose his life, if
necessary, to restore the father to the son, the son to the father, the husband to
the wife, the innocent young girl to her desolate mother.</p>

<p>From the earliest ages of Christianity we see great zeal displayed for the
redemption of captives, which has always been preserved, and the inspiration
of which from that time has called forth the greatest sacrifices. The seventeenth
chapter of this work, and the notes attached to it, have incontestably proved
this truth; and it is not necessary that I should stay to confirm it here. Yet
I will not lose the opportunity of observing that the Church, in the present
case, as in all circumstances, has adopted her constant rule, viz. to realize her
ideas by means of institutions. If you observe her conduct attentively, you
will find that she begins by teaching and highly extolling a virtue; then she
mildly persuades men to put it in practice; the practice extends and gains
strength, and what was merely a good work becomes for some a work of obligation;
what was a simple wise act is converted into a strict duty for some select
men. At all times has the Church been engaged in the redemption of captives;
at all times some Christians of heroic charity have stripped themselves of their
property, of their liberty, to accomplish this work of mercy; but this care was
still left to the discretion of the faithful, and no bodies of men existed to
represent this charitable idea. New necessities arise; the ordinary means do
not suffice; it is necessary that aid should be collected with promptitude, and
employed with discernment; charity, as it were, requires an arm always ready
to execute her orders; a permanent institution becomes necessary; the institution
appears, and the want is satisfied.</p>

<p>We are so accustomed to see the beautiful and the sublime in the work of
religion, that we scarcely observe the greatest prodigies there, in the same way
as, while profiting by the benefits of nature, we look upon her most wonderful
works and productions with an eye of indifference. The different religious
institutions which, under various forms, have appeared since the beginning of
Christianity, are worthy of exciting in the highest degree the astonishment of
the philosopher and the Christian; but I doubt whether it be possible to find in
the whole history of these institutions any thing more beautiful, interesting, and
touching, than the picture of the orders for the redemption of captives. Does
there exist a more admirable symbol of religion protecting the unfortunate?
Which is the most sublime emblem of the redemption consummated on Calvary
and extending itself to earthly captivity? Is it not the celebrated vision which
preceded the establishment of the holy institutes of Mercy and the Trinity?<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259">[Pg 259]</a></span>
Some will say that these apparitions were only chimeras and mere illusions!
Happy are those illusions, we will reply, which produce the consolation of the
human race! However this may be, we will here recall these visions, braving,
if necessary, the smiles of the incredulous. If they have preserved in their
hearts any generous feelings, they will be compelled to allow that if these
visions appear to them devoid of all historical truth, there is at least in the
sublime sacrifice which is made by the man who devotes himself to slavery for
the ransom of his brethren, a lofty poetry, a sincere love of the human race,
an ardent desire to succor them, and an heroic disinterestedness.</p>

<p>A doctor of the University of Paris, known by his virtues and his wisdom,
had just been raised to the priesthood, and celebrated for the first time the
holy sacrifice of the altar. In consideration of these exalted favors of the Most
High, he redoubles his ardor, he excites his faith, and endeavors to offer to the
Lamb without spot, with all the recollection, purity, and fervor of which he is
capable, his heart inundated with favors and inflamed by charity. He knows
not how to manifest to God his profound gratitude for so great a benefit; his
lively desire is to be able to prove to Him in some way his gratitude and his
love. He who had said, "What you have done to one of my little children
you have done to myself," immediately showed him a way to exhibit the fire
of his charity. The vision begins: the priest sees an angel whose dress is
white as snow and as brilliant as light; the angel wears on his breast a red and
blue cross; at his sides are two captives, the one a Christian, the other a Moor;
he places his hands over the heads of each. At this sight, the priest, ravished
into ecstasy, understands that God calls him to the holy work of the redemption
of captives; but before going any further, he retires into solitude, and
devotes himself for three years to prayer and penance, humbly begging of the
Lord that He would make known to him His sovereign will. In the desert he
met with a pious hermit; the two solitaries aid each other by their prayers and
examples. One day, when they were absorbed in pious communication by the
side of a fountain, a stag suddenly appears to them bearing on his horns the
mysterious cross of two colors. The priest relates to his astonished companion
the first vision which he has had; both redouble their prayers and penances;
both receive the celestial admonition for the third time. Then, unwilling any
longer to defer the accomplishment of the Divine pleasure, they hasten to
Rome, and ask of the Sovereign Pontiff his counsels and permission. The
Pope, who at the same time had had a similar vision, joyfully accedes to the
request of the two pious solitaries; the order of the Most Holy Trinity for the
Redemption of Captives is thus established. The priest was called John of
Matha; the hermit, Felix of Valois. They apply with ardent zeal to their work
of charity; after having dried up the tears of numbers of unhappy beings, they
now receive in heaven the reward of their labors. The Church, wishing to celebrate
their memories, has placed them on her altars.</p>

<p>The foundation of the order of Mercy had a similar origin. St. Peter
Nolasco, having spent all he possessed in the redemption of captives, had sought
in vain for new resources to continue his pious undertaking. He had set himself
to pray, in order to strengthen himself in his holy resolution of selling his
own liberty, or remaining himself a captive in the place of some of his
brethren. During his prayer the Blessed Virgin appeared to him; she gave
him to understand how pleasing the foundation of an order for the redemption
of captives would be to herself and her Divine Son. The saint, after consulting
the King of Aragon and St. Raymond of Penafort, proceeded to the establishment
of the order. He converted into a vow, not only for himself but for all
those who embraced the institute, the holy desire which he had previously had
to devote himself to slavery for the ransom of his brethren.</p>

<p>I repeat what I have already said: in whatever manner you judge of these<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260">[Pg 260]</a></span>
apparitions, and if even you attempt to lay them aside altogether as mere illusions,
it is not the less proved that the Catholic religion has labored with
immense power to relieve a great misfortune, and that no one can call in question
the utility of the holy institution in which the heroism of charity is so wonderfully
personified. Indeed, supposing that the founder, the dupe of illusions,
took for a revelation from heaven what was only the inspiration of ardent zeal,
do not the benefits lavished on the unhappy captives remain the same? We
hear much of illusions; but certain it is that these illusions produced a reality.
When St. Peter Armengol, wanting all resources to deliver some unfortunates,
remained as a hostage in their place, and when the day of ransom had expired,
resigned himself to be hung because the money had not arrived from Europe,
the illusions certainly did not remain sterile. What reality could produce
greater prodigies of zeal and heroism? Long ago have the things of religion
been condemned as illusions and madness; from the earliest times of Christianity
the mystery of the cross was treated as folly; but we do not see that
this prevented the pretended folly from changing the face of the world.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XLV" id="CHAPTER_XLV">CHAPTER XLV.</a><br />

<small>THE UNIVERSAL PROGRESS OF CIVILIZATION IMPEDED BY PROTESTANTISM</small>.</h2>


<p>In the rapid sketch which I have just given, my intention has not been to
write the history of the religious orders; this did not form part of my design.
I am satisfied with having offered a series of remarks which, by showing the
importance of these institutions, were calculated to vindicate Catholicity from
the accusations made against her on account of the protection which she has at
all times afforded them. How could a comparison be made between Catholicity
and Protestantism in their relations with the civilization of Europe, without
devoting a few pages to the examination of the influence which these institutions
have exercised on civilization? Now, if it is once shown that this influence
was salutary, Protestantism, which has persecuted and calumniated these
religious institutions with so much hatred and rancor, remains convicted of
having done violence to the history of our civilization, of having mistaken its
spirit, and still more of having aimed a blow at the legitimate development of
that civilization itself.</p>

<p>These reflections naturally lead me to point out another fault which Protestantism
has committed. When breaking the unity of European civilization, it
introduced discord into the bosom of that civilization, and weakened the physical
and moral action which it exercised on the rest of the world. Europe was
apparently destined to civilize the whole world. The superiority of her intelligence,
the preponderance of her strength, the superabundance of her population,
her enterprising and valiant character, her transports of generosity and heroism,
her communicating and propagating spirit, seemed to call her to diffuse
her ideas, feelings, laws, manners, and institutions to the four quarters of the
universe. How does it happen that she has not realized this destiny? How
does it happen that barbarism is still found at her gates, and that Islamism still
maintains itself in one of the finest climates and countries of Europe? Asia,
with her want of moving power, weakness, despotism, and degradation of women;
Asia, with all the disgraces of humanity, lies under our eyes; and
scarcely have we done any thing which gives reason to hope that she will
emerge from her degraded state. Asia Minor, the coasts of Palestine, Egypt,
and the whole of Africa, are before us in a deplorable condition&mdash;a degradation
which excites pity, and forms a melancholy contrast with the great recollections
of history. America, after four centuries of incessant communication with us,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261">[Pg 261]</a></span>
is still so much behindhand that a great part of her intellectual powers and the
resources with which nature has furnished her, remain until this day to be improved.
How does it happen that Europe, full of life, rich in means of all
kinds, overflowing with vigor and energy, has remained within the narrow
limits in which she still is? If we pay deep attention to this melancholy phenomenon,
a phenomenon with which it is very strange that the philosophy of
history has not occupied itself, we shall find the cause. The entire cause thereof
is the want of unity; her external action has been without concert, and consequently
without efficacy. Men constantly vaunt the utility of association; they
point out how necessary it is to obtain grand results, and they do not dream
that because this principle applies to nations as well as to individuals, nations,
like individuals, cannot accomplish great works, without conforming to this
general law. When an assemblage of nations of the same origin, and subject
for many ages to the same influence, have reached the development of their
civilization under the guidance and control of a common idea, among them association
becomes a real necessity; they form a family of brothers; now, among
brothers, division and discord have worse results than among strangers.</p>

<p>I do not pretend to say that the nations of Europe could have attained to so
perfect a concord, that perpetual peace would have been established among
them, and that perfect harmony would have eventually presided over all their
undertakings with respect to the other countries of the globe; but without
giving way to beautiful illusions, the reality whereof is beyond the bounds of
possibility, we may nevertheless, and without hazard of contradiction, say, that,
in spite of particular differences between nation and nation, in spite of the
greater or less degree of opposition between external and internal interests,
Europe could have kept and perpetuated in her own breast a civilizing idea
which, raising itself above all the misery and littleness of human passions,
would have placed her in a condition to acquire a greater ascendency and a
stronger and more useful influence over the other nations of the world. Amid
the interminable series of wars and calamities which afflicted Europe during the
fluctuations of the barbarous nations, this unity of thought existed; and it was
owing to it that order in the end came out of confusion, and that light conquered
darkness. In the long struggle of Christianity against Islamism, whether
in Europe, Asia, or Africa, this same unity of thought enabled Christian
civilization to triumph, in spite of the rivalries of kings and the excesses of
the people. While this unity existed, Europe preserved a transforming power
which made all that it touched become European sooner or later.</p>

<p>The heart is grieved at the sight of the disastrous event which broke this
precious unity, by diverting the course of our civilization and destroying its
fertilizing power. One can hardly observe without pain, not to say without
anger, that the appearance of Protestantism was exactly coincident with the
critical moment when the nations of Europe, about at length to reap the fruits
of long ages of continued labor and unheard-of efforts, appeared to the world
full of vigor, energy, and splendor. Putting forth gigantic strength, they discovered
new worlds, and placed one hand on the East and the other on the
West. Vasco de Gama had doubled the Cape of Good Hope, he had showed
the way to the East Indies, and opened communication with unknown nations.
Christopher Columbus, with the fleet of Isabella, ploughed the Western seas,
discovered a new world, and planted the standard of Castile in unheard-of lands.
Ferdinand Cortez, at the head of a handful of brave men, penetrated to the heart
of the new continent, and took possession of its capital; his arms, which the
natives had not yet seen, made him appear like a God launching his lightnings.
Europe everywhere displayed extreme activity; a spirit of enterprise was
developed in all hearts; the hour had come when the nations of Europe were
about to see open before them a new horizon of power and grandeur, the limits<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262">[Pg 262]</a></span>
whereof were invisible to the eye. Magellan discovered the strait which united
the east and west; and Sebastian d'Elcano, returning to the Spanish coasts,
after having made the tour of the world, seemed to be the sublime personification
of European civilization taking possession of the universe. At one extremity
of Europe, the crescent still shows itself powerful and threatening, like a dark
figure appearing in the corner of a splendid picture: but fear nothing; its
armies have been driven from Granada, the Christian host is encamped on the
coast of Africa, the standard of Castile floats on the walls of Oran, and in the
heart of Spain grows up in silence the wonderful child, who, when he has but
just laid aside the playthings of his age, will frustrate the last efforts of the
Moors of that country by the triumphs of Alpujarres, and shortly after will
break the Mussulman power for ever on the waves of Lepanto.</p>

<p>The development of mind kept pace with the increase of power. Erasmus
examined all the sources of knowledge, astonished the world by his talents and
his learning, and spread his fame in triumph from one end of Europe to the other.
The distinguished Spaniard, Louis Vives, rivalled the <em>savant</em> of Rotterdam, and
undertook nothing less than to regenerate the sciences, and give a new direction
to the human mind. In Italy, the schools of philosophy were in a state of fermentation,
and they seized with avidity the new lights brought from Constantinople.
In the same country, the genius of Dante and Petrarch was continued
in their illustrious successors; the land of Tasso resounded with his accents
like the nightingale announcing the coming of the dawn; while Spain, intoxicated
with her triumphs, and transported with pride at the sight of her conquests,
sang like a soldier who, after victory, reposes on a heap of trophies. What
could resist such superiority, such brilliant display, such great power? Europe,
already secure against all her enemies, enjoying a prosperity which must every
day increase, put in possession of laws and institutions better than any which
had before been seen, and whereof the completion and perfection could not fail
to come with the slow progress of time: Europe, we say, in a condition so
prosperous, replete with noble hopes, was about to commence the work of civilizing
the world. Even the discoveries which were every day made, indicated
that the happy moment had arrived. Fleets transported, together with warriors,
apostolic missionaries, whose hands were about to scatter in the new
countries the precious seed, whence, in the progress of time, was to grow up
the tree under whose shadow new nations were to find shelter. Thus was the
noble work begun, which, favored by Providence, was about to civilize America,
Africa, and Asia.</p>

<p>But the voice of the apostate who was about to cast discord into the bosoms
of fraternal nations already resounded in the heart of Germany. The dispute
begins, minds are excited, the irritation reaches its height, an appeal is made to
arms, blood flows in torrents, and the man who had been commissioned by hell
to scatter this cloud of calamities over the earth, contemplating before his death
the dreadful fruit of his labors, can insult the sorrows of the human race with a
cruel and impudent smile. Such do we figure to ourselves the genius of evil
leaving his dark abode and his throne in the midst of horrors. He suddenly
appears on the face of the globe, his hand sheds desolation and tears on all sides;
he casts a look over the devastation which he has made, and then buries himself
in eternal darkness.</p>

<p>By extending itself over Europe, the schism of Luther weakened in a deplorable
manner the action of Europeans on the other nations of the world; the
flattering hopes which had been conceived were dissipated in a moment, and
became no more than a golden dream. Henceforth, the largest part of our
intellectual, moral, and physical powers was condemned to be employed and
sadly wasted in a struggle which armed brethren against brethren. The nations
which had preserved Catholicity were compelled to concentrate all their resources,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">[Pg 263]</a></span>
power, and energy, in order to make head against the impious attacks which the
new sectaries made upon them by the press or by force of arms. The nations
among whom the contagion of the new errors had been propagated were thrown
into a sort of giddiness; they had no other enemies but the Catholics, and they
considered only one enterprise worthy of their efforts&mdash;the degradation and
destruction of the Roman See. Their thoughts no longer tended towards the
invention of means for improving the lot of the human race; the immense field
which had been thrown open to noble ambition by the recent discoveries, no
longer merited attention; for them there was only one holy work&mdash;that of
destroying the authority of the Roman Pontiff.</p>

<p>This condition of men's minds struck with sterility the ascendency over
nations recently discovered or conquered, which naturally belonged to Europeans.
When the nations of Europe simultaneously approached new regions,
they no longer met as brothers or generous rivals, stimulated by noble ambition;
they were exasperated and implacable enemies, men who differed in religion,
and who fought battles against each other as bloody as those which had
formerly been witnessed between the Christians and the Moors. The name of
the Christian religion, which had been the symbol of peace for so many ages&mdash;a
name which on the eve of battle was able to compel adversaries to lay aside
their hatred, and embrace like brothers, instead of tearing each other in pieces
like lions; a name which had served as an ensign to secure their triumph over
Mohammedan legions: this name, now disfigured by sacrilegious hands, became
a type of discord; and after Europe had been covered with blood and mourning,
the scandal was transported to the nations of the New World. These simple
and confiding nations were stricken with stupefaction on seeing the miseries,
the spirit of division, hatred, and revenge which reigned among the same men
upon whom they had just looked as demigods.</p>

<p>From that time forward, the forces of Europe were not united in any of those
great enterprises which had shed so much glory on previous ages. The Catholic
missionary, watering the Indian or American forests with his sweat and blood,
could reckon on the assistance of the nation to which he belonged, if that nation
remained Catholic; but he could not hope that all Europe, uniting in the work
of God, would come to sustain the distant missions with her resources; he knew,
on the contrary, that a great many Europeans would calumniate and insult him,
and use all imaginable means to prevent the seed of the gospel from taking root
on the new soil, and increasing the power of the Popes, by adding to the renown
of the Catholic Church.</p>

<p>There was a time when the profanations of the Mussulmen in Jerusalem, and
the injuries inflicted on the pilgrims who visited the Holy Sepulchre, were sufficient
to arouse the indignation of all Christian nations. They all uttered the
cry, <em>To arms!</em> and in crowds they followed the monk who led them to avenge
the outrages against religion and the pious pilgrims. After the heresy of
Luther, all was changed: the death of a missionary sacrificed in a foreign land,
his torments and martyrdom, sublime scenes in which the zeal and charity of
the first ages of the Church reappeared with all their energy: all this was
devoted to contempt and ridicule by men who called themselves Christians&mdash;the
unworthy posterity of the heroes whose blood had flowed under the walls
of Jerusalem.</p>

<p>In order to conceive in its full extent the evil caused by Protestantism in
this respect, let us imagine for a moment that Protestantism had not appeared;
and in this hypothesis, let us make a few reflections on the probable course of
events. In the first place, all the strength, genius, and resources which Spain
employed to make head in the religious wars excited on the continent, would
have been able to exert themselves in the New World. The same would have
been the case with France, the Low Countries, and England. These nations,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264">[Pg 264]</a></span>
although divided, have been able to furnish brilliant and glorious pages in history;
if their action on the new countries had been united and concentrated,
would they not have exerted a vigor and energy which would have been irresistible?
Imagine all the ports from the Baltic to the Adriatic sending their
missionaries to the East and to the West, as did France, Spain, Portugal, and
Italy; imagine all the great cities of Europe as so many centres where means
for this great object are collected; imagine all the missionaries guided by the
same views, under the influence of the same thought, and burning with the same
zeal for the propagation of the same faith; wherever they meet, they meet as
brothers, and co-operate in the common cause; all are under the same authority:
do you not imagine that you see the Christian religion exerting herself
on an immense scale, and everywhere gaining the most signal triumphs? The
vessel which bears the apostolic men to distant regions may fearlessly unfurl
her sails; when she discovers the flag of another country on the horizon, she
is under no apprehension of meeting with enemies; she is sure of finding friends
and brothers wherever there are Europeans.</p>

<p>The Catholic missions, in spite of the obstacles which have been opposed to
them by the turbulent spirit of Protestantism, have accomplished the most
difficult enterprises, and realized prodigies which form a brilliant page in
modern history; but how much nobler would have been their results, if Italy,
Spain, Portugal, and France had been supported by the whole of Germany, the
United Provinces, England, and other northern nations? This association was
natural, and must have been realized, had not the schism of Luther destroyed
it. It may be observed, moreover, that this fatal event not only placed an
obstacle in the way of universal association, but hindered the Catholic nations
themselves from devoting the greatest part of their resources to the great work
of converting and regenerating the world: they were compelled to remain continually
under arms, on account of religious wars and civil discords. At this
epoch the religious orders were apparently called to be the arm of religion; by
their means religion, consolidated in Europe and satisfied with the social regeneration
which she had just worked, would have extended her action to the infidel
nations.</p>

<p>When we glance over the course of events during the earliest ages of the
Church, and compare them with those of modern times, we clearly see that
some powerful cause must have interfered in modern times to oppose the propagation
of the faith. Christianity appears, and she extends herself immediately
with rapidity, without any aid on the part of men, and in spite of all
the efforts of princes, sages, priests, the passions, and of all the stratagems of
hell. She is but of yesterday, and already she is powerful, and prevails in all
parts of the empire; nations differing in language and manners, nations of
various degrees of civilization, abandon the worship of their false gods, and
embrace the religion of Jesus Christ. The barbarians themselves, as intractable
and indomitable as wild horses, listen to the missionaries who are sent to
them, and bow their heads; in the midst of conquest and victory, they are seen
to embrace the religion of those whom they have just conquered. Christianity
in modern times has been in possession of the exclusive empire of Europe; and
yet she has not been able to succeed in introducing herself again on the coasts
of Africa and Asia, which lie under her eye. It is true, that the greatest part
of America is become Christian; but observe, that the nations of those countries
have been conquered; there the conquering nations have established those
governments which have lasted for ages; the European nations have inundated
the New World with their soldiers and colonies, so that a considerable portion
of America is a kind of importation from Europe; consequently, the religious
transformation of that country does not resemble that which took place in the
early ages of the Church. Turn towards the West, where European arms have<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265">[Pg 265]</a></span>
not obtained a decided preponderance; see what takes place there: the nations
are still under the yoke of false religions. Christianity has not been able to
enlighten them; although the Catholic missions have obtained the means of
founding a few establishments more or less considerable, the precious seed has
not been able to take sufficient root in the soil, in order to bear the fruits which
ardent charity hoped for, and heroic zeal labored to produce. From time to
time, the rays of divine light have penetrated to the heart of the great empires
of Japan and China; at certain moments flattering hopes might be conceived;
but these hopes have been dissipated, these rays of light have disappeared like
a brilliant meteor amidst the darkness of midnight.</p>

<p>What is the cause of this impotence? whence comes it that the fertilizing
power, after having been so great in the first ages, had proved so vain in the
last? Let us not examine the profound secrets of Providence, or seek to inquire
into the incomprehensible mysteries of the Divine ways; but as far as it is given
to a feeble spirit to learn the truth by the evidences contained in the history of
the Church, as far as it is allowed us to carry our conjectures on the designs of the
Most High, according to the indications which the Lord himself has been pleased
to communicate to us, let us hazard an opinion on the facts: although dependent
on a superior order, they yet have an ordinary course, which is regulated by
God himself. The apostle St. Paul says that faith comes from hearing. He
asks, how it is possible to hear, if there is no one who preaches, and how can
there be preaching, if there is no one who sends? Hence, we must conclude
that missions are necessary for the conversion of nations, since God has not
thought fit by constant miracles to send legions of angels from heaven to teach
the nations who are deprived of the light of the earth.</p>

<p>Having laid down this principle, I will say that what was required for the
conversion of infidel nations was the organization of missions on a large scale.
There were required missions which, by the abundance of their resources and
the number of their laborers, might be in proportion to the greatness of the
object. Observe that the distances are immense, that the nations to whom the
divine word is to be announced are dispersed in many countries, and live under
the influence of laws, prejudices, and climates the most opposite to the spirit of
the Gospel. To make head against such vast wants, and surmount such great
difficulties, there was required a perfect inundation of missionaries; without
whom the result would remain doubtful, the existence of religious establishments
very precarious, and the conversion of great nations little probable, unless Providence
interfered by one of those prodigies which change the face of the world
in an instant. Now Providence does not renew these prodigies every moment;
sometimes he does not even accord them to the most ardent supplications of the
Saints.</p>

<p>In order to form a complete idea of what took place in the latter ages, let us
pay attention to what exists. What is wanting to infidel nations? What is
the incessant cry of the zealous men who devote themselves to the propagation
of the Gospel? Do we not constantly hear lamentations on the small number
of laborers, and on the scanty resources which are devoted to the subsistence of
the missionaries? Is not this penury of resources the cause of the associations
now formed among the Catholics of Europe?</p>

<p>The organization of missions on a large scale would have been realized if
Protestantism had not come to prevent it. The nations of Europe, the privileged
children of Providence, had the obligation and showed a decided will to
procure for the other nations of the world, by all the means in their power, a
participation in the benefits of the faith. Unhappily this faith was weakened
in Europe, it was given up to the caprices of human reason, and henceforth what
had before been of easy execution became impossible. Providence, which had
permitted the deplorable disaster of the schism, permits also to be deferred to a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266">[Pg 266]</a></span>
more remote period the happy day when the benighted nations shall enter in
great numbers into the fold of the Church.</p>

<p>But perhaps I shall be told that the zeal of modern Catholicity is not that of
the early ages of Christianity, and this is one of the reasons which have prevented
the conversion of infidel nations. I will not make a long comparison on
this point; I will not say all that might be said; I will content myself with
making an observation which will remove the difficulty at once. Our Divine
Saviour, in order to send His disciples to preach the Gospel, wished that they
should abandon all they had and follow Him. The same Saviour, revealing to
us the infallible sign of true charity, tells us that there is nothing greater than
to give one's life for one's brethren. The Catholic missionaries of the three
last centuries have renounced all, have abandoned their country, their families,
all the comforts of life, all that can engage the heart of man on earth; they
have gone to seek the infidels amid the most imminent dangers, and they have
sealed with their blood, in all parts of the world, their ardor for the conversion
of their brethren, and for the salvation of souls. I believe that such missionaries
are worthy of succeeding to those of the first ages of the Church; all declamations
and calumnies are impotent before the triumphant evidence of facts. The
Church of the early ages would be honored, like that of our times, by a St.
Francis Xavier and the martyrs of Japan.</p>

<p>We have spoken, also, of the abundance of the missionaries. The Church
had a wonderful fecundity for the conversion of the ancient and barbarian
world. At her first appearance, the fiery tongues of the Cenacle and the multitude
of prodigies made up for numbers, and multiplied the servants of God.
Nations of different languages, listening to the same discourse, heard it at the
same time each one in his own tongue; but after this first impulse, by which
the Almighty was pleased to confound the powers of hell, things followed the
ordinary course, and a greater number of missionaries was required for a greater
number of conversions. The great centres of faith and charity, the numerous
churches of the East and West, furnished in abundance the apostolic men necessary
for the propagation of the faith; and this sacred army had a powerful
reserve at hand ready to make up its deficiencies when sickness, fatigues, and
martyrdom had thinned its ranks. Rome was the centre of this great movement;
but Rome, in order to give the impulse, had no need either of fleets
ready to transport the holy colonies to many thousand places, or of great
treasures to support missionaries in desert regions and countries altogether
unknown. When the missionary, prostrate at the feet of the Sovereign Pontiff,
asked his apostolical benediction, the holy father could send him in peace with
his pastoral staff alone; he knew that the Gospel envoy was about to traverse
Christian countries, and that even in idolatrous lands he would not be far from
princes already converted, from bishops, priests, and faithful nations; none of
whom would refuse succor to him who went to sow the divine word in the
neighboring countries.</p>

<p>I leave the reflections which I have just made, on the injury done to the influence
of Europe by the schism of Protestantism, with confidence to the judgment
of thinking men. I am deeply convinced that this influence thereby received a
terrible blow. Without the fatal event of the sixteenth century, the condition
of the world would now be very different from what it is. I may, no doubt,
delude myself in some degree on this point; but I will appeal to simple good
sense whether it is not true, that unity of action, of principles, and of views, the
combination of resources, and the association of agents, are not in all things the
secret of success, and the surest guarantee for a happy result. I will then ask
whether Protestantism did not break this unity, render this combination impossible,
and this association impracticable? Are not these facts indisputable, as
clear as the light of day? These facts are recent&mdash;they are of yesterday; what<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267">[Pg 267]</a></span>
is their consequence? what deduction should be drawn from them? Let impartiality,
good sense, and mere common sense, answer me, if they be only accompanied
by good faith.</p>

<p>To every thinking man, it is evident that Europe is not what she would have
been without the appearance of Protestantism; and certainly it is not less evident,
that the results of its civilizing influence on the world have not answered
the promises of the early years of the sixteenth century. Let Protestants boast
of having given a new direction to European civilization; let them vaunt of
having enfeebled the spiritual power of the Popes, by removing millions of souls
from the sacred fold; let them glory in having destroyed the religious orders in
countries subject to their dominion&mdash;of having broken in pieces the ecclesiastical
hierarchy, and thrown the Bible in the midst of ignorant crowds, with the
assurance that, to understand the sacred volume, private inspiration or the judgment
of natural reason was enough; yet it is not the less certain that the unity
of the Christian religion has disappeared among them, that they want a centre
whence great efforts may proceed, that they are without a guide, wandering like
a flock without a shepherd, blown about by every wind of doctrine, and unable
to bring forth the least of those great works which Catholicity has produced,
and still produces, in such abundance; it is not the less certain that, by their
eternal disputes, their calumnies, their attacks upon the dogmas and the discipline
of the Church, they have compelled the latter to hold herself in an attitude
of defence&mdash;to contend for three centuries, depriving her of the precious
time and means which she would have used to complete the great projects intended
by her, and already so happily begun. Is it a merit to divide men, to
provoke discord, to excite wars, to change brother nations into enemies, to convert
the great family-party of nations into an arena for rancorous strife? Is it
a merit to throw discredit on the missionaries who go to preach the Gospel to
infidel nations&mdash;to place all imaginable obstacles in their way&mdash;to employ every
means to render their zeal useless, and their charity without result? If, indeed,
all this be a merit, then I acknowledge that this merit belongs to Protestantism;
but if all this be disastrous, and injurious to humanity, it is Protestantism which
must be responsible for it.</p>

<p>When Luther said that he was charged with a high mission, he spoke the
truth, but a fearful and alarming truth, and one which he did not understand.
The sins of nations sometimes fill up the measure of the patience of the Most
High. The sound of human offences mounts to heaven, and calls for vengeance;
the Eternal, in His fearful anger, sends down a look of fire upon the earth;
then strikes the fatal hour in His secret and infinite resolves, and the son of
perdition, who is to cover the world with mourning and desolation, appears. As
the cataracts of heaven were formerly opened to sweep the human race from the
face of the earth, so are the calamities which the God of vengeance holds in
reserve for the day of His anger, poured forth from their urn and scattered over
the world. The son of perdition raises his voice; that moment is marked by
the beginning of the catastrophe. The spirit of evil moves over the whole
face of the globe, bearing on his sable pinions the echo of that ominous voice.
An incomprehensible giddiness takes possession of men's heads; the nations
have eyes, and see not; they have ears, and hear not; in their delirium, the
most frightful precipices appear to them smooth, peaceful, and flowery paths;
they call good evil, and evil good; they drink with feverish eagerness of the
poisoned cup; forgetfulness of all the past, ingratitude for all benefits, seize all
minds; the work of the genius of evil is consummated; the prince of the rebellious
spirits may again bury himself in his empire of darkness; and the human
race has learned, by a terrible lesson, that the indignation of the Most High is
not to be provoked with impunity.</p>

<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268">[Pg 268]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XLVI" id="CHAPTER_XLVI">CHAPTER XLVI.</a><br />

<small>THE JESUITS</small>.</h2>


<p>As I am treating of religious institutions, I must not pass over in silence
that celebrated order, which, from the first years of its existence, assumed the
stature of a colossus, and employed all a giant's strength; that order which
perished without having felt decay; which did not follow the common course
of others, either in its foundation, in its development, or even in its fall; that
order of which it is truly and correctly said, that it had neither infancy nor old
age. It is clear that I speak of the society of Jesus, the Jesuits. The name
alone will be enough to alarm a certain class of readers; and, therefore, in
order to tranquillize them, I will say that I do not here undertake to write an
apology for the Jesuits; this task does not belong to the character of my work;
moreover, others have undertaken it, and it is not necessary for me to repeat
what is well known. But it is impossible to call to mind the religious institutions,
the religious, political, and literary history of Europe, during the last
three centuries, without meeting the Jesuits at every step: we cannot travel in
the most distant countries, traverse unknown seas, visit the most remote lands,
or penetrate the most frightful deserts, without finding everywhere under our
feet some memorials of the Jesuits. On the other hand, we cannot look at our
libraries without immediately remarking the writings of some Jesuits. Since
this is the case, even those among our readers who have the greatest horror of
them, ought to pardon us for fixing our attention for a moment on this institute
which has filled the world with its name. Even if we were to attach no importance
to their modern revival, and to regard their present existence and their
probable future as unworthy of examination, it would still be altogether inexcusable
not to speak of them, at least as a historical fact. To pass them over
in silence, would be to imitate those ignorant and heartless travellers, who, with
stupid indifference, tread under foot the most interesting ruins and the most
valuable remains.</p>

<p>When we study the history of the Jesuits, this very extraordinary circumstance
is apparent: they have existed only for a few years, if compared with the
duration of other religious bodies, and yet there is no religious order which has
been the object of such keen animosity. From their origin, they have had
numerous enemies; never have they been free from them, either in their prosperity
and greatness, or in their fall, or even after it; never has their persecution
ceased; we should rather say, never has the animosity with which they
have been pursued ceased. Since their reappearance, men have constantly
fixed their eyes upon them; they tremble lest they should resume their ancient
power; the splendor which is reflected on them by the recollections of their
brilliant history renders them visible everywhere, and augments the fears of
their enemies. How many men among us are more alarmed at the foundation
of a Jesuits' college than at an irruption of Cossacks! There is, therefore,
something very singular and extraordinary in this institute, since it excites the
public attention in so high a degree, and its mere name disconcerts its enemies.
Men do not despise the Jesuits, but they fear them; sometimes they attempt
to throw ridicule on them; but when that weapon is employed against them,
it is felt that he who wields it is not sufficiently calm to use it with success. In
vain does he attempt to affect contempt; through the affectation every one can
perceive disquietude and anxiety. It is immediately seen that he who attacks
does not believe himself opposed to insignificant adversaries. His bile is excited,
his sallies become checked, his words, steeped in a fearful bitterness, fall
from his mouth like drops from a poisoned cup; it is clear that he takes the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269">[Pg 269]</a></span>
affair to heart, and does not look upon it as a mere joke. We fancy we hear
him say to himself, "Every thing affecting the Jesuits is extremely grave;
there is no playing with these men&mdash;no regard, no indulgence, no moderation
of any kind; it is necessary always to treat them with rigor, harshness, and
detestation; with them, the least negligence may become fatal."</p>

<p>Unless I am much deceived, this is the best demonstration that can be given
of the eminent merit of the Jesuits. It must be the same with classes and corporations
as with individuals&mdash;very extraordinary merit necessarily excites numerous
enemies, for the simple reason that such merit is always envied, and
very often dreaded. In order to know the real cause of this implacable hatred
against them, it is enough to consider who are their principal enemies. We
know that Protestants and infidels figure there in the first rank; in the second,
we remark the men who, with more or less clearness and resolution, show themselves
but little attached to the authority of the Roman Church. Both, in their
hatred against the Jesuits, are guided by a very rare instinct, for truly they
have never met with a more redoubtable adversary. This reflection is worthy
of the attention of sincere Catholics, who, for one cause or another, entertain
unjust prejudices. When we have to form a judgment on the merit and conduct
of a man, it is very often a sure means of deciding between contrary
opinions to inquire who are his enemies.</p>

<p>When we fix our attention on the institute of the Jesuits, on the time of its
foundation, on the rapidity and greatness of its progress, we find the important
truth which I have before pointed out more and more confirmed, viz., that the
Catholic Church, with wonderful fruitfulness, always furnishes an idea worthy
of her to meet all the necessities which arise. Protestantism opposed the Catholic
doctrines with the pomp and parade of knowledge and learning; the <i lang="fr">éclat</i>
of human literature, the knowledge of languages, the taste for the models of
antiquity, were all employed against religion with a constancy and ardour worthy
of a better cause. Incredible efforts were made to destroy the pontifical authority;
when they could not destroy it, they attempted at least to weaken and discredit
it. The evil spread with fearful rapidity; the mortal poison already circulated
in the veins of a considerable portion of the European nations: the contagion
began to be propagated even in countries which had remained faithful to the truth.
To complete the misfortune, schism and heresy, traversing the seas, corrupted
the faith of the simple neophytes of the New World. What was to be done in
such a crisis? Could such great evils be remedied by ordinary means? Was
it possible to make head against such great and imminent perils by employing
common arms? Was it not proper to make some on purpose for such a struggle,
to temper the cuirass and shield, to fit them for this new kind of warfare, in
order that the cause of truth might not appear in the new arena under fatal
disadvantages? Who can doubt that the appearance of the Jesuits was the
answer to these questions, that their institute was the solution of the problem?</p>

<p>The spirit of the coming ages was essentially one of scientific and literary
progress. The Jesuits were aware of this truth; they perfectly understood it.</p>

<p>It was necessary to advance with rapidity and never to remain behind: this
the new institute does; it takes the lead in all sciences; it allows none to anticipate
it. Men study the oriental languages; they produce great works on the
Bible; they search the books of the ancient Fathers, the monuments of tradition
and of ecclesiastical decisions: in the midst of this great activity, the Jesuits
are at their posts; many supereminent works issue from their colleges. The
taste for dogmatical controversy is spread over all Europe: many schools preserve
and love the scholastic discussions: immortal works of controversy come from
the hands of the Jesuits, at the same time that they yield to none in skill and
penetration in the schools. The mathematics, astronomy, all the natural
sciences, make great progress; learned societies are formed in the capitals of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270">[Pg 270]</a></span>
Europe to cultivate and encourage them: in these societies the Jesuits figure in
the first rank. The spirit of time is naturally dissolvent: the institute of the
Jesuits is interiorly armed against dissolution; in spite of the rapidity of its
course, it advances in a compact order, like the mass of a powerful army. The
errors, the eternal disputes, the multitude of the new opinions, even the progress
of the sciences, by exciting men's minds, give a fatal inconstancy to the human
intellect&mdash;an impetuous whirlwind, agitating and stirring up all things, carries
them away. The order of the Jesuits appears in the midst of this whirlwind,
but it partakes neither of its inconstancy nor of its variability; it pursues its
career without losing itself; and while only irregularity and vacillation are seen
among its adversaries, it advances with a sure step, tending towards its object,
like a planet which performs its orbit according to fixed laws. The authority
of the Pope, assailed with animosity by Protestants, was indirectly attacked by
others with stratagem and dissimulation; the Jesuits showed themselves faithfully
attached to that authority; they defend it wherever it is threatened; like
vigilant sentinels, they constantly watch over the preservation of Catholic unity.
Their knowledge, influence, and riches never affect their profound submission to
the authority of the Popes&mdash;a submission which was ever their distinctive characteristic.
In consequence of the discovery of the new countries in the east
and west, a taste for travelling, for observing distant countries, for the knowledge
of the language, manners, and customs of the recently discovered nations,
was developed in Europe. The Jesuits, spread over the face of the globe, while
preaching the Gospel to the nations, do not forget the study of the thousand
things which may interest cultivated Europe; and at their return from their
gigantic expeditions, they are seen adding their valuable treasures to the common
fund of modern science.</p>

<p>How, then, can we be surprised that Protestants have been so violent against
an institute in which they found so terrible an enemy; and, on the other hand,
was there any thing more natural than to see all the other enemies of religion,
enemies some of whom were wholly unmasked and some partially disguised,
make common cause with Protestants on this point? The Jesuits were a wall
of brass against the assaults upon the Catholic faith; it was resolved to undermine
and overturn this rampart; which in the end was accomplished. Very
few years had elapsed since the suppression of the Jesuits, and already the
memory of the great crimes which were imputed to them was effaced by the
ravages of an unexampled revolution. Men of good faith, whose excessive confidence
had believed perfidious calumnies, could convince themselves that the
riches, knowledge, influence, and the pretended ambition of the Jesuits, would
never have been as fatal as the triumph of their enemies; these religious men
would never have upset a throne or cut off the head of a king on the scaffold.</p>

<p>M. Guizot, in glancing at European civilization, necessarily encountered the
Jesuits; and it must be acknowledged that he has not done them the justice to
which they are entitled. After having lamented the inconsistency of the Protestant
Reformation, and the narrow spirit which guided it, after having confessed
that Catholics knew very well what they did and what they wished, and that they
acted up to the principles of their conduct and avowed all their consequences,
M. Guizot declares that there never was a more consistent government than that
of Rome, and that the court of Rome, always having a fixed idea, has known
how to pursue a consistent and regular line of conduct; he extols the strength
which results from a full knowledge of what one does and what one wishes;
he shows the advantage of a settled design, and of the complete and absolute
adoption of a principle and system; that is to say, he makes a brilliant panegyric
on, and a powerful apology for, the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, M.
Guizot finds the Jesuits in his way, and unworthy as it is of such a mind as his,
which, in order to require just renown, has no need of burning incense before<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271">[Pg 271]</a></span>
vulgar prejudices or mean passions, he attempts, in passing, to throw a reproach
upon them. "Every one knows," says M. Guizot, "that the principal power
instituted to contend against the religious revolution, was the order of the Jesuits.
Throw a glance over their history; they have failed everywhere; wherever they
have interfered to any extent, they have brought misfortune to the cause in which
they have engaged. In England they have destroyed kings, in Spain nations."
M. Guizot had just told us of the superiority which is obtained over an adversary
by regular and consistent conduct, by the complete and absolute adoption
of a system, and by a fixed idea; as a proof of all this he showed us the Jesuits,
he exhibited to us in them the expression of the system of the Church; and
behold, without any explanation, if not without a motive, the writer suddenly
changes his course; the advantages of the system which he has just praised
disappear from his eyes; for those who follow this system, that is the Jesuits
themselves, fail everywhere, and everywhere bring misfortunes on the cause
which they embrace. How can such assertions be reconciled? The credit,
influence, and sagacity of the Jesuits have passed into a proverb. The reproach
against them was, of having extended their views too far, of having conceived
ambitious plans, and obtained by their skill a decided ascendency in all the
places where they succeeded in gaining entrance; Protestants themselves have
openly confessed that the Jesuits were their most redoubtable adversaries; it was
always thought that the foundation of the order had an immense result, and now
we learn from M. Guizot, that the Jesuits have everywhere failed; that their
support, far from being a great succour, always brought fatality and misfortune
to the cause of which they declared themselves the advocates. If they were
such fatal servants, why were their services sought with so much eagerness?
If they always conducted affairs so ill, why have the most important ones in the
end fallen into their hands? Adversaries so foolish or so unfortunate certainly
ought not to have excited in the enemies' camp so much clamor as was raised at
their approach.</p>

<p>"In England the Jesuits have destroyed kings, in Spain nations." Nothing
is easier than these bold strokes of the pen; the whole of a great history is
traced in a single line, and an infinity of facts, grouped and confounded, are
made to pass under the eye of the reader with the rapidity of lightning; the
eye has not even time to look at them, still less to analyze them as would be
necessary. M. Guizot should have devoted some sentences to prove his assertion;
he should have stated the facts and pointed out the reasons on which he builds,
when he affirms that the influence of the Jesuits has had so fatal an effect.
With respect to the kings of England here so boldly sacrificed, I cannot enter
into an examination of the religious and political revolutions which agitated and
desolated the three kingdoms for two centuries after the schism of Henry VIII.
These revolutions, in their immense circle, have presented very different phases;
disfigured and perverted by the Protestants, who have success in their favor,
that decisive, if not convincing argument, they have made some men of little
reflection believe that the disasters of England were in great part due to the
imprudence of the Catholics, and, as an indispensable corollary, to the pretended
intrigues of the Jesuits. In spite of this, the Catholic movement which England
has witnessed for half a century, and the great works which every day
carry on the restoration of Catholicity, will at last disperse the calumnies by
which our faith has been stigmatized. Before long, the history of the last three
centuries will be restored as it ought, and the truth will appear in its proper
light. This observation relieves me from the necessity of entering into details
on the subject of the first assertion of M. Guizot; but I must not leave without
reply what he so gratuitously affirms on the subject of Spain.</p>

<p>"The Jesuits have destroyed nations in Spain," says M. Guizot; I wish that
the publicist had explained to us to what great disaster he alluded. To what<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272">[Pg 272]</a></span>
period does he refer? I have examined our history, and I do not find this destruction
which was caused by the Jesuits; I cannot imagine whereon the historian
fixed his eyes when he pronounced these words. Nevertheless, the
antithesis between Spain and England, between nations and kings, leads us to
suspect that M. Guizot alluded to the shipwreck of political liberty; we are not
aware that there is any other better-founded or more legitimate interpretation.
But then a new difficulty presents itself: how can we believe that a man so
versed in the knowledge of history, composing a course of lectures which is particularly
devoted to the general history of European civilization, should fall into
a palpable error,&mdash;should commit an unpardonable anachronism? Indeed, whatever
may be the judgments of publicists on the causes which have produced the
loss of liberty in Spain, and on the important events of the days of the Catholic
sovereigns, of Philippe le Beau, of Jeanne-la-Folle, and the regency of Cisneros,
all are unanimous in saying that the war of the Commons was the critical moment,
decisive of the liberty of Spain; all are agreed that the two parties played
their last stake at that time, and that the battle of Villalar and the punishment
of Padilla, by confirming and increasing the royal power, destroyed the last
hopes of the partisans of the ancient liberties. Well, the battle of Villalar was
fought in 1521; at that time the Jesuits did not exist, and St. Ignatius, their
founder, was still a brilliant knight, battling like a hero under the walls of
Pampeluna. To this there is no reply; all philosophy and eloquence are unable
to efface these dates.</p>

<p>During the sixteenth century, the Cortes met more or less often, and with
more or less influence, above all in the kingdom of Aragon; but it is as clear
as daylight that the royal power had every thing under its domination, that
nothing could resist it, and the unfortunate attempt of the Aragonese, at the
time of the affair of Don Antonio Perez, sufficiently shows that there existed
then no remains of ancient liberty which could oppose the will of kings. Some
years after the war of the Commons, Charles V. gave the <i lang="fr">coup de grace</i> to the
Cortes of Castile, by excluding from it the clergy and the nobles, to leave only
the <i lang="es">Estamento de Procuradores</i>, a feeble rampart against the exigencies, against
the all-powerful attempts of a monarch on whose dominions the sun never set.
This exclusion took place in 1538, at the time when St. Ignatius was still occupied
with the foundation of his order; the Jesuits, therefore, could have had no
influence therein.</p>

<p>Still more, the Jesuits, after their establishment in Spain, never employed
their influence against the liberty of the people. From their pulpits they did
not teach doctrines favorable to despotism; if they reminded the people of their
duties, they also reminded kings of theirs; if they wished the rights of monarchs
to be respected, they would not allow those of the people to be trodden under
foot. To prove the truth of this, I appeal to the testimony of those who have
read the writings of the Jesuits of that time on questions of public law. "The
Jesuits," says M. Guizot, "were called to contend against the general course
of events, against the development of modern civilization, against the liberty of
the human mind." If the general course of events is nothing but the course
of Protestantism, if the development of Protestantism is the development of
modern civilization, if the liberty of the human mind consists only in the fatal
pride, in the mad independence which the pretended reformers communicated
to it, then nothing is more true than the assertion of the publicist; but if the
preservation of Catholicity is a fact of any weight in the history of Europe, if
her influence during the last three centuries has amounted to any thing, if the
reigns of Charles V., Philip II., Louis XIV., do not deserve to be effaced from
modern history, and if regard ought to be had to that immense counterpoise to
which was owing the equilibrium of the two religions; in fine, if the faith of
Descartes, Malebranche, Bossuet, and Fénélon, can make a dignified appearance<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273">[Pg 273]</a></span>
in the picture of modern civilization, it is impossible to understand how the
Jesuits, when intrepidly defending Catholicity, could be struggling against the
general course of events, against the development of modern civilization, and
against the freedom of human thought.</p>

<p>After having made this first false step, M. Guizot continues to slip in a deplorable
manner. I particularly call the attention of my readers to the following
evident contradictions: "With the Jesuits, there is no <i lang="fr">éclat</i>, no grandeur.
They have performed no brilliant exploits." The publicist entirely forgets what
he has just advanced, or rather he directly retracts it, when he adds, a few lines
further, "and yet, nothing is more certain than that they have had grandeur;
a grand idea belongs to their names, to their influence, and to their history. It
is because they knew what they did, and what they wished; it is because they
had a clear and full knowledge of the principles on which they acted, and of the
end towards which they tended; that is to say, because they have had grandeur
of thought and of will." Is genius in its vastest enterprises, in the realization
of its most gigantic projects, any thing more than a grand idea and a grand
intention? The mind conceives, the will executes; this fashions the model,
that makes the application; if there be grandeur in the model and in the application,
how can the whole work fail to be grand?</p>

<p>Pursuing the task of lowering the Jesuits, M. Guizot makes a parallel between
them and the Protestants; he confounds ideas in such a way, and so far
forgets the nature of things, that one would hardly believe it, if the words themselves
did not prove it beyond a doubt. Forgetting that it is necessary for the
terms of a comparison not to be of a totally different kind, which renders all
comparison impossible, M. Guizot compares a religious institute with whole
nations; he goes so far as to reproach the Jesuits with not having raised the
people <i lang="fr">en masse</i>, and with not having changed the form and condition of states.
Here is the passage: "They have acted in subterraneous, dark, and inferior
ways; in ways which were not at all apt to strike the imagination, or to conciliate
for them that public interest which attaches itself to great things, whatever
may be their principle and end. The party against which they contended,
on the contrary, not only conquered, but conquered with <i lang="fr">éclat</i>; it has done
great things and by great means; it has aroused nations; it has filled Europe
with great men; it has changed the form and the lot of nations in the face of
day. In a word, all has been against the Jesuits, both fortune and appearances."
Without intending to offend M. Guizot, let us avow, that for the honor
of his logic, one would desire to efface from his writings such phrases as we have
just read. What! ought the Jesuits to have put the nations in motion, made
them arise <i lang="fr">en masse</i>, and changed the form and condition of states? Would
they not have been extraordinary religious men, if they had been allowed to do
such things? It was said of the Jesuits that they had unbounded ambition,
and that they attempted to rule the world; and now they are compared with
their adversaries in order to throw it in their faces that the latter have overturned
the world; a distinguished merit, which must have been a disgrace to
the Jesuits themselves. Indeed, the Jesuits have never attempted to imitate
their adversaries on this point; with respect to the spirit of confusion and perturbation,
they joyfully yield the palm to those to whom it rightly belongs.</p>

<p>As far as great men are concerned, if the question be with respect to the
greatness of the enterprises which are becoming in a minister of the God of
peace, then have the Jesuits had this kind of grandeur in an eminent degree.
Whether it be in the most arduous affairs, or in the vastest projects in science
and literature, whether it be in the most distant missions, or in the most
redoubtable perils, the Jesuits have never remained behind; on the contrary,
they have been seen to display a spirit so bold and enterprising, that they have
thereby obtained the most distinguished renown. If the great men of whom<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">[Pg 274]</a></span>
M. Guizot speaks are restless tribunes, who, putting themselves at the head of
an ungovernable people, violated the public peace, if they are the Protestant
warriors whose names have shone in the wars of Germany, France, and England,
the comparison is foolish, and has no meaning; for priests and warriors,
religious and tribunes, are so distinct, so different in actions and character, that
to compare them is impossible.</p>

<p>Justice required that in such a parallel, where the Jesuits are taken as one
of the terms of the comparison, Protestants should not be placed on the other,
unless by them the reformed ministers are meant. Even in this later case the
comparison would not have been absolutely exact, since, in the midst of the
great differences between the two religions, the Jesuits are not found alone in
defending Catholicity. The Church, during the last three centuries, has had
great prelates, holy priests, eminent <em>savants</em>, and writers of the first order, who
did not belong to the company of Jesus; the Jesuits were reckoned among the
principal champions, but they were not the only ones. Had it been wished
fairly to compare Protestantism with Catholicity, it would have been requisite
to oppose Protestant to Catholic nations, to compare priests with priests, <em>savants</em>
with savants, politicians with politicians, warriors with warriors; to do otherwise
is monstrously to confound names and things, and to reckon too much on
the limited understandings and excessive simplicity of hearers and readers.
It is certain that if the method we have pointed out were adopted, Protestantism
would not appear so brilliant and superior as the publicist has exhibited it
to us. Catholics, as M. Guizot well knows, do not yield to Protestants in
letters, in war, or in political ability. History is there; let it be consulted.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XLVII" id="CHAPTER_XLVII">CHAPTER XLVII.</a><br />

<small>THE FUTURE OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.&mdash;THEIR PRESENT NECESSITY</small>.</h2>


<p>When, after having fixed our eyes on the vast and interesting picture which
religious communities present to us, after having called to mind their origin,
their varied forms, their vicissitudes of poverty and riches, of depression and
prosperity, of coldness and of fervor, of relaxation and strict reform, we see
them still subsist and arise anew on all sides, in spite of the efforts of their
enemies, we naturally ask what will be their future? their past is full of glory;
what influence have they not exerted in society, under a thousand different
aspects, and in the thousand phases of society itself? Yet what spectacle do
they show us in modern times? On one hand they have been weakened, like
an old wall which we see ruined by the effect of time; on the other we have
seen them suddenly disappear, like weak trees overthrown by the whirlwind.
Moreover, they seemed to be condemned by the spirit of the age without appeal.
Matter having become supreme, extended its empire on all sides, scarcely
allowing the mind a moment for reflection and meditation; industry and commerce,
carrying their turmoil to the remotest parts of the earth, confirmed the
judgment of an irreligious philosophy against a class of men devoted to prayer,
silence, and solitude. Nevertheless, facts every day belie their conjectures; the
hearts of Christians still preserve the most flattering hopes, and these hopes are
strengthened and animated more and more. The hand of God, who carries out
His high designs and laughs at the vain thoughts of man, shows it more and
more wonderful. Philosophy sees a wide field for meditation open before it; it
anticipates the probable future of religious communities; it may make conjectures
on the influence which is reserved for them in society for the future.</p>

<p>We have already seen what is the real origin of religious institutions; we
have found that origin in the spirit of the Catholic religion, and history has told<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275">[Pg 275]</a></span>
us that they have arisen wherever she is established. They have varied in form,
in rule, in object, but the fact has been always the same. Thence we have
inferred that wherever the Catholic faith shall be maintained, religious institutions
will appear anew under some form or other. This prognostic may be
made with complete certainty; we do not fear that time will belie it. We live
in an age steeped in voluptuous materialism; interests which are called positive,
or, in plainer terms, gold and pleasure, have acquired such an ascendency that
we might apparently fear to see some societies lamentably retrograde towards
the manners of paganism, towards that period of disgrace when religion might
be summed up in the deification of matter. But in the midst of this afflicting
picture, when the mind, full of anguish, feels itself on the point of swooning
away, the observer sees that the soul of man is not yet dead, and that lofty
ideas, noble and dignified feelings, are not entirely banished from the earth.
The human mind feels itself too great to be limited to wretched objects; it
comprehends that it is given it to rise higher than an air-balloon.</p>

<p>Observe what happens with respect to industrial progress. Those steam-vessels
which leave our ports with the rapidity of an arrow to traverse the
immensity of ocean, those burning vehicles which skim along our plains, and
penetrate into the heart of mountains, realizing under our eyes what would
have seemed a dream to our fathers; those other machines which give movement
to gigantic workshops, and as if by magic set in motion innumerable
instruments, and elaborate with the most wonderful precision the most delicate
productions: all this is great and wonderful. But however great, however
wonderful it may be, it no longer astonishes; these wonders no longer captivate
our attention in a more lively manner than the generality of the objects
which surround us. Man feels that he is still greater than these machines and
masterpieces of art; his heart is an abyss which nothing can fill; give him the
whole world, and the void will be the same. The depth is immeasurable; the
soul, created in the image and likeness of God, cannot be satisfied without the
possession of Him.</p>

<p>The Catholic religion constantly revives these lofty thoughts, and points out
this immense void. In barbarous times she placed herself among rude and
ignorant nations to lead them to civilization; she now remains among civilized
nations to provide against the dissolution which threatens them. She disregards
the coldness and neglect with which indifference and ingratitude reply to her;
she cries out without ceasing, addresses her warnings to the faithful with indefatigable
constancy, makes her voice resound in the ears of the incredulous, and
remains intact and immovable in the midst of the agitation and instability of
human things. Thus do those wonderful temples which have been left to us
by the remotest antiquity, remain entire amid the action of time, of revolutions,
and of convulsions; around them arise and disappear the habitations of
men, the palaces of the great and the cottages of the poor, but the time-stained
edifice stands like a solemn and mysterious object in the midst of the smiling
fields and showy structures which surround it; its vast cupola annihilates all
that is near; its summit boldly rises towards the heavens.</p>

<p>The labors of religion do not remain without fruit; penetrating minds
acknowledge her truths; even those who refuse their submission to the faith
confess the beauty, utility, and necessity of this divine religion; they regard it
as an historical fact of the highest importance, and agree that the good order
and prosperity of families and states depend upon it. But God, who watches
over the safety of the church, is not content with these avowals of philosophy;
torrents of all-powerful grace descend from on high, and the Divine Spirit is
diffused and renewed on the face of the earth. Even from the whirlwind of the
world, corrupt and indifferent as it is, privileged men frequently come forth,
whose foreheads have been touched with the flame of inspiration, and whose<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">[Pg 276]</a></span>
hearts are on fire with heavenly love. In retreat, in solitude, in meditation on
the eternal truths, they have acquired that disposition of mind which is necessary
to perform arduous tasks; in spite of raillery and ingratitude, they devote
themselves to console the unfortunate, to educate the young, and to convert
idolatrous nations. The Catholic religion will last till the end of time, and so
long will there be these privileged men separated by God from the rest, to be
called to extraordinary sanctity, or to console their brethren in their misfortunes.
Now these men will seek each other, will unite to pray, will associate
to aid each other in their enterprise, will ask for the apostolical benediction of
the Vicar of Jesus Christ, and will found religious institutions. Whether they
be old orders only modified, or entirely new ones; whatever be their forms,
rules of life or dress, all this is of little importance; the origin, the nature,
and the object will be the same. It is vain for men to oppose the miracles of
grace.</p>

<p>Even the present condition of society will require the existence of religious
institutions. When the organization of modern nations shall have been more
profoundly examined, when time by its bitter lessons and terrible experience
shall have thrown more light on the real state of things, it will be evident that
errors greater than men have imagined, have been committed in the social as
well as in the political order. Sad experience has corrected ideas to a great
extent, but this does not suffice.</p>

<p>It is evident that present societies want the necessary means to supply the
necessities which press upon them. Property is divided and subdivided more
and more; every day it becomes more feeble and inconstant, industry multiplies
productions in an alarming manner, commerce extends itself indefinitely; that
is to say, society, approaching the term of pretended social perfection, is on the
point of attaining the wishes of that materialistic school, in whose eyes men are
only machines, and which has not imagined that society can undertake any
grander or more useful object than the immense development of material
interests. Misery has increased in proportion to the augmentation of production;
to the eyes of all provident men it is as clear as the light of day that
things are pursuing a wrong course, and that if a remedy cannot be applied in
time, the <i lang="fr">dénouement</i> will be fatal; the vessel which we see advancing so
rapidly, with all her sails set and a favorable wind, is about to strike upon a
rock. The accumulation of riches, brought about by the rapidity of the industrial
and commercial movement, tends towards the establishment of a system
which would devote the sweat and the lives of all to the profit of the few; but
this tendency finds its counterpoise in levelling ideas which agitate very many
heads, and which, moulded into different theories, more or less openly attack
property, the present organization of labor, and the distribution of productions.
Immense multitudes, overwhelmed with misery and in want of moral instruction
and education, are disposed to promote the realization of projects not less
criminal than foolish, whenever an unhappy concurrence of circumstances shall
render the attempt possible. It is superfluous to support the melancholy assertions
which we have just made with facts; the experience of every day confirms
them but too much.</p>

<p>Such being the case, may we be allowed to inquire of society, what means
there are, either of improving the state of the masses, or of guiding and restraining
them? It is clear that, for the first of these, neither the inspirations of
private interests, nor the instinct of preservation which animates the favored
classes, are sufficient. These classes, properly speaking, as they exist, have not
the character which constitutes a class: they are only a collection of families
just emerged from poverty and obscurity, and who rapidly advance towards
the abyss whence they came, leaving their place to other families who will run
the same course. We find nothing fixed or stable about them. They live<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277">[Pg 277]</a></span>
from day to day, without thinking of the morrow: far different from the old
nobility, whose origin was lost in the obscurity of the remotest antiquity, and
whose strength and organization promised long centuries of existence. These
men could and did follow a system; for what existed to-day was sure of existence
to-morrow; now all is changeable and inconstant. Individuals, like families,
labor to accumulate, to lay by riches, not in order to sustain for ages the power
and splendor of an illustrious house, but to enjoy to-day what has been but just
acquired. The presentiment of the short duration which things must have,
augments still more the giddiness and frenzy of dissipation. The times are
past when opulent families were desirous of founding some enduring establishment
to evince their generosity and perpetuate the splendor of their names:
hospitals, and other houses of beneficence, do not come from the coffers of the
bankers, as they did from those of the old castles. We must acknowledge,
however painful may be the avowal, that the opulent classes of society do not
fulfil the duty which belongs to them: the poor should respect the property of
the rich; but the rich should, in their turn, respect the condition of the poor:
such is the will of God.</p>

<p>It follows from what I have stated, that the resource of beneficence is wanting
in the social organization; and observe well, that administration does not
constitute society. Administration supposes society to be already existing and
entirely formed; when we expect the salvation of society from means purely
administrative, we attempt a thing which is out of the laws of nature. In vain
shall we imagine new expedients; in vain shall we form ingenious plans, and
make new experiments; society has need of a more powerful agent. It is
essential that the world should submit to the law of love or that of force, to
charity or servitude. All the nations who have not had charity, have found no
other means of solving the social problem, than that of subjecting the greatest
number to slavery. Reason teaches, and history proves, that neither public
order, property, nor even society itself, can exist, unless one of these is chosen;
modern society will not be exempted from the general law; the symptoms which
now present themselves to our eyes clearly indicate the events whereof the
generations which are to succeed us will be the witnesses.</p>

<p>Happily, the fire of charity still burns on the earth; but the indifference and
prejudices of the wicked compel it to remain under the embers. They are
alarmed at the least spark of it which escapes, as if it would enkindle a fatal
conflagration. If the development of institutions which are exclusively based
upon the principle of charity was favored, their salutary results and the superiority
which they possess over all that are founded on other principles would
soon be evident. It is impossible to supply the wants which I have just pointed
out, without organizing, on a vast scale, systems of beneficence directed by
charity: now this organization cannot be made without religious institutions.
It cannot be denied that Christians who live in the world may form associations
by which this object will be accomplished more or less completely; but there
are always a multitude of cases which absolutely require the co-operation of men
exclusively devoted to them. It is necessary, moreover, to have a nucleus to
serve as the centre of all efforts, which presents, by its own nature, a guarantee
for preservation, and which provides against the interruptions and oscillations
which are inevitable in a large concourse of agents, who are not bound together
by any tie strong enough to preserve them from differences, from separation,
and even from intestine contests.</p>

<p>This vast system which we speak of ought to extend not only to beneficence,
but also to the education and instruction of the many. The establishment of
schools will remain sterile, if not mischievous, as long as they are not founded
upon religion; and they will be thus founded only in appearance and name,
while the direction of these schools does not belong to the ministers of religion.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278">[Pg 278]</a></span>
The secular clergy may fulfil a portion of this charge, but they are not enough
for the task; on the one hand, their limited number, and on the other, their
other duties, prevent their acting on a scale sufficiently large to supply all the
necessities of the times: hence it follows, that the propagation of religious institutions
in our days has a social importance, which cannot be mistaken without
shutting one's eyes to the evidence of facts.</p>

<p>If you reflect on the organization of European nations, you will understand
that their real advance has been prevented by some fatal cause. Indeed, their
situation is so singular, that it cannot be the result of the principles whence these
nations have drawn their origin, and which have given them their increase. It
is evident that the countless multitude which one sees in society, making use of
all its faculties with complete liberty, could not, in the state in which it now is,
have been comprised in the primitive design&mdash;in the plan of true civilization.
When we create forces, we should know what we shall do with them, by what
means we shall move and direct them; without this we only prepare violent
shocks, endless agitation, disorder, and destruction. The mechanician who cannot
introduce a force into his machine without breaking the harmony of the other
movers, takes care not to introduce it; and he sacrifices acceleration of movement
and the greatest strength of impulse to the fundamental necessity of the
preservation of the machine and the order and utility of its functions. In the
present state of society, we observe that power which is not in harmony with
the others; and the men who are charged with directing the machine pay but
little attention to gaining the required harmony. Nothing acts upon the mass
of the people but the ardent desire of ameliorating their condition, of placing
themselves in comfort, and of obtaining the enjoyments of which the rich are
in possession; nothing to induce them to be resigned to the rigors of their lot;
nothing to console them in their misfortunes; nothing to render the present evils
more supportable by the hopes of a better future; nothing to inspire them with
respect for property, obedience to the laws, submission to government; nothing
to produce in their minds gratitude towards the powerful classes; nothing to
temper their hatreds, diminish their envy, and mollify their anger; nothing to
raise their ideas above earthly things, their desires from sensual pleasures;
nothing to form in their hearts a solid morality capable of restraining them from
vice and crime.</p>

<p>If we pay attention, we shall see that the men of this age have only three
means of restraining the masses, and they regard these as enough; but reason
and experience show that these expedients are not only not efficacious, but even
dangerous; they are these,&mdash;private interests well understood, public force well
employed, and enervation of body, followed by feebleness of mind, which restrains
the populace from violent means.</p>

<p>"Let us make the poor man understand," says the philosopher, "that he has
an interest in respecting the property of the rich; that his powers and his labor
are also real property, which require to be respected in their turn; let us maintain
an imposing public force, always ready to act on the menaced point, in order
to stifle any attempts at disorder at their birth; let us organize a police, extending
over society like an immense net, and allowing nothing to escape its sight;
let us satisfy the people with cheap enjoyments of all kinds; let us furnish them
with the means of imitating, in their grosser orgies, the refined pleasures of our
saloons and theatres, thereby their manners will be softened&mdash;that is to say, they
will be enervated; the people will become impotent to make great revolutions,
their arms being weak, and their hearts cowardly." This is the system of those
who attempt to govern society and control disturbing passions without the aid
of religion.</p>

<p>Let us pause for a moment to examine these means. It is, no doubt, easy to
say, in fine language, that the poor man is interested in respecting the property<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279">[Pg 279]</a></span>
of the rich; and that from this consideration alone he ought to submit to the
established order of things; and this without even saying a word of the principles
of morality, and leaving out all that is removed from mere material interests.
It is easy to write books to explain such doctrines; but the difficulty
consists in making them understood in the same way by the wretched father of
a family, who, confined all the day to hard labor, plunged into an unwholesome
atmosphere, or buried in the bowels of the earth to work in a coal-mine, can
scarcely earn the subsistence of himself and his family; and who, returning in
the evening to his squalid abode, instead of repose and consolation, finds only
the complaints of his wife and the tears of his children, asking him for a mouthful
of bread. In truth, is it strange that such a doctrine should not be graciously
received by those wretched beings, whose minds cannot perfectly understand
the parity between the poor and the rich with respect to the interests of all,
and the respect due to property? We will say plainly, that if you banish from
the world the moral principles, and desire to found the respect due to property
exclusively on private interest, the words here addressed to the poor man are
only a solemn imposture: it is false that his private interest is in accordance
with the interests of the rich.</p>

<p>Let us suppose the most fearful revolution, let us imagine that the established
order is radically upset, that authority gives way, that all institutions are swallowed
up, that laws disappear, that properties are divided, or remain abandoned
to the first who shall seize them, there is no doubt that the rich man loses; let
us see what can happen to the poor. Will he be robbed of his wretched possessions?
no one will dream of doing so; misery tempts not cupidity. You will
tell me that he will find no work, and that hunger will therefore be his lot. That
is true; but do you not see that in this case the poor man is a gambler at a high
stake, for whom the chance of loss, arising from the want of work, is compensated
by the probabilities of obtaining a share of the rich booty? You add that
he will not be allowed to keep that part; but observe that, if his poverty becomes
changed into riches, he will soon imagine a new order of things, a new arrangement,
a government which will guarantee acquired rights, and prevent the
destruction of established things. Will he be without an example to follow in
such circumstances? Have recent examples been so easily forgotten? The poor
man sees clearly that a great number of his fellows will suffer evils without end
or compensation; he is not ignorant that he himself may, perhaps, be of the
number of the unfortunate; but, supposing that he has no other guide than
interest, supposing that new misfortunes, in the last excess, can bring him only
hunger and nakedness&mdash;things to which he is so well accustomed, whether owing
to the small return for his labor, or to the frequent interruptions of work and
the vicissitudes of industry&mdash;you cannot charge with rashness the boldness with
which he comes forward, at the risk of increasing his privations in some degree,
and with the hope of being delivered from them, perhaps for ever. This is a
matter of calculation; and when private interest is in question, we cannot grant
to philosophy the right of regulating the calculations of the poor.</p>

<p>The public power, and the vigilance of the police, are the two resources in
which the best hopes are founded; and certainly not without reason; for, at the
present time, if the world is not revolutionized, it is owing to them. We no
longer see, as in ancient times, troops of slaves bound together with chains, but we
see whole armies, with arms in their hands, guarding capitals. If you observe
closely, after so many discussions, so many trials, so many reforms, so many
changes, questions of government and public order have, in the end, resolved themselves
into questions of force. The rich class is armed against the poor; and
above both, there are armies to maintain tranquillity with cannon, if necessary.
Assuredly, the picture which is exhibited to us in this respect, among modern
nations, is worthy of our attention. Since the fall of Napoleon, the great powers<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">[Pg 280]</a></span>
have enjoyed an Augustan peace; for it is not worth while to speak of the small
events which, from time to time, have disturbed this universal peace; neither
the occupation of Ancona, nor the siege of Antwerp, nor the war in Poland, can
be considered as European wars; as to Spain, limited, as she is by nature, to a
narrow theatre, she can neither traverse the seas, nor pass the Pyrenean mountains.
Well, in spite of this, the statistics of Europe show us enormous armies;
the budgets which are necessary to support them exhaust and overwhelm the
nations. What is the use of this military preparation? Do you believe that
such gigantic forces are kept on foot only that governments may not be taken
unawares by a general war; that war, which always threatens and never breaks
out; that war, which is feared neither by the government nor by the people?
No! they have another object: these armies are intended to compensate for the
moral means, the want of which is deplorably felt on all sides, and nowhere more
keenly than where the words justice and liberty have been proclaimed with the
most ostentation.</p>

<p>The enervation of the numerous classes, by means of monotonous, effortless
labor, and a complete abandonment to pleasure, may be considered by some as
an element of order; as their power of striking is thereby taken away, or at
least diminished. We allow that the workmen of our age are not capable of
displaying the terrible energy of ancient champions of the Commons; of those
men who, throwing off the yoke of the feudal lords, struggled hand to hand
with formidable warriors, whose names were immortalized on the plains of Palestine.
The new revolutionists want, also, that courage and that enthusiasm which
are communicated to the soul by great and generous ideas. The man who
fights only to procure enjoyments will never be capable of making heroic sacrifices.
Sacrifices demand self-denial; they are incompatible with egotism: now
the thirst for pleasure is egotism, carried to the last degree of refinement.
Nevertheless, it must be observed that a mode of life purely material, and
deprived of the stimulus of the moral principles, ends by extinguishing the
feelings, and plunges the soul into a sort of stupidity, into a forgetfulness of
self, which may, in certain cases, supply the place of valor. The soldier who
marches with tranquillity to death, when leaving a brutal <em>orgy</em>, and the man
who commits suicide with imperturbable calmness, without anxiety for the future,
are precisely in the same position. The boldness of the one, and the firmness
of the other, show contempt of life. So, if we suppose their passions to be
excited by the trouble of the times, the numerous class may display an energy
of which they are supposed to be incapable; the sight of their numbers may
raise their courage; bold and cunning leaders, putting themselves at their head,
may succeed in rendering them terrible.</p>

<p>However this may be, it is at least certain that society cannot continue its
career without the aid and influence of moral means; these means cannot suffice,
shut up within the narrow circle in which they are confined; consequently, it
is indispensable to encourage the development of institutions adapted to exercise
moral influence in a practical and efficacious manner. Books are not enough;
the extension of instruction is but an inefficient means, which may even become
fatal, unless based upon solid religious ideas. The propagation of a vague religious
feeling, undefined, without rules, without dogmas or worship, will only
serve to propagate gross superstitions among the masses, and to form a religion
of poetry and romance among the cultivated classes; they are vain remedies,
which do not stop the progress of the disease; but, by augmenting the delirium
of the patient, precipitate his death.</p>

<p>The education, the instruction, the improvement of the moral condition of the
people, these words, which are in the mouth of everybody, prove how keenly
and generally the wound in the social body is felt, and how urgent is the necessity
of the timely application of a remedy, in order to prevent incalculable evils.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">[Pg 281]</a></span>
This is the reason why projects of beneficence ferment in so many minds; why
it is attempted, under so many different forms, to establish schools for children
and adults, and other similar institutions; but all will be useless, unless the
work be confided to Christian charity. Let us profit by the knowledge acquired
by experience in this matter; let us take advantage of administrative improvements,
the better to attain our end; let the establishments be accommodated to
present wants and exigences; let charity never embarrass the action of power,
and power, on its side, never oppose the action of charity: all this will be well;
but nothing of all this is inconsistent with a system, in which the Catholic
religion will recover the influence which belongs to her; of her it may be said,
with perfect truth, <em>that she makes herself all to all, to gain the whole world</em>.</p>

<p>The little minds which do not carry their views beyond a limited horizon;
bad hearts, which nourish only hatred, and delight only in exciting rancor and
in calling forth the evil passions; the fanatics of a mechanical civilization, who
see no other agent than steam, no other power than gold and silver, no other
object than production, no other end than pleasure; all these men, assuredly,
will attach but little importance to the observations which I have made; for
them, the moral development of individuals and society is of little importance;
they do not even perceive what passes under their eyes; for them, history is
mute, experience barren, and the future a mere nothing. Happily there is a
great number of men who believe that their minds are nobler than metal, more
powerful than steam, and too grand and too sublime to be satisfied with momentary
pleasure.</p>

<p>Man, in their eyes, is not a being who lives by chance, given up to the current
of time and the mercy of circumstances, who is not called upon to think of
the destinies which attend him, or to prepare for them, by making a worthy use
of the moral and intellectual qualifications wherewith the Author of nature has
favored him. If the physical world is subject to the laws of the Creator, the
moral world is not less so; if matter can be used in a thousand ways for the
profit of man, the mind, created to the image and likeness of God, is also
endowed with valuable powers; a vast sphere opens before him; he feels himself
called to work for the good of humanity, without confining himself to combinations
and modifications of matter, like an instrument or a slave of the material
element, whereof the empire and control have been granted to him by God.
Let faith in another life, and charity, which have come down from God, fertilize
these noble feelings, and enlighten and direct these sublime thoughts; you will
then clearly see that matter has no claim to be the ruler of the world; and that
the King of the creation has not yet abdicated his rights. But if you attempt
to build on any other foundation than that which has been established by God,
do not indulge flattering hopes, your edifice will be like the house built upon
sand; the rain came, the wind blew, and the edifice was overturned with
violence.<a href="#Note_27" class="fnanchor">27</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XLVIII" id="CHAPTER_XLVIII">CHAPTER XLVIII.</a><br />

<small>RELIGION AND LIBERTY</small>.</h2>


<p>In the thirteenth chapter of this work we said, "The heart is filled with
generous indignation when we hear the religion of Jesus Christ reproached with
a tendency towards oppression. It is true, that if we confound the spirit of
real liberty with that of demagogues, we shall not find it in Catholicity. But if
we abstain from a monstrous abuse of the name, if we give to the word liberty
its reasonable, just, useful, and pleasant meaning, then the Catholic religion may
fearlessly claim the gratitude of the human race, for she has civilized the nations<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282">[Pg 282]</a></span>
who have professed her, and civilization is true liberty." From what we have
already shown, the reader may judge whether Catholicity has been favorable, or
otherwise, to European civilization, and, consequently, whether she has done
any injury to real liberty. On the various points on which we have compared
her with Protestantism, we have seen the injurious tendencies of the one and
the advantages of the other; the judgment of clear and enlightened reason
cannot be doubtful.</p>

<p>As the real liberty of nations does not consist in appearances, but resides in
their intimate organization, in the same way as the life does in the heart, I might
dispense with entering into a comparison of the two religions with respect to
civil liberty; but I do not wish to be accused of having avoided a delicate
question, from a fear that Catholicity would not come out of it with honor, or to
allow it to be suspected that my faith has any difficulty in sustaining a parallel
as advantageously on this ground as on others.</p>

<p>In order to clear up this question completely, it is necessary to examine
thoroughly the vague accusations which have been made on this matter against
Catholicity, and the eulogiums lavished on the pretended Reformation. It is
necessary to show that only gratuitous calumny has been able to reproach the
Catholic religion with favoring servitude and oppression; it is necessary to dissipate,
by the light of philosophy and history, that deceitful prejudice, by the aid
of which freethinkers and Protestants have labored to persuade the people that
Catholicity is favorable to servitude, that the Church is the bulwark of tyrants,
that the name of Pope is synonymous with that of friend and natural protector
of whoever desires to debase men and reduce them to servitude.</p>

<p>There are two ways in which this question may be decided; by doctrines and
by facts.</p>

<p>Those who have said that the human race had lost its rights, and that they
were revived by Rousseau, certainly have not given themselves much trouble
in examining what are the real rights of the human race, and what are the
apocryphal rights advanced by the philosopher of Geneva in his <cite>Contrat Social</cite>.
Indeed, it may be said with more truth, that the human race had very valuable
rights, acknowledged as such, and which Rousseau lost sight of. He undertook
to examine thoroughly the origin of the civil power, and his wild notions,
instead of explaining the matter, have only served to confuse it. I believe that
on this important point men have never had ideas less clear and distinct than
now. Revolutions have upset every thing in theory and in fact; governments
have been sometimes revolutionary, sometimes reactionary; and sometimes
revolution, and sometimes reaction, has been predominant. It is extremely
difficult to obtain from modern books a clear, accurate, and exact knowledge of
the nature of the civil power, of its origin, and of its relations with subjects;
in some of these you will find the doctrines of Rousseau, in others those of
Bonald: Rousseau is a miner who saps in order to overturn; Bonald is the
hero who saves in his arms the tutelary deities of the city delivered to the
flames; but in his fear of profanation, he carries them covered with a veil.
However, it would not be just to attribute to Rousseau the melancholy honor
of having begun the confusion of ideas on this point; at various times there
have been found misguided men, who have labored to disturb society by anarchical
doctrines; but the embodiment of these doctrines, and the forming of
them into seductive theories, dates chiefly from the birth of Protestantism.
Luther, in his book <cite>De Libertate Christiana</cite>, sowed the seeds of endless troubles
by the extravagant doctrine, that a Christian is subject to no one. In vain did
he have recourse to the evasive declaration, that he did not speak of magistrates
or civil laws; the peasants of Germany drew their own consequences; they rose
up against their lords, and enkindled a dreadful war. The divine right held by
Catholics has been accused of favoring despotism; and it has been considered<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283">[Pg 283]</a></span>
as so much opposed to the rights of the people, that the two expressions are
often antithetically employed. Divine right, well understood, is not opposed to
the rights, but to the excesses of the people; so far from giving unlimited
extent to power, it confines it within the limits of reason, justice, and public
advantage. In his lectures on the general history of civilization in Europe, M.
Guizot, speaking of this right as proclaimed by the Church, says: "The rights
of liberty and political guarantees are combined with difficulty with the principle
of religious royalty; but that principle in itself is elevated, moral, and
salutary." (Lecture ix.) When men like M. Guizot, who have made these
questions their special study, are so lamentably deceived on this point, who can
be astonished that the same thing occurs to the generality of writers!</p>

<p>Before I go further, I will make one observation, which we ought always to
have present to our minds. On these questions we continually hear mention
made of the schools of Bossuet and of Bonald; private names are put forward,
sometimes in one way and sometimes in another. Much as I respect the merits
of these men, and of others not less illustrious produced by the Catholic Church,
yet I must observe that she is not responsible for any doctrines but those which
she herself teaches; that she is not personified in any doctor in particular; and
that being herself appointed by God himself to be the oracle of infallible truth
in faith and morality, she does not permit the faithful to defer blindly to the
mere word of any private man, however great may be his merit in science and
in sanctity. If you wish to know what the Catholic Church teaches, consult
the decisions of her Councils and her Pontiffs; consult also her doctors of distinguished
and unsullied reputation; but beware of confounding the opinions of
an author, however respectable he may be, with the doctrines of the Church
and the voice of the Vicar of Jesus Christ. By this warning I do not mean to
prematurely condemn the opinions of any one, but simply to put those on their
guard who, little versed in ecclesiastical studies, might, in certain cases, confound
revealed dogmas with what is mere human thought. Having premised this
much, let us enter freely into the question.</p>

<p>Wherein does this divine right, of which we hear so much, consist? In order
to explain this matter completely, we must state the objects over which this right
extends; for these objects being widely different, there will also be a great difference
in the application made to them of the principle. A great number of questions
present themselves in this very important matter; but it appears to me that
they may all be reduced to these, which embrace the rest, viz. What is the origin
of the civil power? How far does it extend? Is it lawful to resist it in any case?</p>

<p>The first question is, <em>What is the origin of the civil power? How do we know
that this power is from God?</em> There is much confusion prevailing on these
points; and certainly it is to be lamented, that at a time so disturbed as the
present they should be misunderstood; for whatever may be said to the contrary,
doctrines are never wholly laid aside, either in revolutions or in restorations;
men's interests, no doubt, have great weight therein, but they are not
left alone in the arena. The best way of forming clear ideas on these points is
to have recourse to ancient authors, especially those whose doctrines have been
respected for a long period of time, who continue to be respected down to this
day, and who are looked upon as safe guides in the right interpretation of ecclesiastical
doctrines. This way of studying the question which now occupies us
ought to be acceptable to those even who entertain contempt for the writers of
whom we speak; for we are now engaged more in seeking in what the doctrine
consists, than in examining into its truth. Now for this purpose we cannot
find witnesses better informed, or interpreters more competent, than men who
have devoted their whole lives to the study of the doctrine.</p>

<p>This last reflection is in no way contradictory to what we have said above,
on the care which we ought to take not to confound the mere opinions of men<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284">[Pg 284]</a></span>
with the doctrines of the Church; it only tends to remind us of the necessity
which exists of perusing a certain class of authors, who are certainly not worthy
of the ungrateful neglect with which they are treated; indeed, it is impossible
that their important labors, conscientiously pursued for so long a time,
should produce no fruit. In order to understand the better the opinion of these
writers on the matter which now occupies us, we ought to observe the difference
which they make in the application of the general principle of divine right to
the origin of the civil or to that of the ecclesiastical power. From this comparison
there arises a bright light, which resolves and clears up all difficulties.
Open the works of the most distinguished theologians, consult their treatises on
the origin of the power of the Pope, and you will see that in establishing this
power on divine right, they mean that it emanates from God, not only in a
general sense, that is, inasmuch as all being comes from God; not only in a
social sense, that is, inasmuch as the Church being a society, God has willed
the existence of a power to govern it; but in a most special manner that God
has Himself instituted this power, that He has Himself established its form,
that He has Himself pointed out the person, and that consequently the successor
to the chair of St. Peter is of divine right the supreme pastor of the universal
Church, having over the whole of this Church supreme honor and jurisdiction.</p>

<p>With respect to the civil power, these authors speak thus. In the first place,
all power comes from God; for power exists, and all existence comes from God;
power is sovereignty, and God is the lord, the supreme master of all things;
power is a right, and in God is found the source of all right; power is a moral
movement, and God is the universal cause of all sorts of movements; power
tends towards an exalted end, and God is the end of all creatures; His Providence
ordains and directs all things with mercy and efficacy. Thus we see that
St. Thomas, in his work <cite>De Regimine Principum</cite>, affirms that all power comes
from God as supreme master, as may be shown in three ways: as it is a being,
as it is a mover, and as it is an end. (Lib. 3, cap. 1.)</p>

<p>As I am treating of this method of explaining the origin of power, I must
pause for a moment to refute Rousseau, who, in the allusion which he made to
this doctrine, showed that he did not understand it. He says, "All power comes
from God, I allow; but all diseases also come from Him. Are we, therefore,
to say that it is forbidden to call in a physician?" (<cite>Contrat Social</cite>, liv. i. c. 3.)
It is true that one of the senses in which the divine origin of power is affirmed
is, that all finite beings emanate from an infinite being; but this sense is not
the only one. Indeed, theologians knew very well that this idea, by itself, did
not imply its legitimacy, and that it extended as well to physical force; for as
the author of the <cite>Contrat Social</cite> adds: "the pistol held by a robber in a wood
is also a power." Rousseau, in this passage, has sacrificed the sense to show
his ingenuity; the love of making a brilliant sally has seduced him into removing
the question from its proper ground. It was easy, indeed, to see that, with
respect to the civil power, men do not speak of a physical, but of a moral, a
legitimate power; in any other way it would be in vain to seek for its origin:
as well might they seek the source of riches, health, strength, courage, subtilty,
or the other qualities which contribute to form the material force of all power.
The question is with regard to the moral being which is called power; and
in the moral order, illegitimate power is not power, it is not a being, it is
nothing. Consequently, there is no need of seeking its origin in God, or in
any thing else. Therefore, power emanates from God as the source of all right,
justice, and legitimacy; and in considering power, not as a mere physical, but
as a moral being, it is affirmed that it can come from God alone, who is the
plenitude of all being. Not only is this doctrine, taken generally, above all
difficulty, but it must be admitted by all who do not profess themselves atheists;
they alone can call it in question. Let us now descend to particulars, and see<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">[Pg 285]</a></span>
whether Catholic doctors teach any thing which is not perfectly reasonable even
in the eyes of philosophers.</p>

<p>Man, they say, was not created to live alone; his existence supposes a family;
his inclinations urge him to form an alliance, without which the human race
could not be perpetuated. Families are connected with each other by intimate
and indestructible ties; they have common wants; none can insure happiness,
or even preservation, without the aid of others. Therefore they are bound to
enter into society. Society cannot exist without order, or order without justice;
and both require a guardian, an interpreter, an executor. This is the civil
power. God, who created man, and willed also his preservation, consequently
willed the existence of society, and the power which it requires. Now the
existence of the civil power is as conformable to the will of God as the existence
of the paternal; if families have need of the paternal, society has no less need
of the civil power. Our Lord has condescended to secure us from mistakes on
this important point by telling us in the Scriptures, that all power emanates
from Him, that we are obliged to obey it, that whoever resists it resists the
Divine command. I seek in vain for an objection to this way of explaining the
origin of society, and of the power which governs it. This doctrine preserves
natural, human, and divine right; all these rights are connected, and support
each other. The sublimity of the theory rivals its simplicity; revelation sanctions
what was shown by the light of reason, and grace fortifies nature. Such,
then, is the famous divine right, presented as a bugbear to the ignorant and
unsuspecting, in order to make them believe that the Catholic Church, when
she teaches the obligation of obeying the legitimate power, and founds this obligation
on the law of God, proposes a dogma injurious to true human liberty.</p>

<p>To hear some men ridicule the divine right of kings, one would say that we
Catholics believed that certain individuals and families have received bulls of
institution from Heaven, and that we are grossly ignorant of the history of the
changes of the civil power. If they had examined the matter more deeply, they
would have found that, far from being liable to the reproach of such folly, we
have only established a principle the necessity of which was acknowledged by
all the legislators of antiquity, and that our belief is quite reconcilable with true
philosophical doctrines and the events recorded by history. In support of what
I have said, see with what admirable clearness St. Chrysostom explains this
point in his 23d homily on the Epistle to the Romans: "There is no power
that does not come from God." What do you say? Is every prince, then,
appointed by God? I do not say that; for I do not speak of any prince in
particular, but of the thing itself, that is, of the power itself: I affirm that the
existence of principalities is the work of the divine wisdom, and that to it it is
owing that all things are not given up to blind chance. Therefore it is that the
Apostle does not say, "That there is no prince who does not come from God;"
but he says, speaking of the thing in itself, "There is no power which does not
come from God." "Non est potestas, nisi a Deo. Quid dicis? Ergo omnis
princeps a Deo constitutus? Istud non dico. Non enim de quovis principe
mihi sermo est, sed de re ipsa, id est de ipsa potestate. Quod enim principatus
sint, quodque non simpliciter et temere cuncta ferantur, divinæ sapientiæ opus
esse dico. Propterea non dicit: non enim princeps est nisi a Deo. Sed de re
ipsa disserit dicens: non est potestas nisi a Deo." (<cite>Hom. 23, in Epist. ad Rom.</cite>)
It appears, from the words of St. John Chrysostom, that the meaning of divine
right, according to Catholics, is, that there exists a power for the government
of society, and that it is not abandoned to the mercy of passion and imagination.
This doctrine, which insures public order, by establishing the obligation of obedience
on motives of conscience, does not descend to the inferior questions,
which do not affect the fundamental principle.</p>

<p>It may perhaps be objected, that if we admit the interpretation of St. John<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286">[Pg 286]</a></span>
Chrysostom, it was not necessary for the sacred text to teach that which reason
so clearly dictated. To this our reply is twofold: 1st, that the sacred Scripture
expressly prescribes to us several obligations which nature imposes on us independently
of all divine right, as to honor parents, not to kill, not to rob, and
other things of the kind; 2d, that in the present case the Apostles had very
good reason to recommend particularly obedience to legitimate power, and to
sanction in a clear and conclusive manner this obligation, founded on the natural
law itself. Indeed, the same St. Chrysostom tells us, "that at that time a very
widely-spread opinion represented the Apostles as seditious men and innovators,
laboring by their speeches and acts to bring about the downfall of laws."
"Plurima tunc temporis circumferebatur fama, traducens Apostolos veluti seditiosos
rerumque novatores; qui omnia ad evertendum leges communes et facerent
et dicerent." (<cite>Hom. 23, in Epist. ad Tim.</cite>)</p>

<p>It was no doubt to this that St. Paul alluded when, admonishing the faithful
of the obligation of obeying authority, he told them that "such was the will of
God, that by acting thus they might put to silence the imprudence of foolish
men." (Epist. i. c. 2.) We also know from St. Jerome, that in the beginning
of the Church, some, hearing the Gospel liberty preached, imagined that universal
liberty also was meant. The necessity of inculcating a duty, the fulfilment
of which is indispensable for the preservation of society, will be clearly
perceived if we consider with what ease an error so flattering to proud and rebellious
minds might take root. After fourteen centuries had passed away, we see
the error reproduced in the time of Wickliff and John Huss. The Anabaptists
made a dreadful application of it when they inundated Germany with blood.
At a later period, the fanatical sectaries of England raised the greatest disorders
and brought about fearful catastrophes by a similar doctrine, condemning alike
the civil and ecclesiastical power.</p>

<p>The religion of Jesus Christ, the law of peace and love, when preaching
liberty, spoke of that liberty which draws us from the slavery of sin and the
power of the devil, renders us co-heirs of Jesus Christ, and participators of
grace and glory. But she was very far from propagating doctrines which could
favor disorder, or subvert law and authority. It was, then, of the greatest importance
to her to disprove the calumnies by which her enemies attempted to
injure her; it was necessary for her to proclaim, by her words and acts, that
the public interest had nothing to fear from her doctrines. We also see that
after the Apostles had inculcated this sacred obligation on several occasions, the
Fathers of the earliest times insist again and frequently on the same point. St.
Polycarp, quoted by Eusebius, (lib. iv. <cite>Hist.</cite> cap. 15,) says, when speaking to
the proconsul: "It is ordained to render to the magistrates and powers appointed
by God the honor which we owe them." St. Justin, in his <cite>Apology
for the Christians</cite>, also recalls the precept of Jesus Christ touching the payment
of tributes: Tertullian, in his <cite>Apology</cite>, chapter third, reproaches the
Gentiles with the persecution they directed against the Christians, even at the
time when the latter, with their hands raised to heaven, were praying for the
safety of the emperors. The zeal of the saints who were charged with the
instruction and direction of the faithful succeeded in inculcating this precept so
well, that the Christians were everywhere a model of submission and obedience.
Thus Pliny, writing to the Emperor Trajan, avowed that, religion excepted, he
could not accuse them of being at all wanting in the fulfilment of the laws and
imperial edicts.</p>

<p>Nature herself has pointed out the persons in whom resides the paternal
power; the wants of the family mark the limits of this power; the feelings of
the heart prescribe its object and regulate its conduct. In society it is otherwise:
the rights of the civil power are tossed about by the storms of human
events; here this right resides in one person, there in several; to-day it belongs<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287">[Pg 287]</a></span>
to one family, to-morrow to another; one day it is exercised under one form,
the next under another very different. The infant who weeps at his mother's
bosom reminds her of the obligation of nourishing and watching over it; woman,
weak and unsupported, calls unmistakably on man to protect her and her child;
youth, without strength to sustain or knowledge to direct itself, shows parents
their obligation of care and guardianship. We see clearly the will of God; the
order of nature forcibly expresses it; the tenderest feelings are its echo and
interpreter; we do not require any thing else to show us what is the will of
God; we do not need any refinement to convince us that the parental power is
from above. The rights and duties of parents and children are written in characters
as distinct as they are beautiful. But where shall we find, with respect
to the civil power, an expression as unequivocal? If power comes from God,
by what means does he communicate it? In what channel is it conveyed?
This leads us to other secondary questions, which all conduce to the explanation
and solution of the principal question.</p>

<p>Was there ever a man who by natural right found himself invested with civil
power? It is clear that in this case power would have no other origin than
paternal authority; that is to say, in that case, the civil power ought to be considered
as an amplification of that authority, as a transformation of domestic
into civil power. We immediately see the difference between the domestic and
the social order, their separate objects, the diversity of rules by which they
must be regulated, and we see how different are the means which they both use
for their government. I do not deny that the type of society is found in the
family, and that society is in the most desirable condition when it most
resembles the family in command and in obedience; but mere analogies do not
suffice to establish rights, and it always remains indubitable that those of the
civil power must not be confounded with those of the paternal.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the nature of things shows that Providence, in ordaining
the destinies of the world, did not establish the paternal as the source of the
civil. Indeed, we do not see how such a power could have been transmitted,
and the legitimacy of its claims have been justified. We can easily understand
the limited rule of an old man, governing a society, composed of two or three
generations only, who were descended from him; but as soon as this society
increased, extended to several countries, and consequently was divided and
subdivided, the patriarchal power must have disappeared, its exercise must have
become impossible, and we can no longer understand how the pretenders to the
throne could come to an understanding with each other and the rest of the
people, to justify and legitimize their rule. The theory which acknowledges
the paternal as the origin of the civil power may be as promising as you please;
it may sustain itself on the example of the patriarchal government, which we
observe in the cradle of society; but there are two things against it. First, it
asserts, but does not prove; second, it has no means of attaining the end for
which it was intended, viz. the consolidation of government, for it cannot
establish itself by proving its legitimacy. The greatest of kings and the
humblest of subjects equally know that they are the sons of Noe; nothing more.
I have not been able to find this theory either in St. Thomas, or in any of the
other principal theologians; and to go still higher, I do not know that it can
find any authority in the doctrines of the Fathers, in the tradition of the Church,
or in Scripture itself. It is consequently a mere philosophical opinion, of
which the explanation and proof belong to those who advance it. Catholicity
says nothing either for or against it.</p>

<p>It is then demonstrated that the civil power does not reside in any man of
natural right, and on the other hand, we know that power comes from God.
Who receives this power from God, and how does he receive it? It is necessary
first to observe, that the Catholic Church, while acknowledging the divine<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288">[Pg 288]</a></span>
origin of the civil power, an origin which is expressly stated in Scripture, does
not define any thing either as to the form of this power, or the means which
God employs in communicating it. So that after the Catholic doctrine is established,
there still remains to be examined and discussed, who <em>immediately</em>
receives the power, and how it is transmitted? This is acknowledged by theologians
when they have treated of this matter; this should be enough to
remove the prejudices of those who consider the doctrine of the Church on this
point as conducive to popular degradation. The Church teaches the obligation
of obeying legitimate authority, and adds that the power which it exercises
emanates from God; this doctrine is as applicable to republics as to absolute
monarchies, and does not prejudge either the forms of government or the particular
claims of legitimacy. As to these latter questions they cannot be
answered in general terms; they depend upon a variety of circumstances into
which the general principles which are the foundation of the good order and
peace of society cannot enter. I think it is so important to give clear ideas on
this point, and to state the doctrines of the most distinguished Catholic divines,
that I consider it necessary to devote an entire chapter to this subject.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XLIX" id="CHAPTER_XLIX">CHAPTER XLIX.</a><br />

<small>THE ORIGIN OF SOCIETY, ACCORDING TO CATHOLIC DIVINES</small>.</h2>


<p>There is nothing more instructive or more interesting, than the study of
public law in those writers who, pretending not to pass for statesmen, and
entertaining no views of ambition, express themselves without flattery and without
bitterness; and explain these matters with as much calmness and tranquillity
as they would theories of rare application and limited extent. At the
present time it is almost impossible to open a book without immediately perceiving
to which of the two contending parties the author belongs; it seldom
happens that his ideas are not affected by passion, or adapted to serve particular
designs; and it not unfrequently happens that, without conviction, he speaks
according to the dictates of his interest.</p>

<p>It is not so with the old writers, of whom we are speaking. Let us render
them at least this justice; that their opinions are conscientious, their language
loyal and sincere; and whatever may be the judgment with respect to them,
whether we consider them as real sages, or as ignorant men and fanatics, we
cannot call in question their sincerity; that they are animated by a religious
idea, that they develop a philosophical system, that their pens are the faithful
interpreters of their thoughts.</p>

<p>Rousseau attempts to seek the origin of society, and of the civil power; and
begins the first chapter of his work with these words: "Man is born free, and
he is everywhere in fetters." Do you not immediately perceive the tribune
under the mantle of the philosopher? Do you not observe that, instead of
addressing himself to the reason, the writer appeals to the passions; and wounds
the most susceptible of them&mdash;viz. pride. It is in vain for the philosopher to
endeavor to make us believe that he does not intend to reduce his doctrines to
practice; his language betrays his design. In another place, where he attempts
nothing less than to give advice to a great nation, he has hardly begun when
he holds over Europe the torch of an incendiary.</p>

<p>"When we read ancient history, we fancy ourselves transported to another
world, and among other beings. What have the French, the English, the Russians,
in common with the Greeks and Romans? Hardly any thing but the
form. The great souls of the latter appear to the others as exaggerations of
history. How can they, who feel themselves to be so little, imagine that such<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289">[Pg 289]</a></span>
great men ever existed? They did exist, however; and they were human like
ourselves. What hinders our being men like them? Our prejudices, our low
philosophy, and grovelling passions, combined with the egotism of men's hearts,
by absurd institutions, directed by men of little minds." (<cite>Considerations on the
Government of Poland</cite>, <i>&amp;c.</i>, Chap. 2.) Do you not observe the poison conveyed
in these words of the publicist? And is it not palpable that he had something
more in view than enlightening the mind? See with what address he attempts
to produce a feeling of irritation, by harsh and indecent reproaches.</p>

<p>Let us take the opposite extreme of the comparison, and see in how different
a tone St. Thomas of Aquin, in his work <cite>De Regimine Principum</cite>, begins his
explanation on the same subject, and gives directions for good government.<a href="#a" class="fnanchor">a</a><a name="FNanchor_A_1" id="FNanchor_A_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_A_1" class="fnanchor">A</a></p>

<p>"If man," he says, "was intended to live alone, like many animals, he
would not require any one to govern him; every man would be his own king,
under the supreme command of God; inasmuch as he would govern himself by
the light of reason given him by the Creator. But it is in the nature of man
to be a social and political animal, living in community, differently from all
other animals; a thing which is clearly shown by the necessities of his nature.
Nature has provided for other animals food; skins for a covering, means of
defence,&mdash;as teeth, horns, claws,&mdash;or, at least, speed in flight; but she has not
endowed man with any of those qualities; and instead she has given him reason,
by which, with the assistance of his hands, he can procure what he wants.
But to procure this, one man alone is not enough; for he is not in a condition
to preserve his own life; it is, therefore, in man's nature to live in society.
Moreover, nature has granted to other animals the power of discerning what is
useful or injurious to them: thus the sheep has a natural horror of his enemy
the wolf. There are also certain animals who know by nature the herbs which
are medicinal to them, and other things which are necessary for their preservation.
But man has not naturally the knowledge which is requisite for the support
of life, except in society; inasmuch as the aid of reason is capable of leading
from universal principles to the knowledge of particular things, which are
necessary for life. Thus, then, since it is impossible for man alone to obtain
all this knowledge, it is necessary that he should live in society, one aiding
another; each one applying to his own task; for example, some in medicine;
some in one way, and some in another. This is shown with great clearness in
that faculty peculiar to man, language&mdash;which enables him to communicate his
thoughts to others. Indeed, brute animals mutually communicate their feelings;
as the dog communicates his anger by barking, and other animals their
passions by various ways. But man, with respect to his fellows, is more communicative
than any other animal; even than those who are the most inclined
to live in union, as cranes, ants, and bees. In this sense, Solomon says, in
Ecclesiastes: 'It is better, therefore, that two should be together than one; for
they have the advantage of their society.' Thus, if it be natural for man to
live in society, it is necessary that some one should direct the multitude; for if
many were united, and each one did as he thought proper, they would fall to
pieces, unless somebody looked after the public good, as would be the case with
the human body, and that of any other animal, if there did not exist a power to
watch over the welfare of all the members. Thus Solomon says: 'Thus, where
there is no one to govern, the people will be dispersed.' In man himself the
soul directs the body; and in the soul, the feelings of anger and concupiscence
are governed by the reason. Among the members of the body, there is one<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_290" id="Page_290">[Pg 290]</a></span>
principal one, which directs all; as the heart or the head. There ought, then,
to be in every multitude some governing power." (St. Thomas, <cite>De Regimine
Principum</cite>, lib. i. cap. 1.)</p>

<p>This passage, so remarkable for profound wisdom, clearness of ideas, solidity
of principles, vigor and exactness of deductions, contains, in a few words, all
that can be said with respect to the origin of society, and of power; to the rights
enjoyed by the latter, and the obligations incumbent upon it: the matter being
considered in general, and by the light of reason alone. In the first place, it
was required to show, with clearness, the necessity of the existence of society;
and this the holy doctor does by this very simple reasoning&mdash;man is of such a
nature that he cannot live alone, and then he has need of being united to his
fellows. If a proof of this fundamental truth be required, it is found in the fact
that he is endowed with speech; this is a sign that by nature he is destined to
communicate with other men, and consequently to live in society. After having
proved this invincible necessity, it remained to demonstrate a necessity not less
absolute&mdash;viz. the necessity of a power to govern society. In order to make
this demonstration, St. Thomas does not invent extravagant systems, or
unfounded theories; he does not appeal to absurd suppositions; he is satisfied
with a reason founded on the nature of things, dictated by common sense, and
supported by daily experience&mdash;viz. that in all bodies of men, there is a director
requisite; since, without him, disorder, and even dispersion, are inevitable;
for in all societies there must be a chief.</p>

<p>It must be allowed that this clear and simple explanation enables us to understand
the theory of the origin of society much better than all the subtilties of
explicit and implicit pacts; it is enough for a thing to be founded on nature
itself, for it to be viewed as demonstrated as a real necessity, in order that its
existence may be easily conceived; why then seek, by subtilties and suppositions,
what is apparent at the first view?</p>

<p>Let us not, however, suppose that St. Thomas does not acknowledge divine
right, or is ignorant that the obligation of obedience to power may be founded
on it: far from it; this truth he establishes in many places in his works; but
he does not forget the natural and the human law, which, on this point, are
combined and allied with the divine, in such a way, that the latter is only a
confirmation of, and gives a sanction to, the others. We ought thus to interpret
the passages in which the holy doctor attributes the civil power to human
law, considering this law with that of grace. For example, when examining
whether infidels can have dominion or supremacy over the faithful, he says:<a href="#b" class="fnanchor">b</a>
"It is necessary here to consider that dominion or supremacy is introduced by
virtue of human law; the distinction between the faithful and infidels, is by
divine law. Divine law, which emanates from grace, does not take away human
law, which is founded on the law of natural reason; therefore the distinction
between the faithful and infidels, considered in itself, does not take away the
dominion or supremacy of infidels over the faithful."</p>

<p>When inquiring, in another place, if the prince who has apostatized from the
faith by this fact loses dominion over his subjects, so that they are no longer
called upon to obey him, he expresses himself thus:<a href="#c" class="fnanchor">c</a> "As has been said
before, infidelity does not destroy dominion itself; for dominion was introduced
by the law of nations, which is human right; while the distinction between the
faithful and infidels is by a divine, which does not take away the human right."
Again; when examining if man is obliged to obey another man, he says:<a href="#d" class="fnanchor">d</a>
"As natural actions proceed from natural powers, so human operations proceed
from the human will. In natural things, it was necessary that inferior things
should be brought into their respective operations by the excellence of the natural
virtue which God has given to superior things. In the same way, also, it is
necessary that in human things, those which are superior should urge on the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_291" id="Page_291">[Pg 291]</a></span>
inferior, by the force of authority ordained by God. To move, by means of
reason and the will, is to command; and as, by virtue of the natural order
instituted by God, inferior things in nature are necessarily subject to the motion
of superior things, so also, in human things, those which are inferior ought, by
natural and divine right, to obey those which are superior."</p>

<p>On the same question, St. Thomas examines whether obedience is a special
virtue, and he answers,<a href="#e" class="fnanchor">e</a> "That to obey a superior is a duty conformable to
the divine order communicated to things." In the 6th article, he states the
question whether Christians are obliged to obey the secular powers, and says:<a href="#f" class="fnanchor">f</a>
"The faith of Christ is the principle and cause of justice, according to what is
said in the Epistle to the Romans, chap. iii. 'the justice of God by the faith of
Jesus Christ.' Thus the faith of Christ does not take away the law of justice,
but rather confirms it. This law wills that inferiors should obey their superiors;
for without that, human society could not be preserved; and thus the faith of
Christ does not exempt the faithful from the obligation of obeying the secular
powers." I have quoted at some length these passages from St. Thomas, in
order to show that he does not understand the divine right in the sense in which
the enemies of Catholicity have made it a reproach to us; but that, properly
speaking, while he adheres to a dogma so expressly taught in the sacred text, he
considers the Divine law as a confirmation and sanction of the natural and human
law. We know that for six centuries Catholic doctors have regarded the authority
of St. Thomas as worthy of the highest respect in all that concerns faith and
morality.</p>

<p>We have just seen that this angel of the schools establishes, as founded on
the natural, human, and divine law, the duty of obeying authority, affirming
that the source of all power is found in God, without entering into the question
whether God communicates this power <em>directly</em> or <em>indirectly</em> to those who exercise
it, and leaving a vast field where human opinions may debate without violating
the purity of faith. In the same way, the most eminent doctors who have
succeeded him in the Catholic pulpits have contented themselves with establishing
and enforcing the doctrine, without rashly making use of the authority of
the Church in its application. To prove this I will here insert some passages
from distinguished theologians. Cardinal Bellarmin expresses himself in these
words:<a href="#g" class="fnanchor">g</a> "It is certain that public authority comes from God, from whom
alone emanate all things good and lawful, as is proved by St. Augustin throughout
almost all the forty-five books of the <cite>City of God</cite>. Indeed, the Wisdom
of God, in the Book of Proverbs, chap. viii., cries out, 'It is by Me that kings
reign;' and further on, 'It is by Me that princes rule.' The prophet Daniel, in
the second chapter, 'The God of heaven has given thee the kingdom and the
empire;' and the same prophet, in the fourth chapter, 'Thy dwelling shall be
with cattle and with wild beasts, and thou shalt eat grass as an ox, and shalt be
wet with the dew of heaven, and seven years shall pass over thee, till thou know
that the Most High ruleth over the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever
He will.'" After having proved, by the authority of the Holy Scriptures,
this dogma, via. that the civil power comes from God, the illustrious writer
explains the sense in which it ought to be understood:<a href="#h" class="fnanchor">h</a> "But," he says, "it
is necessary to make some observations here. In the first place, political power,
considered in general, and without descending in particular to monarchy, aristocracy,
or democracy, emanates immediately from God alone; for being necessarily
annexed to the nature of man, it proceeds from Him who has made that
nature. Besides, that power is by natural law, since it does not depend upon
men's consent, since they must have a government whether they wish it or not,
under pain of desiring the destruction of the human race, which is against the
inclination of nature. It is thus that the law of nature is divine law, and
government is introduced by divine law; and it is particularly this which the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_292" id="Page_292">[Pg 292]</a></span>
Apostle seems to have had in view when he says to the Romans, chap. xiii.,
'He who resists authority, resists the ordinance of God.'"</p>

<p>This doctrine destroys all the theory of Rousseau, who makes the existence
of society and the right of the civil power depend on human conventions; it also
overturns the absurd systems of some Protestants, and other heretics, their predecessors,
who, in the name of Christian liberty, pretended to condemn all authority.
No! the existence of society does not depend on the consent of man; society
is not his work; it satisfies an imperious necessity, which, if it were not satisfied,
would entail the destruction of the human race. God, when he created man,
did not deliver him to the mercy of chance; He has given him the right of fulfilling
his necessities, and has imposed on him the care of his own preservation
as a duty; therefore the existence of the human race includes also the existence
of government, and the obligations of obedience. There is no theory so clear,
simple, and solid. Shall it be called the enemy and oppressor of human freedom?
Is it any disgrace to man to acknowledge himself the creature of God?
to confess that he has received from Him what is necessary for his preservation?
Is the intervention of God any infringement of human liberty, and cannot man be
free without being an Atheist? It is absurd to say there is any thing favorable
to servitude in a doctrine which tells us "God wills not that you should live like
wild beasts: He commands you to be united in society, and for this purpose He
orders you to live in submission to an authority legitimately established." If
this be called servitude and oppression, we desire this servitude, we willingly
give up the right which is pretended to be granted to us of wandering in the
woods like wild beasts: true liberty does not exist in man when he is stripped
of the finest attribute of his nature, that of acting in conformity with reason.</p>

<p>Such is the explanation of divine right according to the illustrious commentator
whom we have just quoted; let us now see the applications which he makes
of it, and learn in what way, according to him, God communicates the civil
power to those who are charged with its exercise. After the words quoted above,
Bellarmin continues:<a href="#i" class="fnanchor">i</a> "In the second place, observe, that this power resides
<em>immediately</em>, as in its subject, in all the multitude, for it is by divine right. The
divine right has not given this power to any man in particular, for it has given
it to the multitude; besides, the positive law being taken away, there is no reason
why one should rule rather than another, among a great number of equal men;
therefore power belongs to the whole multitude. In fine, society should be a
perfect state; it should have the power of self-preservation, and, consequently,
that of chastising the disturbers of the peace."</p>

<p>This doctrine has nothing in common with the foolish assertions of Rousseau
and his followers; no one who has studied public law will confound things so
different. Indeed, what the Cardinal establishes in the passage quoted, viz. that
power resides immediately in the multitude, is not in opposition to what he himself
taught a little before, when he said that it comes from God, and is not owing
to human conventions. His doctrine may be conveyed in this form. Suppose
a number of men without any positive law; there is then no reason why any
one of them should have a right to rule the rest. Nevertheless, this law exists,
nature itself indicates its necessity, God ordains a government; therefore there
exists among this number of men the legitimate power of instituting one. To
explain more clearly the ideas of this illustrious theologian, let us suppose that
a considerable number of families, perfectly equal among themselves and absolutely
independent of each other, were thrown by a tempest on a desert island.
The vessel being destroyed, they have no hope either of returning home or of
pursuing their journey. All communication with the rest of mankind is become
impossible: we ask, whether these families could live without government? No.
Has any one among them a right of governing the rest? Clearly not. Can any
individual among them pretend to such a right? Certainly not. Have they a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_293" id="Page_293">[Pg 293]</a></span>
right to appoint the government of which they stand in need? Certainly they
have. Therefore in this multitude, represented by the fathers of families or in
some other way, resides the civil power, together with the right of transmitting
it to one or more persons, according as they shall judge proper. It is difficult
to make any valid objection to the doctrine placed in this point of view. That
this is the real meaning of his words is clearly shown by the observations which
follow:<a href="#k" class="fnanchor">k</a> "In the third place," he says, "observe that the multitude transfers
this power to one person or more by natural right; for the republic not being
able to exercise it by itself, is obliged to communicate it to one or to a limited
number; and it is thus that the power of princes, considered in general, is by
natural and divine law; and the whole human race, if assembled together, could
not establish the contrary, viz. that princes or governors did not exist."</p>

<p>But the fundamental principle being once established, Bellarmin allows to
society an ample right of appointing the form of government which they think
proper. This ought to refute the accusations made against the Catholic doctrine,
of favoring servitude; for if all forms of government are reconcilable with this
doctrine, it is evident that it cannot justly be accused of being incompatible with
liberty. Hear how the same author continues on this point:<a href="#l" class="fnanchor">l</a> "Observe, in
the fourth place," he says, "that particular forms of government are by the
law of nations, and not by divine law, since it depends upon the consent of the
multitude to place over themselves a king, consuls, or other magistrates, as is
clear; and, for a legitimate reason, they can change royalty into aristocracy, or
into democracy, or <i lang="la">vice versâ</i>, as it was done in Rome.</p>

<p>"Observe, in the fifth place, that it follows, from what we have said, that this
power in particular comes from God, but by means of the counsel and election
of man, like all other things which belong to the law of nations; for the law of
nations is, as it were, a conclusion drawn from the natural law by human
reasoning. Thence follows a twofold difference between the political and the
ecclesiastical power: first, difference with regard to the subject, since political
power is in the multitude, and ecclesiastical in a man <em>immediately</em>, as in its
subject; second, difference with respect to the cause, since political power,
considered generally, is by divine law, and in particular by the law of nations,
while the ecclesiastical power is in every way by divine law, and emanates immediately
from God."</p>

<p>These last words show clearly how correct I was in saying that theologians
understand the divine law in a very different manner, according as it is applied
to the civil or to the ecclesiastical power. It must not be supposed that the
doctrine now stated is peculiar to Cardinal Bellarmin; the generality of theologians
follow him on this point; but I have preferred quoting his authority,
because he, being so strongly attached to the See of Rome, if the latter were
imbued with the principles of despotism, as it has been charged with being, no
doubt, something of them would appear in the writings of this theologian. It
is easy to anticipate the objection that will be made to this explanation; we
shall be told that Bellarmin, having for his object the exaltation of the authority
of the Sovereign Pontiff, with this view attempted to lower the power of kings,
in order to take away or diminish all opposition to the authority of the Popes.
I will not now enter into an examination of the opinions of Bellarmin with
respect to the two powers&mdash;this would be foreign to my design; besides, such
points of civil and ecclesiastical law excited at that time great interest, on
account of circumstances at that period, but now very little, on account of the
new course which events have taken, and the great change which has been
brought about in ideas. I shall, nevertheless, reply to this supposed difficulty
by two very simple observations. The first is, that we have not to inquire the
intentions of Bellarmin in explaining his doctrine, but in what that doctrine
consists. Whatever his motive may have been, we see an author of vast renown,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_294" id="Page_294">[Pg 294]</a></span>
whose opinion has great weight in Catholic schools, and who wrote at Rome,
where, so far from his writings being condemned, he was surrounded with respect
and honor: this theologian, I say, explaining the doctrine of the Church on the
Divine origin of the civil power, does it in such terms that, while giving sacred
guarantees for the good order of society, he does not infringe on the liberty of
the people; this is the vindication of Rome against the attacks made upon her.
The second is, that Cardinal Bellarmin does not here profess an isolated opinion&mdash;the
generality of theologians are on his side; therefore, all that can be said
against him personally proves nothing against his doctrines. Among the many
authors that I could quote, I will select some who will represent many different
periods: and as the obligation of being brief confines me within narrow limits,
I beg the reader himself to examine the works of Catholic theologians and
moralists; he will thus make sure of becoming acquainted with their thoughts
on this subject. Hear how Suarez explains the origin of power:<a href="#m" class="fnanchor">m</a> "Herein,"
he says, "the common opinion seems to be, that God, inasmuch as He is the
author of nature, gives the power; so that men are, so to speak, the matter and
subject capable of this power; while God gives the form by giving the power."
(<cite>De Leg.</cite> lib. iii. c. 3.)</p>

<p>He goes on to develop his doctrine, relying on the reason usually made use of
in this matter; and when he comes to draw the conclusions, he explains how
society, which, according to him, receives the power immediately from God,
communicates it to certain persons. He adds:<a href="#n" class="fnanchor">n</a> "In the second place, it
follows from what has been said, that the civil power, whenever it is found in a
man or a prince, has emanated according to usual and legitimate law, from the
people and the community, either directly or remotely, and that it cannot
otherwise be justly possessed." (<cite>Ibid.</cite> cap. 4.)</p>

<p>Perhaps some of my readers may not know that a Spanish Jesuit maintained
against the King of England in person, the doctrine that princes receive power
<em>mediately</em> from God, and <em>immediately</em> from the people. This Jesuit is Suarez
himself, and the book to which I allude is called,<a href="#o" class="fnanchor">o</a> "<cite>Defence of the Catholic
and Apostolic Faith against the errors of the Anglican sect; accompanied by a
Reply to the Apology for the Oath of Fidelity, and to the monitory Preface published
by the most serene James, King of England.</cite> By P. D. François Suarez,
Professor at the University of Coimbra; addressed to the most serene Kings and
Princes of the Christian world."</p>

<p>In the third book, chapter second, where he discusses the question, Whether
the political sovereignty comes <em>immediately</em> from God or from divine institution,
Suarez says: "Here the most serene King not only gives a new and singular
opinion, but also acrimoniously attacks Cardinal Bellarmin, for having affirmed
that Kings have not received authority <em>immediately</em> from God like the Popes.
He himself affirms that Kings hold their power not from the people, but <em>immediately</em>
from God; and he attempts to support his opinion by arguments and
examples the value of which I shall examine in the next chapter.</p>

<p>"Although <em>this controversy does not immediately concern the dogmas of faith</em>
(<em>for we have nothing in reference to it either in the Scriptures or in the Fathers</em>),
it may nevertheless be well to discuss and explain it carefully; 1. because it
might possibly lead to error in other dogmas; 2. because the above opinion of the
King, as he maintains and explains it, is new, singular, and apparently invented
to exalt the temporal at the expense of the spiritual power; and 3. because we
consider the opinion of the illustrious Bellarmin <em>ancient</em>, <em>received</em>, <em>true</em>, and
<em>necessary</em>." But we must not attribute these opinions to the circumstances of
the times, nor suppose that they disappeared from the schools of theologians as
soon as they were advanced. In support of them, a multitude of authors might
very easily be cited, who would show that Suarez was correct in saying that the
opinion of Bellarmin was received and ancient; they would, moreover, show<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_295" id="Page_295">[Pg 295]</a></span>
that this doctrine continued to be admitted as a matter of course, without any
doubt of its orthodoxy, or of its containing any thing dangerous to the stability
of monarchies. In proof of what is here adduced, I will cite passages from
distinguished authors, proving that at Rome this mode of explaining the right
divine has never been called in question; and that in France and Spain, where
absolute monarchy had taken so deep root, this opinion was no longer regarded
as dangerous to the stability of thrones. A long period had already elapsed&mdash;the
critical position which might more or less influence the direction of ideas had
consequently disappeared, yet theologians still maintained the same doctrines.
Cardinal Gotti, who wrote in the early part of the last century, gives, in his
Treatise upon Laws, the above opinion as previously admitted, without even
attempting to confirm it.<a href="#p" class="fnanchor">p</a> In the Moral Theology of Herman Busenbaum,
enlarged by St. Alphonsus Liguori, book 1st, second Treatise upon Laws,
(chap. i. dub. 2, § 104,) it is expressly said: "It is certain that the power of
making laws exists among men, but as far as civil laws are concerned, this power
belongs naturally to no individual. It belongs to the community, who transfer
it to one or to more, that by them the community itself may be governed."</p>

<p>Should any one say that I quote the Jesuits only, or suspect that these doctrines
are mere casuistry, I will cite remarkable passages from other theologians,
who are neither casuists nor prepossessed in favor of the Jesuits. Father Daniel
Concina, who wrote at Rome about the middle of the last century, supports the
same doctrine as generally admitted; in his <cite>Théologie chrétienne dogmatico-morale</cite>,
Roman edition, 1768, he expresses himself as follows:<a href="#q" class="fnanchor">q</a> "All writers
generally assert that the origin of supreme power is of God, as Solomon declares
in the Book of Proverbs, c. viii., saying, 'By Me kings reign, and lawgivers
decree just things:' as truly as subordinate princes are dependent upon the
supreme temporal majesty, so, in like manner, this majesty itself must depend
upon the supreme King and Lord of lords. Theologians and jurists dispute
whether this supreme power comes <em>immediately</em> from God, or merely in an <em>indirect
manner</em>. Many affirm that it emanates <em>immediately</em> from God, because it
cannot emanate from men, whether we consider them collectively or individually;
for all fathers of families are equal, and each possesses, with regard to his own
family, a power merely economical; from which it follows, that they cannot
confer upon others that civil and political power which they themselves do not
possess. Moreover, if the community, in its superiority, had delegated to one
or to more the power here under discussion, it could revoke it at pleasure, for
the superior is always at liberty to withdraw the facilities he has delegated to
another, and this would be very injurious to society.</p>

<p>"In support of the opposite opinion, many answer, and <em>certainly with more
probability and truth</em>, that, in reality, all power proceeds from God, but that it
is not delegated to any particular individual <em>directly</em>, unless by consent of civil
society. That this power is not vested <em>directly</em> in any individual, but in the
entire collection of men, is what St. Thomas expressly teaches (1, 2, qu. 90,
art. 3, ad 2, et qu. 97, art. 3, ad 3), followed by Dominic Soto (lib. i. qu. 1,
art. 3); by Ledesma (2 part. qu. 18, art. 3); and by Covarruvias (in Pract.
cap. i.). The reason of this is evident; for as all men are born free with regard
to civil society, no one has any civil power over another, since this power exists
not in each, nor in any of them in a fixed manner; it follows, therefore, that it
is vested in the whole collection of men. <em>God does not confer this power by any
special act distinct from creation, but it is a property of right reason, inasmuch
as right reason dictates that men, united in one moral whole, shall prescribe, by
express or tacit consent, in what manner society shall be governed, preserved, and
upheld.</em>"</p>

<p>It is proper to remark, that Father Concina, speaking here of <em>tacit</em> or <em>express
consent</em>, has not in view the actual existence of society, nor the authority by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_296" id="Page_296">[Pg 296]</a></span>
which it is governed, but merely the mode of exercising this authority for the
direction, preservation, and defence of society. Hence, his opinion coincides
with that of Bellarmin; society and power are of right divine and natural, but
the <em>mode</em> of organizing society, and of transmitting and exercising authority, is
human. After having shown in what sense we are to understand that civil
power comes from God, Concina resumes the question which he had proposed,
viz. in what manner authority exists in kings, princes, and other supreme heads
of government. He proceeds as follows:<a href="#r" class="fnanchor">r</a> "It is evident, therefore, that the
power existing in the prince, the king, or in many persons whether nobles or
plebeians, emanates from the community itself, directly or indirectly; for, if it
came immediately from God, it would be manifested to us in a particular manner,
as in the instances of Saul and David, who were chosen by God. We
consider, therefore, erroneous, the doctrine that God confers this power immediately
and directly upon the king, the prince, or any other head of supreme
government whatever, to the exclusion of the tacit or express consent of the
public. This discussion, it is true, is one of words rather than of things, for
this power comes from God, the author of nature, inasmuch as He has ordained
and appointed that the public itself shall confer upon one or more the power of
supreme government, for the preservation and defence of society. The nomination
of the person or persons appointed to command being once made, their
power is said to come from God, because society itself is bound by natural and
divine right to obey him who commands. In fact, it is the will of God that
society shall be governed, whether by one individual or by several. In this
manner the several opinions of theologians are reconciled with each other, and
the oracles of Scripture appear in their true sense: 'He that resisteth the
power, resisteth the ordinance of God.' 'There is no power but from God.'
'Be subject, therefore, to every human creature for God's sake, whether to the
king,' &amp;c. 'Thou wouldst not have any power against Me, unless it were given
thee from above.' These testimonies, and others of a like nature, ought to convince
us that all is ordained and directed by God, the supreme Mediator. This,
however, does not exclude the operations of human institutions, as is very justly
interpreted by St. Augustin and St. John Chrysostom."</p>

<p>Father Billuart, who lived in the early part of last century, and, consequently,
at the same epoch when the highly monarchical traditions of Louis XIV. were
in all their vigor, expressed the same ideas on this subject as the theologians
above cited. In his work on Moral Theology, which, for almost a century, has
been widely circulated, he thus expresses himself:<a href="#s" class="fnanchor">s</a> "I maintain, in the first
place, that legislative power belongs to the community, or to its representative."
After quoting St. Thomas and St. Isidore, he continues: "Reason proves, that
to make laws belongs of right to him who is appointed to watch over the public
good; for the maintenance of the public good, as has been already said, is the
end and aim of the laws. It is the duty of the community, or of its ruler, to
watch over the public good; for as the welfare of an individual is a fit object
for individual agency, so is the public good for the agency of the community, or
of him to whom its functions have been delegated; the power of legislation,
therefore, is vested in the community, or in its representative. I will confirm
what is here advanced. The law has the power of commanding and of coercing
in such a manner that no individual has any authority to command or restrain
the multitude. This authority belongs exclusively to the community, or to its
representative; to these, therefore, legislative power belongs." Having made
these reflections, Billuart starts another difficulty with regard to the extreme
extension which he appears to have given to the rights of the multitude. On
this occasion he develops his system still further.<a href="#t" class="fnanchor">t</a></p>

<p>"It will be objected," says he, "that the right of commanding and compelling
is vested in the superior, and cannot belong to the community, since it is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_297" id="Page_297">[Pg 297]</a></span>
not superior to itself. To this I reply: Society, in one sense, is not superior
to itself, but in another it is. The community may be considered collectively
as one moral body, and in this sense it is superior to itself as considered distributively
in each of its members. Again; it may be considered as acting in the
place of God, from whom emanates all legislative power, as it is said in Proverbs:
'By Me kings reign and the lawgivers decree just things;' or as capable
of being governed conformably to the public good. In the former case, it is
superior and legislative; in the latter, inferior and subject to the law."</p>

<p>As this explanation might appear somewhat obscure, Billuart proceeds to
investigate more profoundly the origin of society and of civil power. He endeavors
to show how the natural, the divine, and the human laws agree on this
point, defining what belongs to each. He then continues as follows:<a href="#u" class="fnanchor">u</a> "To
render this more clear, it must be observed, that man, unlike other animals, is
born destitute of many things necessary both for body and soul, and that for
these he is indebted to society and the assistance of his fellow-mortals; consequently
he is, by his very nature, a social animal. This society, which nature
and reason prescribe to him as indispensable, cannot long exist without some
power to direct it, according to what is said in Proverbs: 'Where there is no
governor, the people will come to ruin.' Whence it follows, that God, who has
given this nature, has also given the power of governing and of legislating. He,
in fact, who gives the form, gives, at the same time, all that such form necessarily
requires. But as it is not possible for this executive and legislative power
to be exercised by the entire multitude, since it would be difficult for all and
each forming this multitude to assemble on all occasions when the affairs of the
commonweal are to be discussed, or laws to be established, it is usual for the
multitude to transfer its right or governing power, either to a number of people
selected from all classes, and bearing the name of a democracy; or to a select
number of the nobles, which takes the name of an aristocracy; or to one alone,
for himself only, or for his successors, by virtue of the right of hereditary succession,
which is styled a monarchy. From which it is evident that all power
comes from God, as the Apostle says, in his Epistle to the Romans, chap. xiii.
This power resides in the community, <em>directly and by natural right</em>, but in
kings and other rulers merely <em>indirectly and by human right</em>, unless God confers
it directly upon certain individuals, as He did upon Moses over the Jews,
and as Christ has conferred it upon the Supreme Pontiff over the whole Church."
What is still more remarkable, our absolute monarchies were never alarmed at
these theological doctrines, not only previous to the French Revolution, but
since that Revolution, and up to the time commonly styled with us the <em>fatal
decade</em>, (from 1823 to 1833, the latter part of the reign of Ferdinand VII.)
It is well known that during that period the <cite>Compendium Salmaticense</cite> (Compendium
of Salamanca) had a most favorable reception in this country, and
served as a text-book among the professors of ethics in the colleges and universities.
Ye who are continually declaiming against this epoch, imagining, without
doubt, that in those days no other doctrines than those in favor of the most
arrant despotism could be circulated, listen to what is said in the above book,
which was then placed in the hands of every youth destined to the ecclesiastical
state. After having established the existence of a civil legislative power, the
author thus proceeds:<a href="#x" class="fnanchor">x</a> "You will ask me, in the second place, whether the
prince receives this civil legislative power <em>immediately</em> from God. I reply, It,
is universally admitted that princes receive this power from God; but, at the
same time, it is maintained with more truth, that they do not receive it <em>directly</em>,
but <em>through the medium</em> of the people's consent; for all men are naturally equal,
and there is no natural distinction of superiority or inferiority. Since nature
has not given any individual power over another, God has conferred this power
upon the community; which, as it may think it more proper to be ruled by one<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_298" id="Page_298">[Pg 298]</a></span>
or by many appointed persons, transfers it to one or to many, that by them it
may be ruled; according to St. Thomas (1, 2, qu. 90, art. 3, ad 2). From this
natural principle arises the variety in the forms of civil government; for if a
state transfers all its power to a single individual, this government is termed
monarchical; if it confers it upon the nobles of the nation, it takes the name
of an aristocracy; if the people or the state retain this power in their own
hands, the civil government is styled a democracy. Princes, therefore, receive
from God the power of commanding; for supposing the election made by the
whole state, God confers upon the prince the power which was vested in the
community. Whence it follows, that the prince rules and governs in the name
of God, and whoever resists him resists the ordinance of God, according to the
words of the Apostle above cited."</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_L" id="CHAPTER_L">CHAPTER L.</a><br />

<small>ON THE RIGHT DIVINE, ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC DOCTORS</small>.</h2>


<p>The doctrine of the right divine, considered in its relation to society, presents
to our notice two particular points which this doctrine contains: 1. The origin
of civil power; 2. The mode in which God communicates this power.</p>

<p>The former point is a question of doctrine. No Catholic can entertain any
doubt upon it. The second is open to discussion; and various opinions may be
formed upon it, without interfering with faith. With regard to the right divine,
considered in itself, true philosophy agrees with Catholicity. In fact, if civil
power comes not from God, to what source can we trace its origin? Upon what
solid principle can we support it? If the man who exercises it does not rest
upon God the legitimacy of his power, no title will avail to uphold his right.
It will be radically and irretrievably null. On the contrary, supposing authority
to come from God, our duty to submit to it becomes evident, and our dignity
is not in the least hurt by the submission; but, in the other supposition,
we see only force, craft, tyranny, but no reason or justice; perhaps a necessity
for submission, but no obligation. By what title does any man pretend to
command us? Because he is possessed of superior intellect? Who had the
right of adjudging to him the palm? Besides, this superiority does not constitute
a right; in some instances its direction might be useful to us, but it will
not be obligatory. Is it because he is stronger than we? In that case the
elephant ought to be king of the entire world. Is it because he is more wealthy
than we? Reason and justice exist not in metal. The rich man is born naked,
and his riches will not descend with him into the tomb. Upon earth they have
enabled him to acquire power; but they do not confer upon him any right to
exercise it over others. Shall it consist in certain faculties conferred on him
by others? who has constituted other men our proxies? where is their consent?
who has collected their votes? and how can either we or they flatter ourselves
that we possess faculties equal to the exercise of civil power? and if we do not
possess them, how can we delegate them?</p>

<p>We must here consider the doctrine which places the origin of civil power in
the will of men, supposing that this power is the result of a pact, by which
individuals have agreed to submit to the retrenchment of a part of their natural
liberty, in order to enjoy the benefits of society. According to this system,
the rights of the civil power, as well as the duties of the subject, are alike
founded on a pact, differing from other contracts only in the nature and extent
of its object; so that, in this case, power would emanate from God merely in a
general sense, just as all rights and duties emanate from Him. Those writers
who thus explain the origin of power, do not always agree with Rousseau. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_299" id="Page_299">[Pg 299]</a></span>
<cite>Contrat</cite> of the philosopher of Geneva has nothing to do with the pact spoken
of in other authors. This is not the place to compare the doctrines of Rousseau
with those of other writers; suffice it to say, that although they rely upon
the pact, they wish, nevertheless, to establish the rights of civil power as they
have been hitherto understood by the common consent of mankind, whilst the
author of the <cite>Contrat Social</cite> proposes in his book the following problem, which
he considers fundamental. I quote his own words: "<em>To find a form of association
which shall defend and protect with all the common strength the person
and property of each associate, and by which each one, being united to all, shall
nevertheless obey only himself, and remain as free as before.</em>"</p>

<p>Such is the fundamental problem, the solution of which is given in the <cite>Contrat
Social</cite>. This nonsense of having none but one's self to obey, making a
<em>contract, and remaining as free as before</em>, needs no comment, after what the
author himself says in the following line: "The clauses of this contract are so
fixed by the very nature of the act, that the least modification would render
them vain and of no effect." (Book i. chap. 6.) Rousseau's ideas on this subject
do not, therefore, agree with those of many other writers, who also have
spoken of pacts, in their explanation of the origin of power; the latter sought a
theory in support of power, the former wished to destroy that which existed,
and to throw society into a state of excitement. Through a singular idea,
Rousseau, in his vault at the Pantheon, is represented to us with the door half
open, and a lighted torch in his hand&mdash;an emblem, perhaps, more significant
than has been imagined. The artist's intention was, to express the idea of
Rousseau's enlightening the world even after his death; but it should be
remembered, that the torch is also an emblem of the incendiary. La Harpe
said of him:</p>

<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza">
<div class="verse">"Sa parole est un feu, mais un feu qui ravage."<br /></div>
</div></div></div>

<p>To return to the question, I will observe, that the doctrine of a pact is of no
avail in accounting for the establishment of power; for it cannot even render
legitimate either its origin or its exercise. First, an explicit pact has evidently
never existed; and secondly, in the formation of even the most limited society,
such a pact never <em>could</em> obtain the consent of every individual member. In any
convention for such an object, only the heads of families could take part; and
hence, women, children, and servants might protest against it. In assenting
to such a pact, what right would fathers have to represent the whole of their
families? The will of the latter, it will be said, was virtually included in that
of their chief; but this is the very point that wants proof. Supposition here
is easy enough; proof is not so easy. When you seek the origin of power in
principles of strict right, and attempt to maintain that this is only one of those
cases to which ordinary conditions of contracts are applicable, you are met at once
by a very serious difficulty; for you are obliged to have recourse to a fiction:&mdash;the
words "<em>implicit consent</em>" are a mere fiction, and nothing more. Is it not evident,
that the consent of families must have been implicit, even supposing that
of their heads to be explicit? This explicit consent would, in fact, be impossible
in the formation of any society, however limited in extent. And moreover,
the consent of succeeding generations will be equally implicit, since it is
impossible to be continually renewing the contract, for the purpose of consulting
the wishes of the parties interested in its effects. Reason and history teach that
society has never been thus organized; our own experience tells us that it is not
now upheld or governed by any such principles. Of what use, then, is this
inexplicable theory? When a theory has a practical object, the best way of
proving its fallacy is, to prove its impracticability.</p>

<p>The faculties with which civil power is, and always has been, considered to
be invested, are of such a nature, that they cannot have proceeded from a pact.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_300" id="Page_300">[Pg 300]</a></span>
The right of life and death can have come only from God. Man is not in possession
of this right. No pact merely human could invest him with a power
which he has not, either in relation to himself or to others. I will endeavor to
demonstrate this point with all possible precision. If the right of taking away
life emanates not from God, but from a pact, it must have originated in the
following manner: every member of society must have said, expressly or tacitly,
"I consent to the establishment of laws to decree punishment of death for certain
crimes; and if I should at any time transgress them, I am willing from
that moment to forfeit my life." In this manner, every individual will have
given up his life, supposing that the conditions specified are realized; but no individual
having a right over his own life, the resigning of it becomes radically null.
The joint consent of all the members of society does not obviate the radical
and essential nullity of each one's right to give up his life; the sum of their
resignations is therefore equally null, and consequently incapable of producing
any right whatever. It will be said, perhaps, that man, properly speaking, has
no right over his own life, when an arbitrary right is implied, but that when
he chooses to dispose of it for his own advantage, the general principle should
be restricted. This reflection, at first sight plausible, would lead to the terrible
consequence of authorizing suicide. In reply, it will be said, that suicide is no
advantage to him who commits it; but if you once grant to the individual the
right of disposing of his life, provided he reap an advantage from so doing, you
cannot constitute yourselves judges to decide whether or not this advantage
exists in any particular case. According to you, he had a right to sacrifice his
life when, for example, to satisfy his wants or his taste, he had stolen the property
of another. That is to say, that he had a right of choice between the
advantages of life and those of satisfying a desire: what will you answer, if he
tell you that he prefers death to misery, to ennui, to grief, or to such and such
misfortunes which torment him?</p>

<p>The right of life and death cannot consequently emanate from a pact. Man's
life is not his own; he has only the use of it so long as it pleases the Creator
to grant it him. He has not, therefore, the right of disposing of it, and all
conventions he may make for that purpose are null. In some instances, it is
lawful, glorious, it may be even obligatory, to deliver one's self up to certain
death; but let us not confound ideas: man does not in that case sacrifice his
life as being the master of it, he is a voluntary victim to the salvation of his
country, or to the good of mankind. The warrior who scales a wall, the charitable
man who confronts the most dangerous contagion in visiting the sick, the
missionary who resorts to unknown countries, who resigns himself to live in
unhealthy climates, and who penetrates into inaccessible forests, seeking ferocious
hordes, do not dispose of their lives as being their own; they sacrifice them
to a purpose great, sublime, just, and pleasing to God; for God loves virtue,
especially heroic virtue; and it is a heroic virtue to die for one's country, to
die in visiting the sick, or in carrying the light of truth to those seated in
darkness and in the shadow of death. This right of life and death, with
which civil power has ever been considered invested, may by some be considered
as founded upon the natural right of self-defence vested in society.
Every individual, they will say, has the right of taking away the life of another
in self-defence; therefore society also has this right. In the chapter on <cite>Intolerance</cite>,
I have touched slightly upon this point, and made some reflections which
may be repeated here. I will endeavor, nevertheless, to extend them and confirm
them by arguments of another kind. In the first place, I maintain that
the right of self-defence may confer upon society that of taking away life. If
one individual attacked by another may lawfully repel him&mdash;kill him even, if
necessary to save his own life, it is evident that an assemblage of men have the
same right. This appears so evident, that demonstration is superfluous. One<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_301" id="Page_301">[Pg 301]</a></span>
society attacked by another has incontestably the right of resisting and repelling
the attack&mdash;it is justified in making war. With more reason, therefore, might
it resist an individual, to make war on him, or kill him. This is all perfectly
true and obvious; and I grant that there thus exists, from the very nature
of things, a title upon which we may found the right of inflicting capital
punishment.</p>

<p>These ideas are plausible, and seem at first sight to nullify the reasons on
which we have supported the necessity of having recourse to God for the origin
of this formidable right. Nevertheless, when we come to examine them
thoroughly, they are far from satisfactory; and it may be even said, that in the
sense in which they are understood and applied, they are subversive of the
acknowledged principles of society. In fact, if such a theory be admitted, if
the right of inflicting capital punishment be made to rest exclusively on this
principle, the ideas of penalty, chastisement, and of human justice disappear at
once. It has always been thought that the criminal dying upon a gibbet suffers
a penalty; and although this terrible act is certainly a satisfaction to society, a
means of preservation, yet the principal and predominant idea, that which surpasses
all others, which best justifies and exculpates society, which gives to the
judge his august character, and stamps disgrace upon the criminal, is the idea of
chastisement, of penalty, and of justice. All this disappears when once we can
assert that society, in taking away life, only acts in self-defence. Such an act
is conformable to reason, it is just, but it no longer merits the honorable title
of an executive act of justice. A man is justified in killing an assassin; but
in so doing he does not administer justice, he does not execute justice, nor
inflict a penalty. These things are very different, and of a distinct order; we
cannot confound them without shocking the good sense of mankind.</p>

<p>We will render this distinction more apparent by putting the two theories
into the mouth of the judge: the contrast is striking. In the former case, the
judge says to the criminal: "You are guilty; the law decrees against you the
penalty of death; I, the minister of justice, apply it; the executioner is ordered
to inflict it." In the second, he says to him: "You have attacked society,
which cannot exist if such attacks are tolerated. It defends itself, and for this
reason puts you to death; I, its agent, declare, that the time for its defending
itself is come, and hence I give you up to the executioner." In the former
supposition, the judge is a minister of justice, and the culprit a criminal who
undergoes a just penalty; in the latter, the judge is an instrument of force, the
culprit a victim. But, it will be said, the criminal is not on this account less
criminal, and still merits the penalty which he undergoes. This is true with
respect to the <em>guilt</em>, but not with respect to the <em>penalty</em>. The fault exists in
the eyes of God, and also in the eyes of man, inasmuch as he possesses a conscience
capable of judging of the morality of actions; but it does not exist in
the eyes of man, considered as a judge. According to you, the judge does not
<em>punish</em> a crime; he restrains an act injurious to society: but if you say that
the judge <em>inflicts a penalty</em>, you change the nature of the question, for he then
does something more than protect society. It follows from what we have just
established, that the right of inflicting capital punishment can only emanate
from God, and, consequently, if there existed no other reason for referring to
God the origin of power, this alone would suffice. War against an invading
nation may be explained by the right of self-defence; invasion also comes under
the same principle; for if it be just, it can be entered upon only with a view to
enforce some reparation or compensation refused by the enemy. War for the
sake of alliance enters into that class of actions which are performed for the
assistance of a friend; so that this phenomenon of war, with all its glory, and
all its ravages, does not so forcibly oblige us to have recourse to a divine origin
as this simple right of condemning a man to the gibbet. The sanction of law<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_302" id="Page_302">[Pg 302]</a></span>ful
wars also undoubtedly belongs to God, for in Him exists the sanction of all
rights and of all duties; but there is not, in this case at least, any need of particular
authorization, as in the case of inflicting capital punishment. It is sufficient
to have the general sanction which God, as the author of nature, has
given to all natural rights and duties.</p>

<p>How do we know that God has granted such an authorization to man? There
are three ways of answering this question. 1. The testimony of the Scriptures
is sufficient for all Christians. 2. The right of life and death is a universal
tradition of the human race, and does, therefore, exist in reality; and as we
have shown that it can have its origin only in God, it is right to suppose that
He has communicated it to man in one way or another. 3. This right is essential
to the preservation of society; God must, therefore, have granted it; for if
He wills the preservation of a being, it is evident that He will have bestowed
upon it all things necessary for such preservation. To recapitulate what we
have hitherto advanced: the Church teaches that civil power comes from God,
and this doctrine, which agrees with the formal texts of Scripture, agrees also
with natural reason. The Church contents herself with establishing this dogma,
and deducing from it the immediate consequence resulting from it, viz. that
obedience to the lawful authorities is of right divine. With regard to the mode
in which this right divine is communicated, the Church has not determined any
thing: the general opinion of theologians is, that society receives it from God,
and that, from society, it is transferred, by lawful means, to the person or persons
appointed to exercise it. In order that civil power may exact obedience,
and be considered invested with this right divine, it must be legitimate; that
is to say, the person or persons in possession of it must have acquired it by lawful
means, or this power must have become legitimate in their possession, by
means acknowledged to be in accordance with right. With respect to political
forms, the Church does not determine any thing; but whatever be the form of
government, the civil power must be confined within legitimate bounds, while
the subject, on his side, is bound to obey. The fitness and legitimacy of such
or such persons, and of such and such forms, are subjects not appertaining to
right divine. They are particular questions, depending upon a variety of circumstances,
and to which no general theory is applicable.</p>

<p>One example of private right will serve to illustrate what we have just explained.
Respect for property is of natural and divine right; but the ownership
of property, the respective rights of individuals to the same thing, the restrictions
to which property should be subject, are questions appertaining to civil
right, which have always been resolved, and are still resolved, in various ways.
The main object is to adhere to the protective principle of property, the indispensable
basis of all social organization; but the application of this principle is,
and must be, subject to a variety of circumstances and events, a variety arising
from the course of human affairs. It is the same with power. The Church,
intrusted with the great deposit of the most important truths, keeps in this deposit
the truth which guaranties a divine origin to civil power, and makes the
existence of the law an affair of right divine; but she does not interfere in particular
cases, which are always controlled more or less by the fluctuation and
uncertainty with which the world is agitated. When thus explained, the
Catholic doctrine is not in the least opposed to true liberty; it consolidates
power, and does not prejudice the questions that may arise between the governors
and the governed. No unlawful power can lay claim to the right
divine; for it must be legitimate to merit the application of this right. This
legitimacy is determined and declared by the laws of each country, from which
it follows that the law is the organ of the right divine. This right, therefore,
only consolidates what is just; and certainly that which insures justice in the
world cannot be said to lead to despotism, for nothing can be more opposed to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_303" id="Page_303">[Pg 303]</a></span>
the liberty and happiness of the people than the absence of justice and legitimacy.</p>

<p>Popular liberties are not endangered by the strong safeguards surrounding
the legitimacy of the governing power. On the contrary, reason, history, and
experience teach that all illegitimate powers are tyrannical. Their illegitimacy
necessarily carries weakness along with it; and it is not the strong, but the
weak powers that oppress the people. Real tyranny consists in the person
governing taking care of his own instead of the public interest. Now this is
precisely what takes place when, feeling himself weak and tottering, he is forced
to guard and protect himself. His object is then, no longer society, but himself.
Instead of thinking how he may benefit those over whom he rules, he
only studies and calculates beforehand the utility he may derive from his own
measures. I have said in another place, and I repeat, that, in looking over history,
we find continually this important truth written in letters of blood: <em>Wo to
the people governed by a power which is obliged to think of its own preservation!</em>
A fundamental truth in political science, and which has, nevertheless, been
lamentably overlooked in modern times. Much labor has been and is still spent
to produce guarantees for liberty. To this end a multitude of governments
have been overturned, and attempts have been made to weaken them all, without
thinking that this was the most certain means of introducing oppression.
What signify the veils under which despotism is concealed, and the forms by
which it seeks to disguise its existence? History, which has recorded the outrages
committed in Europe during the last century; true history, not that
written by the authors of those outrages, by their accomplices, or by interested
parties, will relate to posterity the injustices and crimes committed in the midst
of civil discord by governments foreseeing their end, and feeling in themselves
extreme weakness caused by their tyrannical conduct and the illegality of their
origin.</p>

<p>How is it, then, that such a violent warfare has been declared against doctrines
tending to consolidate civil authority by rendering it legitimate, and to
prove this legitimacy by declaring that power descends from Heaven? How
has it been overlooked that the legitimacy of power is an essential element of
its strength, and that this strength is the safest guarantee of true liberty? Let
it not be said that these are paradoxes. What is the object of societies and
governments? Is it not the substitution of public for private force, of the rule
of right for the rule of the strong? But when once you begin to undermine
power, to make it an object of popular aversion or defiance; when once you
represent it to the people as their natural enemy, and vilify the sacred titles on
which obedience due to it is founded, you attack at once the very object of the
institution of society; and by weakening the action of public force, you provoke
a development of private force, which is the very thing that governments were
instituted to prevent. The secret of that mildness for which European monarchies
were remarkable, consisted chiefly in their security and strength,
founded upon the loftiness and legality of the titles of their power; whilst you
will find in the perils with which the thrones of the Roman emperors and Eastern
monarchs were beset, one reason for their monstrous despotism. I do not
hesitate to assert, and in the course of this work I shall prove more and more,
that one cause of the evils to which Europe has been exposed during the laborious
solution of the problem of the alliance between order and liberty, is the
oblivion of Catholic doctrines on this point. These doctrines have been condemned
without being heard or examined into, and the enemies of the Church
have copied each other without ever having recourse to the real sources, where
they might easily have found out the truth.</p>

<p>Protestantism, departing from the teaching of Catholicity, has been thrown
alternately upon two opposite rocks; wishing to establish order, it has done so<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_304" id="Page_304">[Pg 304]</a></span>
to the prejudice of true liberty; and in its desire to maintain liberty, it has
become an enemy to order. From the bosom of false reform have arisen the
insane doctrines, which, preaching up Christian liberty, discharged the subject
from his obedience to the lawful authorities; from the bosom of the same
reform has likewise arisen the theory of Hobbes, which sets up despotism in the
midst of society as a monstrous idol, to which all should be sacrificed, without
regard for the eternal principles of morality, with no other rule than the caprice
of him who rules, with no other bounds to his power than those marked out by
the extent of his strength. Such is the necessary result of banishing from the
world the authority of God. Man, left to himself, can only succeed in producing
slavery or anarchy; the same thing under two forms; <em>the reign of force</em>.</p>

<p>In explaining the origin of society and power, divers modern writers have
said a great deal about a certain state of nature anterior to all societies, and
have supposed that these societies were formed by a gradual transition from a
barbarous to a civilized state. This erroneous doctrine lies deeper than some
persons imagine. If we pay particular attention to the subject, we shall find
that the erroneous ideas entertained on this subject may be traced to the forgetfulness
of Christian teaching. Hobbes derives every kind of right from a pact.
According to him, when men live in a state of nature, they have a right to every
thing; which means, in other terms, that there is no difference between good
and evil. From which it follows that society was organized without any regard
to morality, and ought to be considered merely as a means to an end. Puffendorf
and some others, admitting the principle of <em>sociality</em>, that is, deriving from
society the rules of morality, arrive at last at the principle of Hobbes, and trample
under foot both the natural and eternal laws. Investigating the causes of
these grave errors, I find them in the deplorable contempt which writers on philosophy
and morality in modern times have so eagerly evinced for the treasures
of light afforded us by religion. This light, religion affords us on all questions,
fixing by its dogmas the cardinal points of all true philosophy, and offering us
in its narrations the only thread that can guide us through the labyrinth of the
first ages. Read the Protestant writers, compare them with the Catholic, and
you will find a remarkable difference between them. The latter reason, give
their minds free scope, and allow them a wide range; but they ever leave
untouched certain fundamental principles, and every theory which they cannot
reconcile with these principles is inexorably rejected by them as erroneous. The
former roam without guide or compass in the boundless space of human opinions,
presenting to us a lively image of that pagan philosophy which had not the
light of faith to guide its inquiries into the principles of things. Instead of
finding a God, the Creator and Director, occupied without ceasing, like a tender
father, with the happiness of beings whom He has drawn from nothing, this
philosophy never discovered any thing but chaos, either in the physical or in the
social world. This degraded and brutalized state, disguised under the name of
nature, is in reality nothing but the chaos of society. This chaos will be found
in a great number of modern writers who are not Catholics; and by a surprising
coincidence, worthy of the most serious reflection, it will also be found in the
principal writers on pagan science.</p>

<p>From the moment that we lose sight of the great traditions of mankind, traditions
in which man is represented to us receiving from God himself intelligence,
speech, and rules for his conduct in this life; from the moment that we
forget the narration of Moses, that simple, sublime, and only true explanation of
the origin of man and of society; our ideas become confused, the facts are jumbled,
one absurdity creates another, and, like the builders of the tower of Babel,
we suffer the just punishment of our pride. How wonderful! that antiquity,
which, deprived of the light of Christianity, and lost in the labyrinth of human
inventions, had almost forgotten the primitive tradition of the origin of society,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_305" id="Page_305">[Pg 305]</a></span>
and had recourse to the absurd transition from the barbarous to the civilized
state, should nevertheless, whenever a society was to be formed, have invoked
this right divine, which certain philosophers have treated with so much disdain.
The most renowned legislators sought to establish upon Divine authority, the
laws they were giving to the people, thus rendering a solemn homage to that
truth logically established by Catholics, viz. that all power, to be regarded as
legitimate and to exercise its due ascendency, must receive its titles from God.
If you desire that the legislator should not be placed under the sad necessity of
feigning revelations which he has never received, or bringing forward the intervention
of God at every moment in an extraordinary manner in human affairs,
establish the general principle that all power proceeds from God, that the author
of nature is likewise the author of society, that the existence of society is a precept
imposed upon mankind for their own preservation. Let submission and
obedience be so regulated as not to wound man's pride; let those who rule over
him be invested with superior authority, to which he can submit without a
shadow of self-abasement. In short, establish the Catholic doctrine. Whatever
be the form of government, you will then have found a solid basis on which to
support the respect due to the authorities; you will have placed the social edifice
upon a foundation far more secure than human conventions.</p>

<p>Examine the right divine such as I have represented it, supported by the
interpretations of illustrious doctors, and I am certain that you cannot refuse to
admit its perfect conformity to the lights of true philosophy; but if you persist
in giving to this right a strange sense which it does not possess, pretending that
it ought to have a different explanation, I shall insist upon one thing which you
cannot refuse me: produce me a text of Scripture, a monument of the traditions
acknowledged as articles of faith in the Catholic Church, a decision of the Councils
or of the Pontiffs, showing your interpretation to be well founded. Until
you have done this, I have a right to tell you, that, possessed with the desire of
rendering Catholicity odious, you impute to it doctrines which it does not profess,
you attribute to it dogmas which it does not acknowledge; that you are
adversaries without candor or honesty, and employ weapons disallowed by the
laws of combat.<a href="#Note_28" class="fnanchor">28</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LI" id="CHAPTER_LI">CHAPTER LI.</a><br />

<small>TRANSMISSION OF POWER, ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC DOCTORS</small>.</h2>


<p>The difference of opinion concerning the mode in which God communicates
civil power, however grave in theory, does not appear to be of great importance
in practice. We have already observed, that, among those who assert that this
power comes from God, some maintain that it proceeds from Him <em>directly</em>, others
<em>indirectly</em>. In the opinion of the former, when once the nomination of the persons
appointed to exercise authority is made, society not only lays down the
necessary conditions for the communication of power, but actually communicates
it, having first received it from God. The latter maintain that society merely
makes the appointment, and, by means of this act, God confers the power upon
the person appointed. I repeat, that, in practice, the result is the same, and the
difference therefore vanishes. Nay, even in <em>theory</em>, the divergence may not be
so great as it appears at first sight. I shall endeavor to demonstrate this by
submitting the two opinions to rigorous investigation.</p>

<p>The explanation given of the origin of power by both parties may be set forth
in the following terms: In the opinion of some, God says, "Society, for thy
preservation and well-being, thou requirest a government; choose, therefore,
under what form this government shall be exercised, and appoint the persons<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_306" id="Page_306">[Pg 306]</a></span>
who are to take charge of it; I, on my part, will confer upon them the faculties
necessary for the fulfilment of their mission." In the opinion of others, God
says, "Society, for thy preservation and well-being, thou requirest a government:
I confer upon thee the faculties necessary for the fulfilment of this object; choose
thyself the form under which this government shall be exercised, and, appointing
the persons who are to take charge of it, transmit to them the faculties
which I have communicated to thee."</p>

<p>In order to be convinced of the identity of the results of these two formulas,
we must examine them in their relations: 1. to the sanctity of their origin;
2. to the rights and duties of power; 3. to the rights and duties of the subject.
Whether God has communicated power to society, to be transmitted by it to the
persons appointed to exercise it, or has merely conferred upon it the right of
determining the form and appointing such persons, that, by means of this determination
and appointment, the rights annexed to supreme power may be directly
communicated to the persons intrusted with the exercise of it, it follows, in either
case, that this supreme power, wherever it exists, emanates from God; and is
not less sacred because it passes through an intermediate means appointed by
Him. I will illustrate these ideas by a very simple and obvious example. Suppose
there exists in a state some particular community, instituted by the sovereign,
and having no rights but those granted by him; no duties but those
which he imposes upon it; in fine, a community indebted to the sovereign for all
that it is and has. This community, however small it may be, will require a
government: this government may be formed in two ways; either the sovereign
who has given it its laws has conferred upon it the right of governing itself,
and of transmitting this right to the person or persons whom it may think proper
to elect; or he has left to the community itself the determination of the form
and the appointment of the persons, adding that such determination and appointment
being once made, it shall be understood that, by this simple act, the sovereign
grants to the persons appointed the right of exercising their functions
within lawful bounds. It is evident that the parity is complete; and now I ask,
Is it not true that, in this case, as in the other, the faculties of him who governs
should be considered and respected as an emanation from the sovereign? Is it
not true that it would be difficult to discover any difference between these two
kinds of investiture? In both suppositions, the community would have the
right of determining the form and appointing the person; in both cases, he who
governs could only obtain his powers by virtue of the previous determination
and appointment; in neither case would there need any new manifestation on
the part of the sovereign, that the person nominated might be understood to be
invested with faculties corresponding to the exercise of his functions. In practice,
therefore, there would be no difference; further, I will assert that, in theory
even, it would be difficult to trace the point of separation between the two
cases.</p>

<p>Certainly, if we view the matter with the eye of an acute metaphysician, we
may very easily discover this difference, by considering the moral entity which
we call <em>power</em>; not as it is in itself, and in its effects, but as an abstract being,
passing from one hand to another, in the manner of corporeal objects. But,
instead of examining the question for the curiosity of knowing whether this
moral entity, before arriving at one person, has not first passed through another,
let us first seek to verify from whence it emanates, and what are the faculties it
confers, the rights it imposes: we shall then find that, in saying, "I confer this
faculty upon you, transmit it to whomsoever you think proper, and in whatever
way you think proper," the sovereign expresses no more than if he should say:
"Such or such a faculty shall be conferred by me upon the person you wish, and
in the manner you wish, by the simple fact of the election you have made." It
follows hence, that whether we adopt the opinion of direct communication, or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_307" id="Page_307">[Pg 307]</a></span>
the contrary one, the supreme rights of hereditary monarchies, of elective monarchies,
and in general of all supreme powers, whatever be their forms of government,
will not on this account be less sacred, less certainly sealed with divine
authority. Difference in the forms of government does not in the least diminish
the obligations of submitting to civil power, lawfully established; so that the
refusing of obedience to the president of a republic, in a country in which republicanism
is the legal form of government, is no less a criminal resistance to the
ordinance of God, than the refusing of the same obedience to the most absolute
monarch. Bossuet, so strongly attached to monarchy, and writing in a country
and at a period in which the king might exclaim, "<em>I am the state</em>;" and in a
work, in which he proposed nothing less than to offer a complete treatise on
Politics, taken from the words of Holy Scripture; established, nevertheless, in
a manner the most explicit and conclusive, the truth which I have just pointed
out. "We ought to be subject," says he, "to the form of government established
in our country." And he afterwards quotes these words of St. Paul in
his Epistle to the Romans, chap. xiii.: "Let every soul be subject to higher
powers; for there is no power but from God; and those that are, are ordained
of God; therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God."
"There is no form of government," continues Bossuet, "nor any human institution,
without its inconveniences; so that it is necessary to remain in the state
to which length of time has inured the people. For this reason, God <em>takes under
His protection all legitimate governments, in whatever form they may be established</em>;
whoever undertakes to overturn them, is not only an enemy to the public,
but also to God." (Liv. ii. prop. 12.)</p>

<p>It is of little consequence whether power be communicated directly or indirectly;
the respect and obedience due to it are not in the least changed, and
consequently the sacredness of the origin of power remains the same, whichever
opinion be adopted; neither do the rights and duties of government, and those
of the subject, remain less sacred. These rights and duties suffer no change,
whether there be or not an intermediate means for the communication of power;
their nature and limits are founded upon the very object of the institution of
society; but this object is totally independent of the mode in which God communicates
power to man. Against what I have advanced upon the small amount
of difference existing between these various opinions, the authority of the theologians,
whose texts I have cited in the preceding chapter, will be objected.
"These theologians," it will be said, "certainly understood these affairs; and
as they placed so much importance upon the distinction here under discussion,
they undoubtedly saw in it some great truth proper to be taken into account."
This objection acquires the more force, when we consider that the distinction
made upon this point by these theologians does not proceed from a spirit of
subtilty, as it might be suspected in the case of those scholastic theologians,
whose writings are replete with dialectic arguments, rather than with reasoning
founded upon Scripture, upon the apostolical traditions and other theological
resources, from which we ought principally to take our arguments in controversies
of this nature; but the theologians whom I have quoted are certainly
not of this class. We need only name Bellarmin, to recognise a grave and
extremely solid author, who opposed the Protestants with Scripture, with traditions,
with the authority of the holy Fathers, the decisions of the universal
Church and of the Sovereign Pontiffs: Bellarmin was not one of those theologians
who excited the lamentations of Melchior Cano, and of whom he said, that
in the hour of combat against heresy, instead of wielding well-tempered weapons,
they wielded only long reeds: <i lang="la">arundines longas</i>. Such was the importance
given to this distinction, that James, King of England, complained loudly that
Cardinal Bellarmin taught that the power of kings came from God only indirectly;
and the Catholic schools were so far from looking upon this distinction<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_308" id="Page_308">[Pg 308]</a></span>
as insignificant, that they defended it against the attacks of King James; and
that one of their most illustrious doctors, Suarez, entered the lists to contend
for the doctrines of Bellarmin.</p>

<p>It appears, then, at first sight, that I am wrong in what I have said upon the
slight importance of the distinction here mentioned. I believe, nevertheless,
that the difficulty may be easily removed, and that it will suffice for this purpose
to distinguish the different aspects under which the question presents itself.
First of all, I will observe, that the Catholic theologians proceeded upon this
point with admirable prudence and foresight; and truly the question, such as it
was then proposed, comprehended more than a subtilty; I am inclined to think
that it included one of the most serious points of public right. In order to
examine deeply these doctrines of Catholic theologians, and to lay hold of their
true sense, we must fix our attention upon the tendencies which the religious
reform of the sixteenth century communicated to European monarchy. Even
before this reform, thrones had acquired a great deal of force and solidity, through
the decline in the power of the feudal lords, and the development of the democratic
element. That element, which in due time was destined to acquire the
power of which it is now possessed, was not then in sufficiently favorable circumstances
to exert its action on the vast scale which it embraces in our days. On
this account, it was obliged to take refuge under the shadow of the throne&mdash;an
emblem of order and justice elevated in the midst of society&mdash;a sort of universal
regulator and leveller, destined gradually to destroy the extreme inequalities so
harassing and obnoxious to the people. Thus, democracy itself, which, in after
ages, was to overturn so many thrones, served them, at that time, as a firm support,
sheltering them from the attacks of a turbulent and formidable aristocracy,
unwilling to be transformed into mere courtiers. There was nothing in this state
of things very mischievous, so long as matters remained within the limits prescribed
by reason and justice; but, unfortunately, good principles were exaggerated,
regal authority was gradually converted into an absorbent force, which
would have concentrated in itself all other forces. European monarchy lost thus
its true character, which consists in monarchy having just limits, even when
these limits are not marked out and guarded by political institutions.</p>

<p>Protestantism exalts to an incredible degree the pretensions of kings, by
attacking the spiritual power of the Pope, by painting in the darkest colors the
dangers of his temporal power, and especially by establishing the fatal doctrine,
that the supreme civil power has ecclesiastical affairs totally under its direction;
and by accusing of abuse, of usurpation, of unbounded ambition, the independence
which the Church claims by virtue of the sacred canons, of the guarantee
afforded by the civil law, of the traditions of fifteen centuries, and above all, of
the institution of her Divine Founder. He had no need of the permission, of
any civil power to send His apostles to preach the Gospel, and to baptize in the
name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. A glance at the history
of Europe at the epoch here mentioned will convince us of the evil consequences
of such a doctrine, and show us how agreeable it must have been to
the ears of power, which it invested with unbounded faculties, even in matters
purely religious. This exaggeration of the rights of civil power, coinciding
with the efforts made on the other hand to repress the pontifical authority, must
have favored the doctrine which attempted to place the power of kings upon
a level, in every respect, with that of Popes; and consequently, it was very
natural that its authors should wish to establish, that sovereigns received their
power from God, in the same manner as the Popes, without any difference whatever.
The doctrine of <em>direct</em> communication, although very susceptible, as we
have seen, of a reasonable explanation, might involve a more extensive meaning,
which would have made the people oblivious of the special and characteristic
manner in which the supreme power of the Church was instituted by God<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_309" id="Page_309">[Pg 309]</a></span>
himself. What I have just advanced cannot be considered as merely conjectural;
the whole is supported by facts which cannot have been forgotten. The
reigns of Henry VIII. and of Elizabeth of England, and the usurpations and
violence in which Protestant powers indulged against the Catholic Church, are
a sufficient confirmation of these sad truths. But, unfortunately, even in
countries where Catholicity remained triumphant, attempts were then, have
since been, and still are witnessed, that show clearly enough how strong was
the impulse given in this sense to the civil power; for even now it is but too
prone to transgress its legitimate bounds.</p>

<p>The circumstances under which the two illustrious theologians above cited,
Bellarmin and Suarez, wrote, are another reason in support of what I have just
adduced. I have quoted remarkable passages from a work by Suarez, written
in refutation of a publication of King James of England. This King could not
bear the idea of Cardinal Bellarmin's having established that the power of kings
does not emanate directly from God, but is communicated through the medium
of society, which receives it in a direct manner. Possessed, as is well known,
with the mania for theological debates and decisions, King James did not confine
himself to simple theory; he reduced his theory to practice, and said to his
Parliament: "that God had appointed him absolute master; and that all privileges
which co-legislative bodies enjoyed were pure concessions proceeding
from the bounty of kings." His courtiers, in their adulations, decreed him
the title of the modern Solomon; he might well, therefore, feel displeased
with the Italian and Spanish theologians for endeavoring to humble the pride
of his presumptuous wisdom, and restrain his despotism. If we reflect upon
the words of Bellarmin, and especially on those of Suarez, we shall find that
the aim of these eminent theologians was to point out the difference between
the civil and ecclesiastical powers, with respect to the mode of their origin.
They admit that both powers come from God; that it is an indispensable duty
to be subject to them; and that to resist them is to resist the ordinance of
God; but not finding, either in the Scripture or in tradition, the least foundation
for establishing that civil power, like that of the Sovereign Pontiffs, has
been instituted in a special and extraordinary manner, they are anxious that
this difference should remain obvious, and seek to avoid the introduction, in a
point of such import, of a confusion of ideas, from which dangerous errors might
arise. "This opinion," says Suarez, "is new, singular, and apparently invented
to exalt the temporal over the spiritual power." (See above.) Hence,
in discussing the question of the origin of civil power, they require you to bear
in mind the influence of society. "<em>By means of man's counsel and election</em>,"
says Bellarmin; thus reminding the King, that how sacred soever his authority
might be, it had been very differently instituted from that of the Sovereign
Pontiff. The distinction between direct and indirect communication served, in
a particular manner, to prove the difference in question; for this very distinction
recalled to mind that civil power, although established by God, owed its existence
to no extraordinary measure, and could not be considered as supernatural,
but was to be looked upon as dependent upon human and natural right, sanctioned,
nevertheless, in an express manner, by right divine.</p>

<p>These theologians would not, perhaps, have forcibly insisted upon this distinction,
had it not been for the efforts made by others to efface it. It was a
matter of consequence with them to humble the pride of power, to prevent it
from assuming, whether in respect to its origin or its rights, titles not appertaining
to it; to prevent its ascribing to itself an unlawful supremacy, even in
religious affairs, and thus causing monarchy to degenerate into a sort of Oriental
despotism, in which the governing power is every thing, the people and their
affairs nothing. If we weigh their words attentively, we shall find that the
predominating idea with them was that which I have just stated. At first<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_310" id="Page_310">[Pg 310]</a></span>
sight, their language appears exceedingly democratical, from their frequent use
of the words <em>community</em>, <em>state</em>, <em>society</em>, <em>people</em>; but on examining closely their
system of doctrine, and paying attention to the expressions they use, we perceive
that they had no subversive design, and that anarchical theories never
once entered their minds. They advocated on the one hand the rights of
authority, whilst they protected on the other those of the subject, thus endeavoring
to resolve the problem which formed the continual occupation of all
honest political writers; to limit power without destroying it, or placing it
under too great restraint; to protect society against the disorder of despotism,
without rendering it at the same time refractory or turbulent. From the
above reasoning we see that the distinction between direct and indirect communication
may be of great or of little importance, according to the view we
take of it. It is of great importance when serving to remind the civil power
that the establishment of governments and the regulation of their forms has
in some way been dependent upon society itself, and that no individual, no
family, can presume upon having received from God the government of the
people without regard to the laws of the country, as if those laws, in whatever
form, were a free offering made by them to the people. This same distinction
serves, in short, to establish the origin of civil power as an emanation from the
Deity, the Author of nature, but not as instituted in an extraordinary manner,
as something supernatural, as in the case of the supreme ecclesiastical power.
From this latter consideration two consequences follow, one of which is of
more importance than the other to the legitimate liberties of mankind and the
independence of the Church. To call in the intervention, express or tacit, of
society for the establishment of governments and the regulation of their forms,
is to prevent the concealment of their origin under any veil of mystery; it is
simply and plainly to define their object, consequently to explain their duties,
as well as to point out their faculties. By these means a restraint is put upon
the disorders and abuses of authority, which it is thenceforth clearly seen are
not to find support in enigmatical theories.</p>

<p>The independence of the Church is thus established upon a solid basis.
Whenever the civil power attempts to offer it violence, the Church may say:
"My authority is established directly and immediately by God in a special, extraordinary,
and miraculous manner; yours likewise emanates from God, but
through the intervention of man, through the intermediary of the laws, in the ordinary
course pointed out by nature and determined by human prudence; but
neither man nor the civil power has a right to destroy or change what God
Himself, deviating from the course of nature and making use of ineffable
prodigies, has thought proper to institute." So long as the ideas here set forth
are respected, so long as <em>direct</em> communication is not received in too extensive
a sense, and care taken not to confound things whose limits so gravely affect
religion and society, the distinction here spoken of is of little importance. We
have seen, even, that the two opinions may be reconciled with each other. At
all events, this distinction will have served to illustrate with what exalted views
Catholic theologians have discussed the grave questions of public right. Guided
by sound philosophy, and without ever losing sight of the beacon of revelation,
they have given equal satisfaction to the desires of both schools. They have
not fallen into the errors of either; democratical without being anarchists,
monarchical without being base adulators. In establishing the rights of the
people, they were not, like modern demagogues, under the necessity of destroying
religion, but made her the guardian of the rights of the people, as well as
of those of kings. Liberty was not with them a synonyme for license and
irreligion; in their opinion, men might be free without being rebellious or
impious; liberty consisted in being subject to the law; and, as they could not
conceive that law was possible without religion and without God; in like man<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_311" id="Page_311">[Pg 311]</a></span>ner
also they believed that liberty was not possible without God and religion.
What reason, revelation, and history taught them has become evident to us by
experience. Shall we be told of the dangers, grave or slight, in which theologians
could involve governments? But people now-a-days are not led astray
by affected and insidious declamations; and kings well know whether the
schools of theologians have exiled royalty, and led it to the scaffold.<a href="#Note_29" class="fnanchor">29</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LII" id="CHAPTER_LII">CHAPTER LII.</a><br />

<small>FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER THE SPANISH MONARCHY</small>.</h2>


<p>Extreme doctrines neither insure the liberty of the people, nor the force
and stability of governments; both require truth and justice, the only foundations
upon which we can build with any hope of the durability of the edifice.
In general, maxims favorable to liberty are never carried to a higher pitch than
on the eve of the establishment of despotism; and it is to be feared that the
overthrow and ruin of governments are very near when undue adulations are
lavished upon their power. When was the power of kings more extolled than
about the middle of last century? Who is not aware of the exaggerations
given to the prerogatives of royal power, when the Jesuits were to be expelled,
and the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff impugned? In Portugal, Spain,
Italy, Austria, and in France, the unanimous voice of the purest and most fervent
royalism was heard; and yet what became of this great love, this lively
zeal for monarchy, from the moment that the revolutionary storm had placed
it in danger? Observe what, generally speaking, has been the conduct of men
opposed to the ecclesiastical authority; they have united themselves to demagogues
for destroying, at the same time, the authority of the Church and that
of kings; they have forgotten their base adulations, and abandoned themselves
to insults and violence. People and governments should never lose sight of
this rule of conduct, so useful to men of sense, to mistrust flatterers, and to
confide in those who warn and correct them. Let them beware whenever they
are caressed with an affected tenderness, and their cause is maintained with
especial warmth; it is a sure sign of an attempt to make use of them as tools
for the furtherance of interests very different from their own. In France, at
certain times, monarchical zeal was carried to such an extent as to call forth,
in the assembly of the States-General, a motion for establishing, as a sacred
principle, that kings receive their supreme authority immediately from God:
this was not carried into effect, but the proposal shows how ardently the cause
of the throne was then maintained. Now, what did all this ardor mean?
Simply an antipathy against the Court of Rome, a dread of the extension of
papal power; it was an obstacle to be opposed to the phantom of a <em>universal
monarchy</em>. Louis XIV., so tenacious of the royal prerogative, assuredly did
not foresee the misfortunes of Louis XVI.; and Charles III., in listening to the
Count of Aranda and Campomanes, little thought that the constituent Cortes
of Cadiz was so near.</p>

<p>In the midst of their splendor, monarchs forgot one principle predominating
in the whole modern history of Europe, viz. that social organization is an
emanation of religion, and, consequently, that the two powers to which the
defence and preservation of society appertain ought to co-exist in perfect
harmony.</p>

<p>The power of the Church cannot be diminished without injury to the civil
power; he who sows schism will reap rebellion. During the last three centuries
the most liberal and popular doctrines upon the origin of power have been
circulated amongst us. What did it matter to the Spanish monarchy, since<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_312" id="Page_312">[Pg 312]</a></span>
those very persons who advocated these doctrines were the first to condemn
resistance to the lawful authorities, to inculcate the obligation of obedience to
them, and to establish in all hearts, respect, love, and veneration for the sovereign?
The disturbances of our epoch, and the dangers constantly besetting
thrones, are not exactly attributable to the propagation of doctrines more or
less democratical, but to the absence of moral and religious principles. What
will be gained by asserting that power comes from God, if people believe not
in God? Point out the sacred character of the duty of obedience, and what
effect will it produce upon those who admit not the existence of moral order,
and to whom duty is merely a chimerical idea? Suppose, on the contrary,
that you have to deal with men penetrated with moral and religious principles,
who bow to the will of God, and believe themselves bound to submit to it, so
soon as it is manifested to them. What does it matter then whether civil
power proceeds from God directly or indirectly? it is enough to convince them,
in one way or another, that, whatever be its origin, God approves of it, and
wills that it should be obeyed; they will immediately submit with pleasure,
for they will see in this submission the accomplishment of a duty.</p>

<p>These considerations serve to explain the reason why certain doctrines appear
more dangerous now than formerly: incredulity and immorality give them
perverse interpretations, and apply them so as to create nothing but excesses
and disorders. From the manner in which the despotism of Philip II. and his
successors is now spoken of, we might be led to suppose that in their time no
other doctrines than those in favor of the most rigid absolutism could be circulated;
and yet we find that there were circulated, without the least apprehension
on the part of power, works maintaining theories which, even in our days,
would be esteemed too bold. Is it not, therefore, remarkable, that the famous
book of Father Mariana, intituled <cite>De Rege et Regis institutione</cite>, which was
burned at Paris by the hand of the public executioner, had been published in
Spain eleven years before, without the least obstacle to its publication, either
on the part of the ecclesiastical or civil authority? Mariana undertook his task
at the instigation and request of D. Garcia de Loaisa, tutor to Philip III., and
subsequently Bishop of Toledo; so that the work, strange to say, was intended
for the instruction of the heir-apparent. Never was more freedom used in
speaking to kings; never was tyranny condemned in a louder voice; never
were more popular doctrines proclaimed; and the work was, nevertheless,
published at Toledo, in 1599, in the printing-office of Pedro Rodrigo, printer to
the king, with the approbation of P. Fr. Pedro de Ona, provincial of the Mercenaries
of Madrid, with the permission of Stephen Hojeda, visitor of the
Society of Jesus in the province of Toledo, under the generalship of Claude
Aquaviva; and, what is still more forcible, with the royal sanction, and a
dedication to the king himself. We should also observe, that Mariana was not
satisfied with this dedication placed at the commencement of the book, but he
makes the very title itself serve to show to whom it was addressed: <cite>De Rege
et Regis institutione. Libri 3, ad Philippum 3, Hispaniæ Regem Catholicum</cite>;
and, as if this were not sufficient, in dedicating his Spanish version of the History
of Spain to Philip III., he says to him: "I last year dedicated to your
majesty a work of my own composition, upon the virtues which ought to exist
in a good king, my desire being that all princes should read it carefully and
understand it." "El año pasado presenté á V. M. un libro que compuse de las
virtudes que debe tener un buen Rey, que deseo lean y entiendan todos los
principes con cuidado."</p>

<p>We will pass over his doctrine upon tyrannicide, which was the principal
cause of its condemnation in France, where there existed, without doubt, motives
of alarm, since kings were perishing there by the hand of the assassin.
On examining his theory upon power, we find it as popular and liberal as those<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_313" id="Page_313">[Pg 313]</a></span>
of modern democrats could be. Mariana ventures to express his opinions without
evasion or disguise. For example, drawing a parallel between the king and
the tyrant, he says: "The king exercises with great moderation the power
which he has received from his subjects.... Hence, he does not, like the
tyrant, oppress his subjects as slaves, but governs them as free men; and having
received his power from the people, he takes particular care that during his
life, the people shall voluntarily yield him submission." "Rex quam a subditis
accepit potestatem singulari modestia exercet.... Sic fit, ut subditis non
tanquam servis dominetur, quod faciunt tyranni, sed tanquam liberis præsit, et
qui a populo potestatem accepit, id in primis curæ habet ut per totam vitam
volentibus imperet." (Lib. 1, cap. 4, p. 57.) This was said in Spain by a
simple religious, was sanctioned by his superiors, and attentively listened to by
kings. To what grave reflections does this simple fact lead us! Where is that
strict and indissoluble alliance which the enemies of the Church have imagined
to exist between her dogmas and those of slavery? If such expressions as the
above were tolerated in a country in which Catholicity predominated so extensively,
how can it be maintained that such a religion tends to enslave the
human race, and that its doctrines are favorable to despotism? Nothing would
be easier than to fill whole volumes with remarkable passages of our writers,
both lay and clerical, showing the extreme liberty granted upon this point, as
well by the Church as by the civil government. What absolute monarch in
Europe would approve of one of his high functionaries expressing the origin
of power after the manner of our immortal Saavedra? "It is from the centre
of justice," says he, "that the circumference of the crown has been drawn. The
latter would not be necessary, if we could dispense with the former.</p>

<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza">
<div class="verse">Hac una reges olim sunt fine creati,<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Dicere jus populis, injustaque tollere facta.<br /></div>
</div></div></div>

<p>In the first age, there was no necessity for penalties, because the law did not
take cognisance of transgressions; rewards were equally unnecessary, because
integrity and honor were loved for their own sakes. But vice, growing with
the age of the world, intimidated virtue; simple and confiding, the latter, till
then, dwelt in the country. Equality was despised, modesty and chastity lost,
ambition and force introduced, and after them domination. Prudence, forced
by necessity, and aroused by the light of nature, reduced men to a state of civil
society, to exercise therein those virtues to which reason inclines them. By
means of the articulate voice with which nature had gifted them, they could
explain to each other their mutual thoughts, manifest to each other their sentiments,
and explain their wants, instruct, counsel, and protect each other.
Society once formed, a power was created <em>by common consent, in the whole of this
community, enlightened by the law of nature</em>, for preserving its different parts, for
maintaining them in justice and peace, by punishing vice and rewarding virtue.
<em>As this power could not remain spread through the whole body of the people, on
account of the confusion which would have arisen from the resolutions and their
execution</em>, and as it was absolutely necessary that there should be some to command,
and others to obey, <em>one portion divested itself of this power, and vested it
in one member, or in a small, or in a great, number of members, that is to say,
in one of the three forms of every state government&mdash;monarchy, aristocracy, or
democracy</em>. Monarchy was the first; because men selected for their government,
out of their families, and afterwards even from among the whole people,
some one who excelled the rest in goodness: his greatness increasing, they
honored his hand with the sceptre, and encircled his head with a crown as an
emblem of majesty, and as a badge of the supreme power which they had conferred
upon him. This power, however, consists chiefly in that justice which
ought to maintain the people in peace; <em>this justice failing, the order of the state<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_314" id="Page_314">[Pg 314]</a></span>
fails, and the office of king ceases</em>, as was the case in Castile, when the government
by judges was substituted for that by kings, on account of the injustice
of D. Ordona and of D. Fruela." (<cite>Character of a Christian Prince's Policy, set
forth in a hundred Devices</cite>, by D. Diego de Saavedra Fajardo, Knight of the
Order of St. James, Member of his Majesty's Supreme Council for the Indies,
<i>device</i> 22.)</p>

<p>The words <em>people</em>, <em>pact</em>, <em>consent</em>, have ended in becoming the dread of men of
sound ideas and upright intentions, on account of the deplorable abuses which
have been made of them in those immoral schools which ought rather to be
qualified with the epithet of irreligious than with that of democratical. No, it
was not the desire of ameliorating the condition of the people which led them
to overthrow the world, by overturning thrones and shedding torrents of blood
in civil discord; the real cause was a blind rage for reducing to ashes the work
of ages, by especially attacking religion, the main support of every thing wise,
just, and salutary, that European civilization had acquired. And, in fact, have
we not seen impious schools, whilst boasting of their liberty, bend under the
hand of despotism, whenever they thought it useful to their designs? Previous
to the French Revolution, were they not the basest adulators of kings, whose
prerogatives they extended immeasurably, with the intention of making regal
power the means of oppressing the Church? After the revolutionary epoch,
did we not see them assembled round Napoleon; and even yet, do they not
almost deify him? And why? Because Napoleon was revolution personified,
the representative and executor of the new ideas sought to be substituted for
the old ones. In the same manner Protestantism extols its Queen Elizabeth;
because it was she who placed the Establishment upon a solid foundation.
Revolutionary doctrines, besides the evils they inflict upon society, produce
indirectly another effect, which may, at first sight, appear salutary, but which,
in reality, is not so. They occasion dangerous reactions in the order of events,
and check the progress of knowledge, by narrowing and debasing men's ideas,
leading them to condemn as erroneous and pernicious, or to view with mistrust,
principles which would previously have been looked upon as sound, or that
would, at all events, have been regarded as mere harmless errors. The reason
of all this is, simply, that liberty has no worse enemy than licentiousness.</p>

<p>In support of this last observation, it may be well to show, that the most
rigorous doctrines in political matters have originated in countries in which
anarchy had made the greatest ravages, and precisely at the time when the evil,
still present, or very recent, was most keenly felt. The religious revolution of
the sixteenth century, and the political commotions consequent upon it, were
principally felt in the north of Europe; the south, and especially Italy and
Spain, were almost entirely preserved from them. Now, these last two countries
are precisely those in which the dignities and prerogatives of civil power
have been the least exaggerated, as well as those in which they were not disparaged
in theory, and were respected in practice. Of all modern nations,
England was the first in which a revolution, properly so called, was realized;
for I do not consider as such the insurrection of the German peasantry, which,
in spite of the terrible catastrophe which it caused, never effected any change in
the state of society; or that of the United Provinces, which may be considered
a war of independence. Now, it was precisely in England that the most erroneous
doctrines in favor of the supreme authority of civil power appeared.
Hobbes, who, whilst he refused to allow the rights of the Creator, attributed
unbounded authority to the monarchs of the earth, lived at the most agitated
and turbulent epoch in the annals of Great Britain. He was born in 1588, and
died in 1679.</p>

<p>In Spain, where the impious and anarchical doctrines, which had troubled
Europe since the schism of Luther, did not penetrate until the latter part of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_315" id="Page_315">[Pg 315]</a></span>
eighteenth century, we have seen that the greatest license of expression was
permitted upon the most important points of public right, and that doctrines
were maintained which, in any other country, would have been looked upon as
dangerous. Error gave rise to exaggeration; the rights of monarchs were
never so much extolled as under the reign of Charles III.; that is, at the time
when the modern epoch was inaugurated among us.</p>

<p>Religion, which predominated in all consciences, maintained them in the obedience
due to the sovereign, without there being any need of giving this obedience
any extraordinary titles, when its real ones were sufficient, as they certainly
were. For him who knows that God has prescribed obedience to lawful
authority, it matters little whether this authority emanate from Heaven directly
or indirectly, or whether society has more or less taken part in the determination
of political forms, or in the election of the persons or families who are to
exercise the supreme command. Hence we find that in Spain, although the
words <em>people</em>, <em>consent</em>, <em>pacts</em>, were spoken of, monarchs were held in the most
profound veneration, so much so that modern history does not mention a single
attempt upon their persons. Popular tumults were also of rare occurrence; and
those which did happen are not attributable to either of the two above-mentioned
doctrines. How does it happen that, at the end of the sixteenth century,
the Council of Castile was not alarmed at the bold principles of Mariana, in his
book <em>De Rege et Regis institutione</em>, whilst those of the Abbé Spedalieri, at the
end of the eighteenth century, were such a terror to it? The reason of this lies
not so much in the contents of the works, as in the epoch of their publication.
The former appeared at a time when the Spanish nation, confirmed in religious
and moral principles, might be compared to those robust constitutions capable
of bearing food difficult of digestion. The latter was introduced among us when
the doctrines and deeds of the French Revolution were shaking all the thrones
of Europe, and when the propagandism of Paris was beginning to pervert us by
its emissaries and books. In a nation in which reason and virtue prevail, in
which evil passions are never excited, in which the well-being and prosperity
of the country are the only aim of every citizen, the most popular and liberal
forms of government may exist without danger; for in such a nation numerous
assemblies produce no disorder, merit is not obscured by intrigue, nor are
worthless persons raised to the government, and the names of public liberty and
felicity do not serve as means to raise the fortunes or satisfy the ambition of
individuals. So also in a country in which religion and morality rule in every
breast, in which duty is not looked upon as an empty word, in which it is considered
really criminal to disturb the tranquillity of the state, to revolt against
the lawful authorities: in such a country, I say, it is less dangerous to discuss,
with more or less freedom, questions arising from theories on the formation
of society and the origin of the civil power, and to establish principles favorable
to popular rights. But when these conditions do not exist, it is of little use to
proclaim rigorous doctrines. To abstain from pronouncing the name of people,
as a sacrilegious word, is a useless precaution. How can it be expected, that
he who respects not Divine Majesty, should respect human? The conservative
schools of our age, proposing to place a restraint upon the revolutionary torrent,
and to tranquillize agitated nations, have almost always been infected with a
certain failing, which consists in forgetting the truth which I have just noticed:
<em>royal majesty</em>, <em>authority of the government</em>, <em>supremacy of the law</em>, <em>parliamentary
sovereignty</em>, <em>respect for established forms, and order</em>: such are the terms they
are constantly making use of. This is their palladium of society; and they
condemn with all their might <em>the state</em>, <em>insubordination</em>, <em>disobedience to the laws</em>,
<em>insurrection</em>, <em>riot</em>, <em>anarchy</em>; but they forget that these doctrines will not suffice,
unless there be some fixed point to which the first link of the chain may be
riveted. These schools, generally speaking, originate in the bosom of revolu<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_316" id="Page_316">[Pg 316]</a></span>tion;
they are directed by men who have figured in revolutions, who have contributed
to prepare them, who have given them their force, and who, in order
to attain the object of their ardent desires, feared not to ruin the edifice at its
foundation, by diminishing the ascendency of religion and opening the way to
moral relaxation. Hence they become powerless when prudence, or their own
interests, bid them say, "<em>We have gone far enough</em>;" and, hurried on like the
rest by the furious whirlwind, they have neither the means of stopping the
movement nor of giving it a proper direction.</p>

<p>We are continually hearing the <cite>Contrat Social</cite> of Rousseau condemned on
account of its anarchical doctrines, whilst at the same time doctrines are circulated
tending visibly to weaken religion. Can we possibly believe that the <cite>Contrat
Social</cite> has alone caused all the commotions of Europe? It has doubtless
produced serious evils, but still more serious ones have been caused by that irreligion
which so deeply undermines the foundations of society, which loosens
family bonds, and delivers up the individual to the caprice of his passions, with
no other restraint or guide than the promptings of his own low egotism. Men
of upright and reflecting minds begin to penetrate these truths. We find, nevertheless,
in the political sphere, this error, which attributes to the action of civil
government sufficient creative power to form, organize, and preserve society,
independently of all moral and religious influences. It is of little consequence
what be maintained in theory, if this error be acted upon in practice; and what
avails the proclaiming of certain sound principles, if our conduct is not guided
by them? These philosophico-political schools, which are desirous of ruling
the destinies of the world, proceed in a way diametrically opposite to that of
Christianity. The latter, whose principal object was heaven, did not, however,
neglect the happiness of man upon earth; it addressed itself directly to the
understanding and the heart, considering that the community is regulated by the
conduct of individuals, and that, in order to have a well-regulated society, it was
necessary to have good citizens. To proclaim certain political principles, to
institute particular forms&mdash;such is the panacea of some schools, who deem it
possible to govern society without exercising a due influence over the intelligence
and heart of man; reason and experience agree in teaching us what we
may expect from such a system.</p>

<p>Profoundly to impress the minds of men with religion and morality,&mdash;this is
the first step towards the prevention of revolutions and disorganization. When
these sacred objects have acquired their full influence over the hearts of men,
there is no longer any thing to be apprehended from a greater or less latitude
in political opinions. What confidence can a government repose in a man professing
highly monarchical opinions, if he join impiety to them? Will he who
refuses to give to God his rights, respect those of temporal kings? "The first
thing," says Seneca, "is the worship of the gods, and faith in their existence;
we are next to acknowledge their majesty, and bounty, without which there is
no majesty." "Primum est Deorum cultus, Deos credere; deinde reddere illis
majestatem suam, reddere bonitatem, sine qua nulla majestas est." (Seneca,
<cite>Epist</cite>. 95.) Observe how Cicero, the first orator and perhaps the greatest philosopher
of Rome, expresses himself: "It is necessary," says he, "that the
citizens should be first persuaded of the existence of gods, the directors and
rulers of all things, in whose hands are all events, who are ever conferring on
mankind immense benefits, who search the heart of man, who see his actions,
the spirit of piety which he carries into the practice of religion, and who distinguish
the life of the pious from that of the ungodly man." "Sit igitur jam hoc
a principio persuasum civibus, dominos esse omnium rerum, ac moderatores
deos; eaque quæ gerantur, eorum geri ditione ac numine, eosdemque optime
de genere hominum mereri, et qualis quisque sit, quid agat, quid inde admittat,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_317" id="Page_317">[Pg 317]</a></span>
qua mente, qua pietate colat religiones intueri: piorumque et impiorum habere
rationem." (Cic. <cite>de Nat. Deor.</cite> 2.)</p>

<p>These truths should be profoundly impressed upon the mind: the evils of
society do not principally emanate from political ideas or systems; the root of
the evil lies in religion; and if a check is not put upon irreligion, it is vain to
proclaim the most rigid monarchical principles. Hobbes did certainly flatter
kings a little more than Bellarmin; and yet, when these two writers are compared,
what sensible monarch would not prefer as a subject the learned and
pious controvertist?<a href="#Note_30" class="fnanchor">30</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LIII" id="CHAPTER_LIII">CHAPTER LIII.</a><br />

<small>ON THE FACULTIES OF THE CIVIL POWER</small>.</h2>


<p>Having shown that the Catholic doctrine upon the origin of the civil power
does not include any thing but what is perfectly reasonable and reconcilable
with the true interests of the people, let us discuss the second of the proposed
questions. Let us inquire into the nature of the faculties of this power, and
see whether under this aspect the Church teaches any thing favorable to despotism&mdash;to
that oppression of which she is so calumniously accused of being a supporter.
We invite our opponents to demonstrate the contrary, fully confident
that they will find it more difficult to succeed in so doing, than to accumulate
vague accusations, which serve only to lead too confiding minds astray. To
sustain these charges properly, recourse should be had to texts of Scripture, to
tradition, to the decisions of Councils, or to those of Supreme Pontiffs, to passages
of the Fathers; and it should be shown that these immoderately extend
the bounds of power, with the design of placing undue restraint upon the liberty
of the people, or of destroying it. But it will be said, if the sources retained
their purity, the streams have been polluted by commentators; in other terms,
theologians of latter ages, becoming the adulators of civil power, have powerfully
labored to extend its faculties, and, consequently, to establish despotism.
As many persons too readily claim the right of criticizing the doctors of what
is termed the period of decline, flippantly censuring those illustrious men, without
having ever taken the trouble to open their works, it is necessary for us to
enter into some details on this subject, and to dispel prejudices and errors which
are seriously injurious to religion, and not less so to science.</p>

<p>The declamations and invectives of Protestants have induced certain minds to
imagine that every idea of liberty would have disappeared from the heart of
Europe, had it not been for the timely intervention of the pretended Reformation
of the sixteenth century. According to this idea, Catholic theologians are
represented as a crowd of ignorant monks, capable only of writing, in bad language
and in still worse style, a heap of nonsense, the ultimate and only aim of
which was to exalt the authority of Popes and kings, and to support intellectual
and political oppression, obscurantism, and tyranny. That a portion should
become the victim of illusion in matters the investigation of which is difficult
and arduous; that the reader should suffer himself to be deceived by a writer on
whose word he must either rely or remain in complete ignorance,&mdash;as, for example,
in the description of a country or a phenomenon examined only by the narrator,&mdash;is
nothing strange; but that any one should adhere to errors which a few
moments spent in the most obscure library would eradicate, that the authors of
the brilliant volumes of Paris should have the privilege of disfiguring with impunity
the opinions of a writer lying covered with dust and forgotten in the
same library, and perhaps on the same shelf upon which the former glitter; that
the reader should peruse with avidity the glossy pages of the newly-published<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_318" id="Page_318">[Pg 318]</a></span>
work, filling his mind with the writer's notions, without even so much as putting
forth his hand to the voluminous tome within his reach, and which needs only
to be opened to furnish at every page a refutation of the censures in which
levity, if not bad faith, is so ready to indulge; is difficult to be conceived or
excused in any man professing to be a lover of science, and a conscientious
investigator of truth. A great number of writers would assuredly not be so
ready and free to speak of what they have never studied, to analyze books which
they have never read, if they did not reckon upon the docility and levity of
their readers; they would certainly refrain from pronouncing magisterially upon
an opinion, a system, or a school, in fine, upon the labors of many ages, from
deciding the gravest questions by a sally of wit, if they found that the reader,
seized in his turn with distrust, and particularly with the skepticism of the period,
would not place implicit faith in their assertions, but would take the trouble to
confront them with the facts to which they relate.</p>

<p>Our ancestors did not consider themselves justified, I will not say in making
an assertion, but even a single allusion, without giving careful references to the
source of their information. Their delicacy on this point was carried to excess;
but we have done wrong by going to the opposite extreme, and judging that we
might dispense with all formality, even in the most important matters which
imperiously demand the testimony of facts. But the opinions of ancient writers
are facts, facts averred in their writings. By judging them hastily, without
entering into details, without imposing upon ourselves the obligation of quoting
authorities, we incur the suspicion of falsifying history, and history, I repeat,
the most precious, that of the human mind. The levity observable in certain
writers proceeds, in a great measure, from the character which science has
assumed in our days. There is no longer any particular science, but only a
general one, embracing them all, and including in its immense circle all branches
of knowledge. Consequently, minds of ordinary capacity are obliged to remain
satisfied with vague notions, unfortunately only serving to stimulate abstraction
and universality. Never was knowledge so much generalized as now, and never
was it more difficult to obtain deserved renown for wisdom. In every aspirant
to scientific excellence the state of science requires a laborious activity in the
acquisition of knowledge, profound reflection to regulate and direct it, a comprehensive
and penetrating view to simplify and concentrate it, an intellect of a
high order, elevating him to the regions in which science has established her
abode. How many men are endowed with these qualifications? But let us
revert to the subject.</p>

<p>Catholic theologians are so far from favoring despotism, that I doubt much
whether it would be possible to find better books than theirs for enabling us to
form clear and just ideas of the faculties of power. I will even add that, generally
speaking, they incline, in a very remarkable manner, to the development
of true liberty. The great type of theological schools, the model to the contemplation
of which they have constantly turned during several centuries, are
the works of St. Thomas of Aquin; and we may with full confidence defy our
opponents to find us a jurist or philosopher who expounds with more lucidity,
wisdom, noble independence, and generous dignity, the principles to which civil
power ought to adhere. His <cite>Treatise upon Laws</cite> is immortal, and whoever has
fully comprehended it has no further information to acquire respecting the great
principles which ought to guide the legislator. You think lightly of past times,
imagining that till now nothing was known of politics or public right; and in
your imagination you invent an incestuous alliance between religion and despotism,
fancying you have discovered in the distant obscurity of the cloister, the
plot contrived by this infamous pact. But have you heard the opinion of a religious
of the thirteenth century upon the nature of law? You already imagine
that you see in his ideas force dominating over all, and constantly invoking<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_319" id="Page_319">[Pg 319]</a></span>
religion the better to disguise his rude snares with a few falsehoods. Learn,
then, that you could not yourself have given a milder definition of law. You
would never have thought, as he has done, of excluding from it the idea of force;
you could never have conceived how, in so few words, he has managed to say
all, and with such exactitude, such lucidity, in terms so favorable to the true
liberty of the people and to the dignity of man. The definition here spoken of
being the summary of his entire doctrine, and at the same time the guide which
has directed theologians, may be considered as an abridgment of theological
doctrines in their relation to the faculties of civil power. It presents to us at a
single glance what were, in this point of view, the predominating principles
among Catholics.</p>

<p>Civil power acts upon society through the medium of the law; and, according
to St. Thomas, the law is, "<em>a rule dictated by reason, the aim of which is
the public good, and promulgated by him who has the care of society</em>." "Quædam
rationis ordinatio ad bonum commune, et ab eo qui curam communitatis
habet promulgata." (1, 2, quæst. 90, art. 4.) A rule dictated by reason,
<i lang="la">rationis ordinatio</i>. Here by one word despotism and force are banished; here
is the principle that the law is not a pure effect of the will. The celebrated
maxim, <i lang="la">Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem</i>, is here corrected. Although
capable of a reasonable and just interpretation, this maxim was, nevertheless,
incorrect, and inclined to flattery. A celebrated writer of our days has devoted
numerous pages to proving that legitimacy has not its origin in the will of man,
but in reason, inferring from this that what ought to command men is not in
the will of another man, but reason. With much less pomp, but not less solidity
and conciseness, the holy Doctor expresses this idea in the words above quoted,
<i lang="la">rationis ordinatio</i>. On reflection we find that despotism, arbitrary power, and
tyranny are nothing else than the absence of reason in power, the domination
of the will. When reason commands, there is legitimacy, justice, liberty;
when the will alone commands, there is illegitimacy, injustice, despotism. Hence
the fundamental idea of all law is, that it be in accordance with reason, that it
be an emanation from reason, an application of reason to society; and the will,
in giving its sanction to law and carrying it into execution, should be merely
auxiliary to reason, its instrument, its arm.</p>

<p>It is evident that, without the action of the will, there is no law; for acts of
pure reason, without the co-operation of the will, are thoughts and not commands.
They enlighten the mind, but do not produce action. It is, therefore,
impossible to conceive the existence of law without the combined operation of
the will and of reason. But this is no reason why we should not consider all
law to have a rational foundation and to be conformable to reason, that it may
merit the name of law. These observations have not escaped the penetration
of the holy Doctor; he examines them, and dispels the error of believing that
the law consists in the mere will of the prince. He expresses himself as follows:
"Reason receives its motive power from the will, as we have observed
above (quæst. 17, art. 1;) for whilst the will seeks the end, reason enjoins the
means of its attainment; but the will, to have the force of law, must be guided
by reason. In this sense only can the will of a sovereign be said to have the
force of law; in any other sense it would not be law, but injustice." "Ratio
habet vim movendi a voluntate, ut supra dictum est. (Quæst. 17, art. 1.) Ex
hoc enim quod aliquis vult finem, ratio imperat de his quæ sunt ad finem, sed
voluntas de his quæ imperantur, ad hoc quod legis rationem habeat, oportet quod
sit aliqua ratione regulata; et hoc modo intelligitur quod voluntas principis
habet vigorem legis; <i lang="la">alioquin voluntas principis magis esset iniquitas quam lex</i>."
(Quæst. 90, art. 1.)</p>

<p>These doctrines of St. Thomas are the same as those of all theologians. Impartiality
and good sense will tell us whether they are favorable to absolutism<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_320" id="Page_320">[Pg 320]</a></span>
and despotism, whether they are in any way opposed to true liberty, whether
they are not eminently conformable to the dignity of man. These doctrines
form the most explicit and conclusive proclamation of the limits of civil power,
and they certainly have in this respect more weight than the declarations of
imprescriptible rights. That which humbles man, wounds in him the
feeling of a just independence, and introduces despotism into the world, is the
will of man commanding and exacting submission merely because it is his will;
but by submitting to reason, being guided by her dictates, we are not degraded;
on the contrary, we are elevated, we are dignified, for we live conformably to
eternal order and to the divine will. The obligation of being subject to the
law does not originate in the will of another, but in reason. Theologians, however,
have not considered the latter of itself sufficient to command. They derive
the sanction of the law from a higher source; when the conscience of man
was to be acted upon, to be bound by duty, they could find nothing in the
sphere of created things capable of attaining so high an object. "Human
laws, if they are just," says the holy Doctor, "are binding in conscience, and
they derive their power from the eternal law, from which they are formed, according
to what is said in Proverbs, chap. viii., 'By Me kings reign, and the
lawgivers decree just things.'" "Si quidem justæ sunt, habent vim obligandi
in foro conscientiæ a lege eterna, a qua derivantur, secundum illud Proverb.
cap. 8, per me reges regnant, et legum conditores justa decernunt." (1, 2,
quæst. 96, art. 3.) This proves, according to St. Thomas, that just law is
derived not exactly from human reason, but from the eternal law; and that
this is what makes it binding upon conscience.</p>

<p>This is doubtless more philosophical than to seek the obligatory force of laws
in private reason, in pacts, or in the general will. In this manner the titles,
the true titles of humanity are explained, a reasonable limit is placed upon
civil power, and obedience is easily obtained; the rights and duties of governments,
as well as those of subjects, are established upon solid and indestructible
foundations; the nature of power, society, command, and obedience become
perfectly comprehensible. It is no longer the will of one man predominating
over that of his fellow-man; it is not his reason, but reason emanating from
God, or more properly speaking the reason of God, the eternal law, God Himself.
A sublime theory, in which power finds its rights, its duties, its force,
its authority, its prestige, and in which society possesses its safest guarantee of
order, well-being, and true liberty; a theory which divests authority of the
will of man, since it changes this will into an instrument of the eternal law,
into a divine ministry, <em>whose aim is the public good, ad bonum commune</em>. This,
according to St. Thomas, is also one of the essential conditions of law. It has
been asked, Whether kings are made for the people, or the people for kings?
Such a question could only arise from a want of due reflection upon the nature
of society, its object, and its origin, and upon the intent of power. The concise
expression above cited, <i lang="la">ad bonum commune</i>, is a fitting answer to this
question. "Laws," says the holy Doctor, "may be unjust in two ways; either
by being opposed to the commonweal, or by having an improper aim, as when
a government imposes upon its subjects onerous laws, which do not serve the
common interest, but rather cupidity and ambition. Such laws are rather injustices
than laws." "Injustæ autem sunt leges dupliciter; uno modo per
contrarietatem ad bonum commune, e contrario prædictis; vel ex fine, sicut cum
aliquis præsidens leges imponit, onerosas subditis non pertinentes ad utilitatem
communem, sed magis ad propriam cupiditatem vel gloriam: ...... Et
hujusmodi magis sunt violentiæ quam leges." (1, 2, q. 96, art. 4.) From
this doctrine it follows, that command must be exercised for the well-being of
all; and, failing in this condition, it is unjust: governors are invested with it
only for the advantage of the governed. Kings are not, as some philosophers,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_321" id="Page_321">[Pg 321]</a></span>
regardless of the most palpable inconsistencies, have absurdly maintained, the
slaves of their people; neither is their power a simple commission without any
real authority, and continually subject to the caprice of their people; but, at
the same time, the people are not the property of their kings. The latter can,
by no means, consider their subjects as slaves, to be disposed of at their free-will:
governments are not, by any means, the absolute arbiters of the lives and
fortunes of the governed; they are bound to watch over them, not as a master
over slaves from whom he derives profit, but as a father over the son whom he
loves and whose happiness he has at heart.</p>

<p>"The kingdom is not made for the king, but the king for the kingdom," says
the holy Doctor, from whom I continue to quote; and, in a style remarkable
for its force and freedom, he continues as follows: "for God has constituted
kings to rule and govern, and to secure to every one the possession of his
rights; such is the aim of their institution; but if kings, turning things to their
own profit, should act otherwise, they are no longer kings, but tyrants." (<cite>D.
Th. de Reg. Princ.</cite> cap. 11.) From this doctrine it is evident, that the people
are not made for kings; that the subject is not made for the ruler; but that all
governments have been established for the good of society, and that this alone
should be the compass to guide those who are in command, whatever be the
form of government. From the president of the most insignificant republic to
the most powerful monarch, none are exempt from this law; for it is a law anterior
to society,&mdash;a law which presided at the formation of society, and which
is superior to human law, inasmuch as it emanates from the Author of all society,
from the source of all law.</p>

<p>No, the people are not made for kings; kings are all appointed for the good
of the people: and if this object is not accomplished, the government is useless;
and this affects the republic as well as the monarchy. To flatter kings
with opposite maxims is to ruin them. Religion has not, at any time, done
this; this was not the language of those illustrious men who, clothed in the
sacerdotal habit, delivered to the powerful ones of the earth the messages of
Heaven. "Kings, princes, magistrates," cries out the venerable Palafox, "all
jurisdiction is ordained by God for the preservation of His people, not for their
destruction; for defence, not for offence; for man's right, and not for his injury.
They who maintain that kings can do as they please, and who establish their
power upon their will, open the way to tyranny. Those who maintain that
kings have power to do as they ought, and what is necessary for the preservation
of their subjects and of their crowns, for the exaltation of faith and religion,
for the just and right administration of justice, the preservation of peace
and the support of just war, for the due and becoming <i lang="fr">éclat</i> of regal dignity,
the honorable maintenance of their houses and families, speak the truth without
flattery, throw open the gates to justice, and to magnanimous and royal
virtues." (<cite>Hist. Real. Sagrada</cite>, lib. i. cap. 11.) When Louis XIV. said, "I
am the state," he had not learned this maxim either from Bossuet, Bourdaloue,
or Masillon. Pride, exalted by so much grandeur and power, and infatuated
by base adulators, was here speaking by his mouth. How unsearchable are
the ways of Providence! The corpse of this man, who said he was the state,
was insulted at his funeral; and, before the lapse of a century, his grandson
suffered death on the scaffold! Thus the crimes of families are expiated, as
well as those of nations. When the measure of His indignation is filled up,
the Lord reminds terrified man that the God of mercy is likewise a God of
vengeance, and that, as He opened upon the world the floodgates of heaven, so
also He lets loose upon kings and nations the tempests of revolution. When
once the rights and duties of power are founded upon a base as solid as that of
their divine origin, when once they become established by a rule as exalted as
that of the eternal law, there is no longer any necessity for extolling or exag<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_322" id="Page_322">[Pg 322]</a></span>gerating
power, nor of attributing to it faculties to which it has no claim; and,
on the other hand, it is no longer necessary to exact from it the fulfilment of
its obligations with that imperious haughtiness which enervates by humiliating
it. Flattery and menace become alike needless when there are other resources
for exciting it to action, and other barriers for restraining it within due bounds.
The statue of the king, it is true, is not set up in the public squares as an object
for the people's adoration; but, on the other hand, the king is no longer
placed at the mercy of democrats, soon to become an object of mockery and
derision, the contemptible laughing-stock of demagogues.</p>

<p>Observe the moderation and mildness of the definition we have just analysed!
It does not contain a single word which can wound the most delicate
susceptibility of the most ardent partisans of public liberty. The law, according
to this definition, consists in the rule of reason; the common weal is its
only aim; and when the authority of him who promulgates and executes it is
spoken of, there is no mention made of any sovereignty, no expression is used
indicative of slavish subjection, the most measured term which it was possible
to select is made use of&mdash;<em>care</em>: <i lang="la">Qui <span class="smcap">CURAM</span> communitatis habet</i>. Bear in mind,
that the author here quoted is accustomed to weigh his words like precious
metal, and to employ them with the most scrupulous delicacy, pausing a long
time, when necessary, to explain any that may present the least ambiguity, and
you will then understand what ideas this great man entertained upon power;
you will discover whether the spirit of oppressive doctrines could have prevailed
in the Catholic schools, in which this Doctor was, and is still, acknowledged
as an almost infallible oracle.</p>

<p>Compare the definition given by St. Thomas, and adopted by all theologians,
with that which Rousseau has given. In that of St. Thomas, law is the expression
of reason; in that of Rousseau, the expression of will: in the former,
it is an application of the eternal law; in the latter, the product of general will.
On which side are wisdom and good sense? Law was understood among the
nations of Europe as it is explained by St. Thomas and all the Catholic schools;
and tyranny was banished from Europe, Asiatic despotism was impossible, the
admirable institution of European monarchy was established. At a later
period, Rousseau's explanation was adopted, and then came the Convention,
with its scaffolds and its horrors.</p>

<p>Publicists have already nearly abandoned the theory of "a general will;"
and even those who contend for the sovereignty of the people, do not maintain
that the will of all the citizens should constitute the law. The law, say they,
is not the expression of general will, but of general reason. The philosopher
of Geneva would have the will of individuals collected, the aggregate of which
he termed the general will. In like manner, the publicists of whom we are
speaking are of opinion that it is necessary to collect, amongst the governed,
the greatest amount of reason, and to give this to the government for its
guidance, the governing body being merely an instrument for the application
of it. It is not men who command, say they, but the law; and the law is
nothing else than reason and justice.</p>

<p>This theory, so far as it is correct, and apart from the applications which
might be made of it, is not a discovery of modern science; it is a traditional
principle of all Europe, which presided at the formation of society, and has
given to civil power an organisation differing widely from those of antiquity,
and equally so from those of modern times that have not participated in our
civilisation. This, on close examination, appears to be the reason why European
monarchies, even the most absolute, have been so very different from the
Asiatic. A singular phenomenon: at the very time when society among us
had no legal guarantees against the power of kings, it still had other very forcible
ones which were purely moral. Modern science cannot, therefore, claim<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_323" id="Page_323">[Pg 323]</a></span>
the discovery of a new principle of government; it has unknowingly resuscitated
the ancient one. By rejecting the doctrine of Rousseau, instead of
making, according to the vulgar expression, a step in advance, it retrograded;
but to retrograde is not always to lose an advantage. What is or can be lost
by receding from the brink of a precipice to enter upon a safe road? Rousseau
complains, and with reason, that certain writers have so far exaggerated
the prerogatives of civil power, as to convert mankind into a common herd, of
which rulers could dispose to serve their interest or caprice. Such reproaches,
however, cannot be applied to the Catholic Church, nor to any of the illustrious
schools sheltered in her bosom. The philosopher of Geneva makes a
severe attack upon Hobbes and Grotius for having maintained this servile doctrine.
Catholics have nothing to do with the cause of these two writers. I
will observe, however, that it would not be just to place the latter upon a parallel
with the former. Grotius has certainly afforded reason for the accusation.
He maintains that there are cases in which governments are not for the
benefit of the governed, but for that of the governing powers. "Sic imperia
quædam esse possunt comparata ad regum utilitatem." (<cite>De Jure Belli et
Pacis</cite>, lib. i. cap. 3.) But, whilst we acknowledge that this principle has a
dangerous tendency, we grant that the doctrines of the Dutch writer do not
upon the whole tend to the total ruin of morality.</p>

<p>By rendering Grotius his due share of justice, we prevent any exaggeration
of the evil which may exist on the side of our opponents; it must now be permitted
to Catholic hearts to remark with noble satisfaction, that such doctrines
could never be established amongst the professors of the true faith, and that
the fatal maxims which lead to oppression have originated precisely among
those who have deviated from the teaching of the Chair of St. Peter. No;
Catholics have never brought under discussion whether kings have an unlimited
power over the lives and fortunes of their subjects, to such a degree as to admit
of no opposition, whatever be the excess of the absolutism and despotism
exercised over them. Whenever flattery raised its voice to exaggerate the
royal prerogative, this voice was immediately silenced by the unanimous outcry
of the supporters of sound doctrine. Witness the remarkable example of
a solemn retractation imposed by the tribunal of the Inquisition upon a
preacher who had exceeded his bounds. Not so in England, a country proverbial
for its hatred of Catholicity. Whilst here, in Spain, it was forbidden
under a severe penalty to circulate maxims so degrading, in England the
question was proposed with the greatest gravity, and writers upon law were
divided in their sentiments. (See end of chapter 39.)</p>

<p>Every impartial reader has already been able to form an opinion on the value
of declamations against the right divine, and on that pretended affinity of Catholic
doctrines with despotism and slavery. The exposition of these doctrines
which I have just given is certainly not founded upon vain reasoning, sought
out on purpose to darken the question. I have not in any way shunned the
difficulty.</p>

<p>The question was, to know in what these doctrines consisted. I have shown
clearly, that those who calumniate them do not understand them, and that we
may even be allowed to suppose that they have never taken the trouble to examine
them, such is the levity and ignorance with which they express themselves.
Perhaps I have adduced too many facts and quotations; but let the
reader bear in mind, that my object is not to present him with a code of doctrines,
but to give to this point of doctrine an historical investigation. Now,
history does not call for discourses, but facts; and in matters of doctrine, the
sentiments of authors are facts. Whilst beholding the salutary reaction now
taking place in favour of sound principles, let us avoid giving an incomplete
statement of the truth. For the cause of religion it is highly important that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_324" id="Page_324">[Pg 324]</a></span>
its advocates should be free from even the most remote suspicion of dishonesty
or dissimulation. On this account, I have, without hesitation, given in their
integrity the doctrines laid down by Catholic writers, just as I find them in
their works. By misrepresenting and confounding facts, Protestants and unbelievers
have succeeded in deceiving; let me hope that, by explaining and
elucidating them, I shall not be unsuccessful in removing the deception.</p>

<p>I purpose examining, in the remaining part of this work, some other questions
relating to the same subject&mdash;questions perhaps not more important, but
certainly more delicate. And for this reason, I was obliged to smooth the way,
that I might proceed with more liberty and ease. I have hitherto made the
cause of religion defend itself with its own weapons, without borrowing the
support of auxiliaries which were superfluous. I shall proceed in the same
course, fully convinced that Catholicity can only lose by any line of vindication
that identifies it with political interests, and confines it within a circle too
limited for its immensity. Empires appear and disappear; the Church of Christ
will last till the end of time. Political opinions undergo changes and modifications;
the august dogmas of our religion remain immutable. Thrones rise
and fall; and the rock upon which Jesus Christ has built His Church stands
unshaken throughout the course of time, ever defying the powers of hell. When
we take up arms in her defence, let us be impressed with the importance of our
mission; let there be no exaggeration, no flattery&mdash;the pure truth in measured,
but accurate and firm language. In addressing ourselves to the people, in
proclaiming the truth to kings, let us bear in mind that religion is above politics,
and God above kings and people.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LIV" id="CHAPTER_LIV">CHAPTER LIV.</a><br />

<small>ON RESISTANCE TO THE CIVIL POWER</small>.</h2>


<p>The doctrines of Catholicity, therefore, in reference both to the origin and
the exercise of civil power, are unobjectionable. Let us now proceed to another
point&mdash;one of greater delicacy and difficulty, if not of more importance. To
state the question frankly, without any subterfuge or evasion: "<em>Is it allowable
in any case to resist the civil power?</em>" It is impossible to speak more distinctly,
or to employ more precise and simple terms in stating this question, which is
the most important, the most difficult, and the most startling of any that the
subject we have in hand presents for our investigation. We know that Protestantism
from its commencement proclaimed the right of insurrection against
civil power; and no one is ignorant of the fact that Catholicity has ever
preached up obedience to this power; so that if the former has been from its
infancy an element of revolution and of overthrow, the latter has been an element
of tranquillity and good order. This distinction might induce us to believe
that Catholicity favors oppression, since it leaves the people without
arms to defend their liberty. "You preach up obedience to the civil powers,"
our adversaries will say; "you pronounce, in all cases, an anathema upon any
insurrection which attacks them; should tyranny prevail, therefore, you become
its most powerful auxiliaries; for, by your doctrine, you arrest the arm
ready to be raised in defence of liberty; you stifle with the cry of conscience
the indignation awakened in generous hearts." This is a serious charge, which
compels us to elucidate, as far as possible, this important point, and to distinguish
in it truth from error, certainty from doubt.</p>

<p>Some men would shrink from the investigation of such questions, and prefer
drawing a veil over them&mdash;a veil which they venture not to raise, lest they
should find an abyss. And assuredly their timidity is not inexcusable; for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_325" id="Page_325">[Pg 325]</a></span>
there are abysses unfathomable, and dangers that strike the mind with awe.
One false step may lead to destruction; one move in a wrong direction may
let loose tempests that would lay society in ruins. Whilst, however, I willingly
admit the pure intentions of such persons, I may be permitted to observe, that
their prudence is quite thrown away, that their foresight and precaution are
of no avail. Whether they investigate these questions or not, they are investigated,
agitated, and decided, in a manner that we must deplore; and, worse
still, the theories thence arising have been reduced to practice. Revolutions
are no longer confined to books, they have become realities; quitting the quiet
path of mere speculative philosophy, they are to be seen in the streets and in
the public squares. Since, then, things have come to such a pass, why seek
palliatives, make use of restrictions, or invoke silence? Let us tell the truth,
just as it is, without concealment; since it is the truth, it will neither shrink
before abundance of knowledge, nor the attacks of error. It is truth; its
manifestation, its diffusion can have no injurious effect. In a word, God, who
is the Author of societies, had no need of establishing them upon falsehood.
This candor is the more necessary, because political changes may have led
some persons to disavow the truths we are discussing, or no longer to understand
them aright; whilst others imagine that obedience to legitimate authority
has been taught only by a party anxious to make this doctrine the
foundation of their tyranny. Men of erroneous opinions and evil intentions
have their own codes, to which they have recourse whenever it will forward
their designs: their fatal errors or their sordid interests form the rule of their
conduct; this is the source of their knowledge and of their inspirations. Men,
therefore, endowed with a pure heart and with upright intentions, should know
what to hold by in political oscillations; it is no longer sufficient for them to
have a general knowledge of the principle of obedience to the legitimate authorities;
they must also be acquainted with their applications.</p>

<p>It is true that, in conflicts arising from civil discord, many men throw aside
their own convictions to accommodate themselves to the exigencies of their
interests; but it is no less certain, that there is still to be found a great number
of conscientious men who adhere to them. We may also add, that the
generality of the individuals composing a nation, not being usually in the
urgent necessity of choosing between the sacrifice of their convictions and the
risk of grave and imminent peril, those who entertain them usually find means
to make their influence felt in preventing great evils or in remedying them.
According to certain <i lang="fr">pessimistes</i>, reason and justice are for ever banished from
the earth, leaving it a prey to self-interest, and substituting for the dictates of
conscience the designs of egotism. In their estimation, it is labor in vain to
discuss and decide questions which may guide us in practice; for, according to
them, whatever a man's conviction may be in theory, his practical decision will
always be the same. It is my happiness, or misfortune, to take a different view
of the case, and to believe that there still exist in the world, and particularly
in Spain, men of profound convictions, and possessed of sufficient strength of
mind to regulate their conduct by those convictions. The strongest proof that
the inutility of doctrines is exaggerated, is the zeal evinced by all parties to
lay hold of them. Whether from interest or from delicacy, all appeal to doctrines;
and this interest or delicacy would not exist, if doctrines did not possess
a powerful ascendency in society. Nothing, in discussion, is more
perplexing than the introduction of several questions at the same time; and
for this reason, I shall proceed in such a manner as to distinguish those which
present themselves here. I will resolve, one by one, those which relate to our
object, and pass over those which are foreign to it. Above all, we must bear
in mind the general principle at all times inculcated by Catholicity, viz. <em>the
obligation of obeying legitimate authority</em>. Let us now see how this principle<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_326" id="Page_326">[Pg 326]</a></span>
is to be applied. In the first place, <em>Are we to obey the civil power when it commands
something that is evil in itself?</em> No, we are not; for the simple reason
that what is evil in itself is forbidden by God; now, <em>we must obey God rather
than men</em>.</p>

<p>In the second place, <em>Are we to obey the civil power when it interferes in matters
not included in the circle of its faculties?</em> No; for, with regard to these
matters, it is not a power. From the very supposition that its faculties do not
extend so far, we affirm that, in this point of view, it is not a real power. Besides,
what I have advanced does not exactly and exclusively concern spiritual
matters, to which I appear to allude. I apply this restriction of civil power
also to matters purely temporal. It is necessary to refer here to what I have
said in another part of this work, viz., that whilst we grant to civil power sufficient
force and attributes for the maintenance of order and unity in the social
body, it is just nevertheless, that we should not allow it to absorb the individual
and the family, so as to destroy their individuality, to deprive them of
their own sphere, and leave them only the means of acting as an integral part
of society. This is one of the distinguishing features between Christian and
pagan civilisation: the latter, in its zeal for the preservation of social unity,
excluded every individual and family right; the former, on the contrary, has
amalgamated the interests of the individual with those of families and society,
so that they neither destroy nor embarrass each other. Thus, besides the
sphere within which the action of the civil power is properly confined, there are
others into which it has no right to enter, and in which individuals and families
live without clashing with the colossal force of the government.</p>

<p>It is just to observe here, that Catholicity has done much for the maintenance
of this principle, which is a strong guarantee of the liberty of the people.
The separation of the two powers temporal and spiritual, the independence of
the latter with respect to the former, the distinction of the persons in whom it
is vested: such has been one of the principal causes of this liberty, which,
under different forms of government, is the common inheritance of European
nations. Ever since the foundation of the Church, this principle of the independence
of the spiritual power has at all times served, by the mere fact of its
existence, to remind men that the rights of civil power are limited, that there
are things beyond its province, cases in which a man may say, and ought to
say, <em>I will not obey</em>.</p>

<p>This is another of those cases in which Protestantism has given a wrong
direction to the civilisation of Europe, and in which, far from opening the way
to liberty, it has riveted the chains of slavery. Its first step was the abolition
of the Pontifical authority, the overthrow of the hierarchy, the refusal to grant
to the Church any kind of power whatever, and the placing of spiritual supremacy
in the hands of princes; that is to say, it has retrograded towards pagan
civilisation, in which we find the sceptre united with the pontificate. The
grand political problem was precisely the separation of these two powers, in
order to save society from subjection to one sole unlimited authority, exercising
its faculties without restraint, and from which might consequently be expected
vexation and oppression. This separation was effected without any political
views, any fixed design on the part of men, wherever Catholicity was established;
for her discipline required and her dogmas inculcated it. Is it not
strange that the advocates of theories of equilibrium and counterpoise, who
have so loudly extolled the utility of separating powers, and of dividing authority
among them with a view to prevent it from being converted into tyranny,
should not have noticed the profound wisdom of this Catholic doctrine, even
when considered merely in a social and political point of view? But no; it is
remarkable, on the contrary, that all modern revolutions have manifested a
decided tendency towards the amalgamation of the civil and ecclesiastical<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_327" id="Page_327">[Pg 327]</a></span>
powers&mdash;a convincing proof that these revolutions have proceeded from an
origin contrary to the generative principle of European civilisation, and that
instead of guiding it towards perfection, they have rather served to lead it
astray. The union of Church and State in England, under the reigns of
Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, produced the most cruel despotism; and if that
country at a later period acquired a higher degree of liberty, it was not assuredly
owing to that religious authority given by Protestantism to the head
of the state, but in spite of it. It is worthy of remark, that in later times,
when England entered upon a more extensive sphere of liberty, it was owing
to the diminution of the civil power on all matters appertaining to religion,
and to a greater development of Catholicity, opposed in its very principles to
this monstrous supremacy. In the North of Europe, where the Protestant
system has also prevailed, civil authority has been unlimited; and even at the
present time, we find the Emperor of Russia indulging in the most barbarous
persecutions against Catholics; more distrustful of those who defend the independence
of spiritual power, than of the revolutionary clubs. The autocrat is
devoured with a thirst for unlimited authority, and a decided instinct urges
him to attack in particular the Catholic religion, which forms his principal
obstacle.</p>

<p>It is remarkable with what uniformity all power, in this respect, tends to
despotism, whether under a revolutionary or monarchical form. Impatient of
the restraint laid upon him by the spiritual power, Louis XIV. attempted to
crush the power of Rome. He was urged to it by the same motives as the
Constituent Assembly; the monarch rested his cause upon the rights of
royalty, and the liberties of the Gallican Church&mdash;the Constituent Assembly
invoked the rights of the nation, and the principles of philosophy; but in the
main they were actuated by one and the same motive, that of ascertaining
whether or not civil power should be restricted: in the former case, it was
monarchy tending to despotism; in the latter, democracy advancing to the
terrors of the Convention. When Napoleon wished to bruise the head of the
revolutionary hydra, to reorganize society, to create a power, he made use of
religion as the most potent element. Catholicity was the only predominating
religion in France; to this he had recourse, and signed the <em>Concordat</em>. But,
observe, that no sooner did he imagine his work of reparation complete, and
the critical moment of the establishment of his power passed, than he began
to think of extending it, of freeing himself from all restraint. He began to
look upon that pontiff, whose presence at his coronation had so much gratified
him, with a more supercilious eye. At first he had some serious disputes with
him, and ended by becoming his most inveterate enemy.</p>

<p>These observations, to which I invite the attention of every reflecting mind,
acquire more importance from the consideration of what has taken place in our
own religious and most Catholic monarchy. In spite of the preponderating
influence of the Catholic religion in Spain, the principle of resistance to the
court of Rome has ever been preserved in a particular and remarkable manner;
thus, whilst the Austrian dynasty and the Bourbons endeavoured to lay aside
our old laws, so far as they were favourable to political liberty, they preserved
as a sacred deposit the traditional resistance of Ferdinand the Catholic, of
Charles V., and of Philip II. The deep root which Catholicity had taken in
Spain doubtless prevented matters from being carried to extremes; but it is no
less true that the germ existed, and was handed down from generation to generation,
as if its complete development was expected at some more favourable
period. This fact was placed in peculiarly strong relief at the time of the
Bourbon accession, when the monarchy of Louis XIV. was introduced amongst
us, and the last vestiges of the ancient liberties of Castile, Aragon, Valencia,
and Catalonia disappeared; the mania for kingly rights was at its height in the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_328" id="Page_328">[Pg 328]</a></span>
reigns of Charles III. and Charles IV. Strange coincidence! The epoch in
which the greatest jealousy was entertained against the Court of Rome and
the independence of Church authority, was exactly that in which ministerial
despotism was in its greatest force, and in which there was seen something
still worse&mdash;the despotism of a favorite, with all its pitiful show. True, the
ideas of the French schools were at that time influencing Spain; and of this
neither the King, nor, probably, some of his ministers, were aware: but this
does not militate against the reflections we are making; on the contrary, it
comes in support of them, by showing their applicability to circumstances quite
dissimilar, and consequently their soundness and importance. The object here
aimed at was the overthrow of the established authority, to make way for
another equally unlimited; to effect this, it was necessary to urge on the former
to abuse its prerogatives, and, at the same time, to establish precedents to
fall back upon, so soon as the revolution should have displaced the absolute
monarchy. What important reflections are here presented to us! What
strange analogies rise to view between circumstances apparently most antagonistic!
In our times, we have seen bishops brought to trial from the same
motives that were alleged in a celebrated cause in the reign of Charles III.;
and the <em>Supreme Tribunals</em> of our own days have heard from the lips of their
<em>fiscals</em><a name="FNanchor_B_2" id="FNanchor_B_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_B_2" class="fnanchor">[B]</a> the same doctrines formerly propounded by those of the <em>Council</em>. Thus
do doctrines meet, and thus, by different ways, do we arrive at the same end.
According to the ancient <em>fiscals</em>, the authority of the king was every thing;
the rights of the crown, like the ark of old, were held so sacred, that to touch,
or even to look upon them, was accounted a sacrilege. Well, the ancient monarchy
has disappeared&mdash;the throne is no longer any thing more than a shadow
of what it once was&mdash;the Revolution has triumphed over it; and yet, despite a
change so profound, it is not long since a <em>fiscal</em> of the Supreme Tribunal,
charging a bishop with an offence against the rights of the civil power, made
use of these words: "In the state, a leaf cannot be plucked without the permission
of government." These words need no comment; the writer of these
lines heard them uttered; and this plain, unequivocal declaration of arbitrary
power seemed to him to throw a new ray of light upon history.</p>

<p>The gravity and importance of this subject required this digression; it was
incumbent on me to show how far the Catholic principle of the independence
of spiritual power may serve the cause of true liberty. This principle, in fact,
eminently teaches that the faculties of civil power are limited, and it is, consequently,
a perpetual condemnation of despotism. To revert to the original
question. It remains, then, established, that we are to be subject to the civil
power so long as it does not go beyond its proper limits; but that the Catholic
doctrine never enjoins obedience when civil power oversteps the limits of its
faculties.</p>

<p>It will not be uninteresting to the reader to learn how the principle of obedience
was understood by one of the most illustrious interpreters of Catholic
doctrine&mdash;by the holy Doctor so often cited. According to him, whenever laws
are unjust (and observe, that, in his opinion, they may be so in many ways),
they are not binding on conscience, unless for fear of creating scandal, or
causing greater evils; that is to say, that, in certain cases, an unjust law may
become obligatory, not by virtue of any duty which it imposes, but from motives
of prudence. These are his words, to which I crave the reader's particular
attention: "Laws are unjust in two ways; either because they are
opposed to the common weal; or on account of their aim, as is the case when
a government imposes upon its subjects onerous laws, not for the good of the
commonweal, but for the sake of self-interest or ambition; or on account of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_329" id="Page_329">[Pg 329]</a></span>
their author, as when any one makes a law without being invested with proper
faculties; again, they may be unjust in form, as when the taxes are unequally
divided among the multitude, although in other respects tending to the public
good. Such laws are rather outrages than laws; since, as St. Augustin
observes (lib. i. <cite>de Lib. Arb.</cite> cap. 5), 'An unjust law does not appear to be a
law.' Such laws, therefore, are not binding in conscience, unless, perhaps, for
the avoiding of scandal and trouble&mdash;a motive which ought to induce man to
give up his right, as St. Matthew observes: 'And whosoever shall force thee
to go one mile, go with him other two; and if any man will go to law with
thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.' Laws may also be
unjust in another point of view, when they are contrary to the will of God; as
the laws of tyrants enforcing idolatry, or anything else contrary to divine law.
With respect to such laws, it is not allowable, under any circumstances, to
obey them; for, as it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, 'We must obey God
rather than man.'" "Injustæ autem sunt leges dupliciter; uno modo per
contrarietatem ad bonum commune e contrario prædictis, vel ex fine, sicut cum
aliquis præsidens leges imponit onerosas subditis non pertinentes ad utilitatem
communem, sed magis ad propriam cupiditatem vel gloriam; vel etiam ex
auctore, sicut cum aliquis legem fert ultra sibi commissam potestatem; vel
etiam ex forma cum inæqualiter onera multitudinis dispensantur, etiamsi ordinentur
ad bonum commune; et hujusmodi magis sunt violentiæ quam leges,
quia sicut Augustinus dicit (lib. i. <cite>de Lib. Arb.</cite> cap. 5, parum a princ.) lex
esse non videtur quæ justa non fuerit, unde tales leges in foro conscientiæ non
obligant, nisi forte propter vitandum scandalum vel turbationem, propter quod
etiam homo juri suo cedere debet secundum illud Math. cap. v. 'Qui te
angariaverit mille passus, vade cum eo alia duo, et qui abstulerit tibi tunicam
da ei et pallium.' Alio modo leges possunt esse injustæ per contrarietatem ad
bonum divinum, sicut leges tyrannorum inducentes ad idololatriam, vel ad
quodcumque aliud quod sit contra legem divinam, et tales leges nullo modo
licet observare, quia sicut dicitur Act. cap. v.: 'Obedire oportet Deo magis
quam hominibus.'" (<cite>D. Th.</cite> 1, 2, quæst. 90, art. 1.)</p>

<p>This doctrine furnishes us with the following rules:</p>

<p>1. We cannot, under any circumstances, obey the civil power when its commands
are opposed to the divine law.</p>

<p>2. When laws are unjust, they are not binding in conscience.</p>

<p>3. It may become necessary to obey these laws from motives of prudence;
that is, in order to avoid scandal and commotions.</p>

<p>4. Laws are unjust from some one of the following causes:</p>

<p>When they are opposed to the common weal&mdash;when their aim is not the good
of the commonweal&mdash;when the legislator outsteps the limits of his faculties&mdash;when,
although in other respects tending to the good of the commonweal, and
proceeding from competent authority, they do not observe suitable equity; for
instance, when they divide unequally the public imposts.</p>

<p>We have quoted and copied the venerable text whence these rules are
derived: their illustrious author has been the guide of all the theological schools
during the last six centuries; his authority has never been called in question
in these schools on points of dogma or morality; these rules may, therefore,
be regarded as the recapitulation of the doctrines of Catholic theologians with
reference to the obedience due to authority. We may now, without doubt,
appeal with entire confidence to every man of good sense. Let him judge
whether these doctrines are in the least inclined to despotism, whether they
have the least tendency to tyranny, in fine, whether they aim the slightest
blow at liberty. It is vain to seek in them the slightest appearance of flattery
to the civil power, whose limits are marked out with rigorous severity; if it
outsteps them, it is openly told, "Thy laws are not laws, but outrages; they<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_330" id="Page_330">[Pg 330]</a></span>
are not binding in conscience; and if, in some instances, thou art obeyed, it
is not owing to any obligation, but to prudence, in order to avoid scandal and
commotion; it is thenceforth such a dishonor to thee, that thy triumph, far
from entitling thee to renown, assimilates thee to the robber who despoils the
peaceable man of his garment, and to whom the latter, for the sake of peace,
gives up his cloak also." If these are doctrines of oppression and despotism,
we also are advocates for such oppression and despotism; for we cannot conceive
doctrines more favorable to liberty.</p>

<p>Upon these principles the admirable institution of European monarchy was
founded. This teaching has created the moral defences by which that monarchy
is surrounded; defences restraining it within the limits of its duties, even where
political guarantees do not exist. The mind, wearied with foolish declamations
against the <em>tyranny of kings</em>, and, on the other hand, not less tired of the
boisterous adulations lavished upon power in modern times, expands and
rejoices on meeting with this pure, disinterested, and sincere expression of the
rights and duties of governments and of people, on hearing this language,
impressed with as much of wisdom as of upright intention and generous freedom.
What books were consulted by men making use of such language?
The Scriptures, the Fathers, the collections of ecclesiastical documents.
Could they have received their inspirations from the society which surrounded
them? No; for in that same society disorder and confusion prevailed; sometimes
a turbulent disobedience, at others despotism was predominant. And
yet they speak with as much discretion, tact, and calmness as if they were
living in the midst of well-regulated society. They were guided by divine
revelation, which taught them truth. How often did they see it forgotten
and trampled under foot! But uninfluenced by circumstances, however
unfavorable, they wrote in a region far above the atmosphere of human passions.
Truth is of all times; proclaim it ever, and God will effect the
rest.<a href="#Note_31" class="fnanchor">31</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LV" id="CHAPTER_LV">CHAPTER LV.</a><br />

<small>ON RESISTANCE TO DE FACTO GOVERNMENTS</small>.</h2>


<p>The questions hitherto discussed relating to the obedience due to power are
very grave; but those of resistance to it are still more important.</p>

<p>Is it allowable, under any circumstances, in any supposition, to resist the
civil power <em>by physical force</em>? Does there nowhere exist a deposing power?
How far do Catholic doctrines extend on this subject? Such are the extreme
points we purpose to discuss. According to one system, obedience is due to
a government from the very fact of its existence, even on the supposition that
its existence is illegitimate. Now, it is important to demonstrate, at the very
outset, the unsoundness of this doctrine, which is contrary to right reason, and
has never been taught by Catholicity. In preaching obedience "to the powers
that be," the Church speaks of powers that have a legitimate existence. The
absurdity, that a simple fact can create right, can never become a dogma of
Catholicity. Were it true that resistance would be unlawful, it would be
equally true that an illegitimate government has a right to command; for the
obligation to obey is correlative with the right to command; and an illegitimate
government would, consequently, become legitimatised by the simple fact of
its existence. This would legitimatise all usurpations; the most heroic resistance
on the part of the people would be condemned; the world would be
abandoned to the mere rule of force. No; that degrading doctrine is not true
which derives legitimacy from usurpation; which says to a people conquered<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_331" id="Page_331">[Pg 331]</a></span>
and subjugated by any usurper whatever, "Obey your tyrant; his rights are
founded on force, and your obligation to him on your weakness." No; there
cannot be truth in a doctrine that would efface from our history one of its
brightest pages, that would entail disgrace upon a nation taking up arms to
expel an usurper, struggling for its independence during a period of six years,
and finally overthrowing the conqueror of Europe. If Napoleon had succeeded
in establishing his power amongst us, the Spanish nation would still have maintained
the right on account of which it revolted in 1808; victory could not
have rendered usurpation legitimate. The victims of the second of May did
not legalise the command of Murat; and had even every corner of the peninsula
been made a theatre of horrors similar to those witnessed on the Prado,
the blood of martyred patriots, covering the usurper and his satellites with
everlasting infamy, would only have confirmed the sacred right of revolting in
defence of the throne, of national independence. We must repeat it: the
simple fact does not create a right, either in private or public affairs; and so
soon as such a principle is acknowledged, every idea of reason and justice
disappears from the world. Those who may have wished to flatter governments
with so fatal a doctrine, were not aware that this was the very way to ruin
them, and to sow the seeds of usurpation and insurrection. What will be safe
here below if we admit the principle, that success insures justice, and that the
conqueror is always the rightful ruler? Is not this throwing open a wide gate
to ambition, and to every crime? Is it not exciting men to forget every idea
of right, reason, and justice, to acknowledge no other rule than brute force?
Governments protected by so strange a doctrine would assuredly owe little
gratitude to their protectors: this, in fact, is no defence; it is an insult; it is
more of a cruel sarcasm than an apology. To what, indeed, does it amount,
and how would this doctrine sound? Why, as follows: "People, obey him
who commands you; you say his authority is usurped; we do not deny it; but,
by the very fact of his having attained his end, the usurper has acquired a
right. He is, indeed, a robber who has attacked you on the highway; he has
stolen your money; but, by the mere fact of your not being able to resist him,
and being forced to deliver to him your purse, now that he is possessed of it,
you ought to respect this money as an inviolable property: such is your duty.
It is a robbery; but this robbery being a <em>consummated act</em>, you cannot now
obtain redress for it."</p>

<p>In this point of view the doctrine of <em>consummated facts</em> appears so much
opposed to generally received ideas, that no reasonable man can seriously
accept it. I do not deny that there are cases in which obedience, even to an
illegitimate government, is to be recommended; when, for instance, we foresee
that resistance would be useless, that it would only lead to new disorders, and
to a greater effusion of blood: but in recommending prudence to the people,
let us not disguise it under false doctrines&mdash;let us beware of calming the
exasperation of misfortune by circulating errors subversive of all governments,
of all society. It is worthy of remark, that all powers, even the most illegitimate,
have a truer instinct than that manifested by the maintenance of such
maxims. All powers in the first moment of their existence, before commencing
their operations, before proceeding to one single act, proclaim their legitimacy.
They seek it in right divine and human, they establish it upon birth or election,
they derive it from historical titles, or the sudden development of extraordinary
events; but all tends to the same point, the pretension to legitimacy. They
never speak of the mere fact of their existence; from the instinct that prompts
their own preservation they learn better than to rely upon such grounds, since
to do so would be to annihilate their authority, to destroy their prestige, to
encourage revolt; in a word, to commit self-destruction. We have here the
most explicit condemnation of the doctrine we are combating, for the most<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_332" id="Page_332">[Pg 332]</a></span>
shameless usurpers have more respect for good sense and the public conscience.</p>

<p>It sometimes happens that doctrines the most erroneous assume a veil of
gentleness and Christian meekness. We must overthrow the arguments that
might be employed against us, by the advocates of blind submission to any
power that happens to be established. "The Scriptures," they will say,
"prescribe to us obedience to the authorities, without any distinction; the
Christian, therefore, ought not to make any distinction, but submit with resignation
to such as he finds established." In reply to this objection, I see the
following very decisive answers. 1. Illegitimate authority is no authority at
all; the idea of power involves the idea of right, without which it is mere physical
power, that is, <em>force</em>. When, therefore, the Scriptures prescribe obedience
to the authorities, it is the lawful authorities that are implied. 2. The sacred
text, in enjoining us obedience to the civil power, tells us that it is ordained by
God Himself, that it is the minister of God Himself; and it is evident that
usurpation is never invested with so high a character. The usurper is perhaps
the instrument of Providence, <em>the scourge of Heaven</em>, as Attila designated himself,
but not the minister of God. 3. The sacred Scriptures prescribe obedience
to the subject in relation to the civil power, in the same way as they prescribe
it to the slave in relation to his master. But what sort of masters are here
implied? Evidently such as exercised a legitimate dominion, as it was understood
at the time, conformable to the prevailing laws and customs; otherwise
the Scriptures would require obedience from such slaves as were reduced to
slavery by an abuse of power. Hence, as the obedience to masters prescribed
by the Scriptures does not deprive the slave unjustly retained in servitude of
his right, so also the obedience due to the established authorities should be
restricted to the lawful authorities, and to cases in which prudence would
dictate it in order to avoid commotion and scandal.</p>

<p>In confirmation of the doctrine of mere <i lang="la">de facto</i> government, the conduct of
the first Christians has been sometimes alleged. "They submitted," it is said,
"to the constituted authorities without even inquiring whether they were legitimate
or not. At this epoch usurpations were frequent, the imperial throne
was established by force, its occupants one after another owed their elevation
to military insurrection, and to the assassination of their predecessors. We
find, nevertheless, that Christians never meddled with the question of legitimacy;
they respected the established power, and this power failing, they
submitted without murmuring to the new tyrant who had usurped the throne."
This argument, it cannot be denied, is very plausible, and presents at first sight
a serious difficulty; a few reflections, however, suffice to show its extreme
futility. In order that an insurrection against an unlawful power may be
legitimate and prudent, those who undertake to overturn it should be sure of
its illegitimacy, should have in view the substitution of a lawful power, and
should count besides on the probability of the success of their enterprise. If
these conditions are not fulfilled, the insurrection has no object; it is a mere
fruitless attempt, an impotent revenge, which, instead of being useful to society,
only causes bloodshed, only irritates the power attacked, and can have in consequence
no other effect than to increase oppression and tyranny.</p>

<p>None of the conditions here mentioned were in existence at the time we are
speaking of; all that upright men could do was quietly to resign themselves to
the calamitous circumstances of the times, and by fervent prayer to implore the
Almighty to take compassion on mankind.</p>

<p>When every thing was decided by force of arms, who could say whether such
or such an emperor was lawfully established? Upon what rules was the imperial
succession established? Where was legitimacy to be substituted for
illegitimacy? Amongst the Romans&mdash;those vile, degraded beings, kissing the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_333" id="Page_333">[Pg 333]</a></span>
chains of the first tyrant who offered them <em>food</em> and <em>games</em>? In the worthless
posterity of those illustrious patricians who formerly gave laws to the universe?
Was it vested in the sons or in the family of some assassinated emperor, when
the laws had not established hereditary succession, when the sceptre of the
empire was at the disposal of the legions, when it frequently happened that the
emperor, the victim of usurpation, had been himself merely a usurper, who
had mounted to the throne over the corpse of his rival? Did it exist in the
ancient rights of those conquered nations now reduced to simple dependencies
of the empire, divested of all national spirit, having even lost the recollection
of their former condition, without a thought capable of conducting them in the
work of their emancipation, and destitute of resources against the colossal force
of their masters? What object could any one have, under such circumstances,
in making attempts against the established government? When the legions
decided the fate of the world, alternately elevating and assassinating their
masters, what could or what ought the Christian to do? The disciple of a God
of peace and love, he could not take part in criminal scenes of bloodshed and
tumult; authority was tottering and uncertain; it was not for him to decide
whether it was legitimate or not; it only remained for him to submit to the
power generally acknowledged, and at the arrival of one of those changes, at
that time of so frequent occurrence, to yield the same obedience to the newly-established
government.</p>

<p>The interference of Christians in political disputes would only have served
to bring into disrepute the holy religion they professed; it would have given to
philosophers and idolaters a pretext for increasing the catalogue of black
calumnies which they everywhere brought against the faith. Public report
accused Catholicity of being subversive of governments; Christians would have
furnished a pretext for extending and accrediting this unfounded report, the
hatred of governments would have been redoubled, and the rigors of persecution
so cruelly exercised against the disciples of the cross would have been increased.
Has this state of things ever existed but once, either in ancient or modern
times? And could the conduct of the first Christians in this respect be made
a rule for the Spaniards, for instance, at the time they resisted the usurpation
of Bonaparte? Or could it be imitated by any other people in similar circumstances?
Or will it be received as an argument in favor of every kind of
usurpation? No; man, in becoming a Christian, does not cease to be a citizen,
to be a man, to have his rights, and he acts in a praiseworthy manner whenever,
within the bounds of reason and justice, he attempts to maintain these
rights with fearless intrepidity.</p>

<p>Don Felix Amat, Archbishop of Palmyra, in his posthumous work entitled
<em>Idea of the Church Militant</em>, makes use of these words: "Jesus Christ, by his
plain and expressive answer, <em>Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's</em>, has
sufficiently established, that the mere fact of a government's existence is sufficient
for enforcing the obedience of subjects to it." What I have already
advanced is enough, in my opinion, to show the fallacy of such an assertion;
and, as I intend to revert to this subject, and investigate more attentively this
author's opinion, and the reasons upon which he supports it, I shall not now
attempt to enter upon its refutation. I will, nevertheless, make one observation,
which occurred to me on reading the passages in which the Archbishop
of Palmyra developes it. His work was forbidden at Rome; and whatever
may have been the motives for such a prohibition, we may rest assured that,
in the case of a book advocating such doctrines, every man who is jealous of
his rights might acquiesce in the decree of the Sacred Congregation.</p>

<p>As the opportunity is favorable, we may make a few remarks upon <em>consummated
facts</em>, which are so closely connected with the doctrine under discussion.
<em>Consummated</em> implies something perfect in its kind; hence an act is consum<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_334" id="Page_334">[Pg 334]</a></span>mated
when it has attained its completion. This word, applied to crimes, is
opposed to mere attempt. We say an attempt at robbery, murder, or arson,
when the undertaking to commit these crimes has been manifested by some act;
for instance, the lock of a door has been broken, an attack has been made with
a murderous weapon, combustible matter has been ignited&mdash;but the crime is
not said to be consummated till the robbery, murder, or arson has actually been
committed. Hence, in a political and social sense, we designate <em>consummated
facts</em> an usurpation, completely overthrowing the legitimate power, and by
means of which the usurper is already substituted in its place; a measure executed
in all its points; such as the suppression of the regular clergy in Spain,
and the confiscation of their property to the treasury; a revolution which has
been triumphant, and which has entirely disposed of a country, as was the
case with our American possessions.</p>

<p>From this explanation, we see clearly that a fact does not, by being <em>consummated</em>,
change its nature; it still remains a simple fact&mdash;just or unjust, legal
or illegal&mdash;as it was before. The most horrible outrages may also be termed
<em>consummated facts</em>; yet, for all that, they do not cease to deserve disgrace and
punishment.</p>

<p>What, then, is the meaning of certain phrases continually uttered by some
men? "We must respect consummated facts; we must always accept consummated
facts; it is folly to resist consummated facts; it is a wise policy that
yields to consummated facts." Far be it from me to assert that all those who
establish these maxims, profess the fatal doctrines to which they give rise.
We often admit principles, the consequences of which we reject; and point out
a certain line of conduct as right, without attending to the abominable maxims
in which it originates. In human affairs, good and evil, error and truth are
so narrowly separated, and prudence so closely borders on culpable timidity,
that in theory, as well as in practice, it is not always easy to remain within
the bounds prescribed by reason and the eternal principles of sound morality.
If respect for consummated facts is mentioned, perverse men immediately
include in it the sanctioning of crime, the spoils of plunder secured to the
robber, no hope of restitution left to the victims, and a gag put upon their
mouths, to stifle their complaints. Others, I am aware, have no such design
in making use of these words, but are the dupes of a confusion of ideas, arising
from their not having distinguished between moral principles and public expediency.
On this point, therefore, we must distinguish and define, which I will
do in a few words.</p>

<p>The simple consummation of a fact does not render it legitimate; and, consequently,
it is not on this account alone worthy of respect. The robber who
has stolen does not acquire a right to the thing stolen; the incendiary who
reduces a house to ashes is no less deserving of punishment, of being forced to
make reparation, than if he had been arrested in the attempt. This is so
evident and clear, that it cannot be called in question. To assert the contrary,
is to become the enemy of all morality, of all justice, of all right; and to proclaim
the exclusive rule of force and cunning. Consummated facts, appertaining
to social and political order, do not change their nature; the usurper,
who seizes upon the crown of his lawful predecessor; the conqueror, who, by
mere force of arms, has subdued a nation, does not thereby acquire a right to
its possession; the government, which by gross iniquities has despoiled entire
classes of citizens, exacted undue contributions, abolished legitimate rights,
cannot justify its acts by the simple fact of its having sufficient strength to
execute these iniquities. That is equally evident; and if there is here any
difference at all, the crime is only the greater, from the greater gravity and
extent of the wrongs committed, and of the scandal given to the public. Such<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_335" id="Page_335">[Pg 335]</a></span>
are the principles of sound morality&mdash;individual morality, social morality;
morality of the whole human race; immutable, eternal morality.</p>

<p>Let us now examine the question of public expediency. In some instances,
a consummated fact, in spite of all its injustice, all its immorality and atrocity,
acquires such an ascendency, that by not accepting it, or by being determined
to destroy it, we should let loose a train of troubles and commotions, and perhaps
without effect. Every government is bound to respect justice, and to act
in such a manner that its subjects may also respect it; but it should not command
what will not be obeyed, when it is deprived of the means of enforcing
obedience. In such a case, we should not commit an injustice by not attacking
the illegal interests, or by not endeavoring to obtain redress for the victims;
the government, in such a case, may be compared to a man who, beholding
robbers loaded with the fruit of their theft, is without the means of forcing
them to make restitution. If you suppose an impossibility, what does it avail
to say that the government is not a single individual, but a defender of all
legitimate interests? No one is bound to impossibilities.</p>

<p>Observe, also, that this remark applies not only to a physical impossibility,
but also to a moral one. Whenever, therefore, the government possesses the
material means of obtaining reparation, a moral impossibility will be constituted,
when the employing of those means would cause serious difficulties to
the state, endanger the public peace, or sow the seeds of future insurrection.
Order and public interest require the preference, for these are the primary
objects of all government; consequently, that which cannot be accomplished
without endangering them, ought to be considered as impossible. The application
of these doctrines will always be a question of prudence, that cannot be
subjected to any general rule. Depending as it <em>does</em> upon a thousand circumstances,
it cannot be decided upon abstract principles; but by the consideration
of existing facts, duly appreciated and considered by political tact. Such is
the case of the respect due to consummated facts; the injustice of these facts
is apparent; but we must not overlook their force. Not to attack them is not,
necessarily, to sanction them. The legislator is bound to diminish the evil as
far as possible; but not to risk an aggravation of it by attempting an impracticable
reparation. As it is particularly injurious to society for great interests
to remain insecure, and uncertain for the future, just means must be adopted,
which, without occasioning complicity in the evil, may prevent the dangers of
a doubtful situation, resulting from injustice itself. A just policy does not
sanction injustice; but a wise policy never despises the importance of established
facts. If such facts exist, and appear indestructible, it tolerates them;
but without affording them the sanction of its participation or approval.
Acting with dignity, it makes the best of difficulties; and in some sort allies
the principles of eternal justice with the views of public expediency. We have
a very striking case in point, which will place this matter in the clearest possible
light. After the great evils, and the enormous acts of injustice perpetrated
during the French Revolution, what possibility was there of making a
complete reparation? In 1814, could every thing be restored to the position
in which it stood in 1789? The throne overturned, all social distinctions
levelled, and property broken up; who could reconstruct the ancient social
edifice? No one.</p>

<p>Such is the respect to be entertained for consummated facts, which might
be more properly termed <em>indestructible</em> ones. To illustrate my idea still further,
I will give it a very simple exemplification. A proprietor, driven from his
possessions by a powerful neighbor, has not the means of repossessing himself
of them. He has neither wealth nor influence; and his spoliator abounds in
both. If he have recourse to force, he will be vanquished; if to the tribunal,
he will lose his cause; what, therefore, is he to do? To negotiate for an<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_336" id="Page_336">[Pg 336]</a></span>
accommodation, to obtain what he can, and be resigned to his fate. This is
all that can be said; and it is remarkable, that such are the principles adopted
by governments. History and experience teach us, that consummated facts
are respected when they are indestructible; that is, when they possess in themselves
sufficient force to make them respected; in any other case, they are not
so. And nothing is more natural. Whatever is not founded upon right, can
only be maintained by force.<a href="#Note_32" class="fnanchor">32</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LVI" id="CHAPTER_LVI">CHAPTER LVI.</a><br />

<small>HOW THE CIVIL POWER MAY BE LAWFULLY RESISTED</small>.</h2>


<p>From what has been said in the foregoing chapters it follows, that it is
allowable to resist illegitimate power by force. The Catholic religion does not
enjoin obedience to governments existing merely <i lang="la">de facto</i>; for morality does not
admit a mere fact, unsupported by right and justice. However, when power
is in itself lawful, but in its exercise tyrannical, does our religion prohibit, in
every instance, resistance by physical force; so that not to resist at all, forms
a part of her dogmas? Is insurrection never allowable, in any supposition, for
any motive? Although I have already eliminated many questions, it is necessary
to draw here a fresh distinction, in order to fix exactly the point at which
dogma ends, and opinions begin. It is evident, in the first place, that an individual
has no right to kill a tyrant on his own authority. The Council of
Constance, in its 15th session, condemned the following proposition as heretical:
"Any vassal or subject may and should, lawfully and meritoriously, kill any
tyrant. He may even, for this purpose, avail himself of ambushes, and wily
expressions of affection or adulation; notwithstanding any oath or pact imposed
upon him by the tyrant; and without waiting for the sentence or order of any
judge." "Quilibet tyrannus potest et debet licite et meritorie occidi per
quemcumque vassallum suum vel subditum, etiam per clanculares insidias, et
subtiles blanditias vel adulationes, non obstante quocumque præstito juramento,
seu confœderatione factis cum eo, non expectata sententia vel mandato judicis
cujuscumque."</p>

<p>But does this decision of the Council of Constance constitute a prohibition
of every kind of insurrection? No; it speaks of the murder of a tyrant by
any particular individual; but every case of resistance is not maintained by a
single individual; neither is it the aim of every insurrection to destroy a tyrant.
This doctrine only serves to prevent murder, and a train of evils which would
overwhelm society if it were established that any individual had a right of his
own authority to kill the supreme ruler. Who will venture to accuse this
doctrine of being favorable to tyranny? The liberty of the people should not
be based upon the horrid right of assassination; the defence of the rights of
society should not be confided to the dagger of a fanatic. The attributes of
public power are so extensive and various, that their exercise must necessarily
and frequently inconvenience some individuals. Man, inclined to extremes
and revenge, easily enlarges upon the grievances which he suffers; passing
from a particular to a general, he is inclined to look upon those who injure or
oppose him as villains. At the slightest shock which he receives from government,
he cries out that tyranny is insupportable; the act of arbitrary power,
real or imaginary, committed against him, becomes, in his mouth, one of the
many iniquities perpetrated, or the commencement of those that are to be.
Grant, therefore, to the individual the right of killing a tyrant; proclaim to the
people that, to render such an act lawful and meritorious, there is no need of
a sentence, or any judicial condemnation; and from that time this horrible<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_337" id="Page_337">[Pg 337]</a></span>
crime will become frequent. The wisest, the justest kings will fall victims to
the parricidal dagger, or the poisoned cup. You will have furnished no guarantee
to the liberty of the people, and you will have exposed the dearest
interests of society to dreadful hazards.</p>

<p>The Catholic Church, by this solemn declaration, has conferred an immense
service on humanity. The violent death of him who holds the supreme power
seldom happens without causing bloodshed and great commotion. It provokes
measures of suspicious precaution, easily converted into tyranny. It follows,
then, that any crime instigated by excessive hatred of tyranny contributes to
establish it in a form still more absolute and cruel. Modern nations should
feel grateful to the Catholic Church for having established this sacred and
saving principle. A person must be possessed of very mean sentiments, or very
ferocious instincts, not to appreciate it, or to regret the bloody scenes of the
Roman Empire and the barbarian monarchy. We have seen, and we still see,
powerful nations delivered up to dreadful troubles, by the neglect of this
Catholic maxim. The history of the last three centuries, and the experience
of this, prove that this august precept of the Church was given to the people
in anticipation of the dangers which were threatening them. In it we find no
flattery for kings; for they are not the only ones benefited by it; it is a general
proposition, including all others, whatever be their titles, who exercise supreme
authority, whatever be the form of government, from the Russian autocrat to
the most democratical republic.</p>

<p>It is worthy of remark, that modern constitutions, proceeding from the
bosom of revolutions, have universally rendered a solemn homage to this
Catholic maxim; they have declared the person of the monarch <em>sacred and
inviolable</em>. What does this mean, but that this person should be placed under
an impenetrable safeguard? You reproach the Catholic Church with placing
a sort of shield before the person of kings, and yet you yourselves declare that
person inviolable. The anointing of kings you ridicule, and yet you yourself
declare that the king is sacred. Since you are forced to imitate the Church,
her dogmas and her discipline must have contained an eternal truth, and high
political principles; with this difference, however, that you represent as the
work of the will of man what she esteems the work of the will of God. But
if supreme power makes a scandalous abuse of its faculties, if it outsteps its
just bounds, if it tramples under foot fundamental laws, if it persecutes religion,
corrupts morality, outrages public dignity, attacks the honor of citizens,
exacts illegal and disproportionate contributions, alienates national property,
dismembers provinces, inflicts death and ignominy upon the people: in such
cases, does Catholicity also prescribe obedience? does it forbid resistance?
does it command subjects to remain tranquil, like a lamb in the claws of a wild
beast? May there not exist, either in an individual, or in the principal bodies,
or in the most distinguished classes of society, or in the entire mass of the
nation, somewhere, in fine, the right of opposing, of resisting, after all means
of mildness, representation, counsel, and entreaty have failed? In such disastrous
circumstances, does the Church leave the people without hope, and
tyrants without restraint?</p>

<p>In such extremities, certain very renowned theologians think that resistance
is allowable; but the dogmas of the Church do not descend to these details.
The Church abstains from condemning the opposite doctrines. In such extreme
circumstances, non-resistance is not a dogmatical prescription. The Church
has never taught such a doctrine; if any one will maintain that she has, let him
bring forward a decision of a Council or of a Sovereign Pontiff to that effect.
St. Thomas of Aquin, Cardinal Bellarmin, Suarez, and other eminent theologians,
were well versed in the dogmas of the Church; and yet, if you consult
their works, so far from finding this doctrine in them, you will find the opposite<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_338" id="Page_338">[Pg 338]</a></span>
one. Now the Church has not condemned them, she has not confounded them
with those seditious writers in whom Protestantism abounds, nor with modern
revolutionists, who are continually disturbing social order. Bossuet and other
authors of repute differ from St. Thomas, Bellarmin, Suarez; and this gives
credit to the opposite opinion, but does not convert it into a dogma. Upon
certain points of the highest import, the opinions of the illustrious Bishop of
Meaux suffered contradiction; and we know that upon this case of an excess
of tyranny, the Pope at another period was acknowledged to possess faculties
which Bossuet refuses him.</p>

<p>The Abbé de Lamennais, in his impotent and obstinate resistance to the
Holy see, adduced the doctrines of St. Thomas, and those of some other theologians,
pretending that to condemn his own works was to condemn schools
hitherto held irreproachable. (<cite>Affaires de Rome.</cite>) The Abbé Gerbet, in his
excellent refutation of M. de Lamennais, after having very judiciously remarked,
that the Sovereign Pontiff's object in reproving modern doctrines was, to prevent
a renewal of the errors of Wickliffe, observes, at the epoch of this heresiarch's
condemnation, the doctrines of St. Thomas and of other theologians
were well known, and that, nevertheless, no one believed that they were
included in the condemnation. The excellent author of this refutation deemed
this sufficient to deprive M. de Lamennais of the shield under which he sought
to defend and cover his apostacy; and for this reason, he abstains from drawing
a parallel between the two doctrines. In fact, this reflection alone is
sufficient to convince any judicious man that the doctrines of St. Thomas bear
no resemblance to those of M. de Lamennais. It may, however, be useful to
give in few words a comparison of the two doctrines. At the present time, and
in these matters, it is very proper to know, not only that these doctrines differ,
but likewise wherein they differ. M. de Lamennais' theory may be stated in
the following terms: A natural equality among men, and, as necessary consequences,
1. Equality of rights, political rights included; 2. The injustice of
every social and political organization not establishing this equality completely,
as is the case in Europe and in the whole universe; 3. Expediency and legitimacy
of insurrection, to destroy governments, and change social organization;
4. Abolition of all government, as the object of the progress of the human
race.</p>

<p>The doctrines of St. Thomas on the same points may be thus expressed: <em>A
natural equality among men</em>; that is to say, an essential equality, but exclusive
of physical, intellectual, and moral gifts&mdash;an equality among men in the eyes
of God&mdash;an equality in their destination, inasmuch as they are all created to
enjoy God&mdash;an equality of means, inasmuch as they are all redeemed by Christ,
and may all receive His grace; but exclusive of the inequalities which it may
please God to establish by gifts of grace and glory. 1. <em>An equality of social
and political rights.</em> According to the holy doctor, such an equality is impossible.
He rather supports the utility and legitimacy of certain hierarchies;
the respect due to those established by law; the necessity of there being some
to command and others to obey; the obligation of being subject to the established
laws of the country, whatever be the form of government; the preference
for monarchical governments. 2. <em>The injustice of every social and political
organization not establishing a complete equality.</em> St. Thomas looks upon this
as an error opposed to reason and to faith. Nay, more; not only is it true that
the inequality founded upon the very nature of man and of society is an effect
and punishment of original sin, in as far as it entails upon man injury or inconvenience;
but, according to the holy Doctor, this inequality would have existed
among men even in a state of innocence. 3. <em>Expediency and legitimacy of
insurrection, to destroy governments, and to change the social organization.</em> An
erroneous and fatal opinion. We ought to submit to legitimate governments;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_339" id="Page_339">[Pg 339]</a></span>
it is expedient even to tolerate such as make an improper use of their power;
we must exhaust every means of entreaty, of counsel and representation, before
we have recourse to others. We can only appeal to force in the greatest
extremities, on rare occasions, and then only under many restrictions, as will
be seen elsewhere. 4. <em>Abolition of all government, as the object of the progress
of the human race.</em> An absurd proposition&mdash;a dream that cannot be realized.
The necessity of government in every society; arguments founded upon the
nature of man; analogies from the human body, from the very order of the
universe; the existence of government even in a state of innocence. Such are
the doctrines of De Lamennais and St. Thomas respectively. Let the reader
compare them, and judge for himself.</p>

<p>It is impossible to adduce the words of the holy Doctor&mdash;they would fill the
volume. Should any reader wish to consult them himself, let him read, in
addition to the passages inserted in this work, the whole treatise, <cite>De Regimine
Principum</cite>, the commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, and those passages
of the <cite>Summa</cite> in which the holy Doctor treats of the soul, of the creation of
man, of the state of innocence, of the angels and of their hierarchy, of original
sin and its effects, and, above all, his valuable Treatise on Laws and that on
Justice, in which he discusses the origin of the right of property and of
inflicting punishments. After that he will be convinced of the truth of what
I have just advanced; he will then see the injustice of M. de Lamennais in
attempting to make the illustrious writers and saints venerated on our altars
the accomplices of his apostacy. In grave and delicate matters confusion produces
error, the enemies of truth are interested in spreading darkness, in
establishing general and vague propositions susceptible of various interpretations.
They seek with anxiety a text favorable to some one of the numerous
interpretations that are possible, and proudly exclaim, "How unjust it is in
you to condemn us; what we maintain was asserted centuries ago, by the most
respected and celebrated writers." The Abbé de Lamennais must have reckoned
in a singular manner upon the credulity of his readers, to think of making
them believe that there was no honest man to be found at Rome capable of
informing the Pope, that in condemning the doctrines of the apostle of revolution,
he was condemning also those of the angel of the schools, and other
distinguished theologians. It is possible that M. de Lamennais never read
the authors except in haste and in fragments, but many persons at Rome have
spent their lives in studying them.</p>

<p>We are not ignorant of the violent declamations of Luther, Zwinglius, Knox,
Jurieu, and other leaders of Protestantism, to stir up the people to revolt
against princes; we are not ignorant of the gross and violent invectives made
use of by these sectaries to excite the multitude. Catholics look upon such
extravagances with horror. In like manner, they look with dread upon the
anarchical doctrine of Rousseau, establishing that "the clauses of the <em>social
contract</em> are so determined by the very nature of the act, that the <em>least modification</em>
of them would render them <em>vain and null</em>; so that every one then
resumes his former rights and regains his natural liberty". (<cite>Contrat Social</cite>, l.
i. c. 6.) The doctrine of the theologians above cited does not contain this
fruitful germ of insurrection and disaster; but, on the other hand, they are
not found timid and pusillanimous in the last extremities. They preach up
resignation, patience, and longanimity; but there is a point at which they stop
and exclaim, <em>Enough</em>. If they do not advocate insurrection, they do not prohibit
it; it would be in vain to require them to teach as a dogmatical truth the
obligation of not resisting in extreme cases. They cannot teach the people to
consider as a dogma what they do not acknowledge as such. It is not their
fault if the tempest bursts, if the roaring waves arise; no other hand can<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_340" id="Page_340">[Pg 340]</a></span>
control them than that of God, who rides upon the north wind and sports with
the tempest.</p>

<p>For many centuries there has been inculcated in Europe a doctrine much
criticised by those who do not understand it, the intervention of the Pontifical
authority between the people and their sovereigns. This doctrine was nothing
less than Heaven descending as an arbiter and judge, to put an end to the
disputes of the earth.</p>

<p>The temporal power of the Popes has served as a wonderful theme to the
enemies of the Church to create alarm, and declaim against Rome; but this
power is no less an historical fact and a social phenomenon, which has filled
with admiration the most renowned men of modern times, including some Protestants.
The Scriptures make it a duty for slaves to obey their masters, even
when they are oppressive and unjust. All that can be inferred from this is,
that a prince, by the simple fact of his being wicked, does not lose his authority
over his subjects, which condemns beforehand the errors of those who make
the right of commanding dependent upon the sanctity of its possessor. Such
a principle is anarchical, and incompatible with the existence of every society.
When it is once established, power remains unsafe and tottering; every disturber
declares all those divested of authority whom he may deem culpable.
But our question is of a different nature, and the opinion of theologians cited
by us has nothing to do with this error. These theologians also on their part
advocate obedience to rulers, even though they be oppressive and unjust; they
also condemn insurrection, when founded on no other pretext than the vices
of persons exercising supreme power; they do not admit that any abuse of
power justifies resistance; but they do not consider that they impugn the sacred
text by admitting that in extreme cases it is allowable to place a barrier
against the excesses of a tyrant. "If governments do not lose their power by
the simple fact of their being wicked, how," it will be said, "can we conceive
resistance to them lawful?" This is certainly not allowable, so long as they
do not outstep the bounds of their faculties; but when they do so, their commands,
as St. Thomas says, are rather acts of violence than laws. "No one
has the right of judging the supreme power." This is true; but above this
power exist the principles of reason, morality, religion. Power, although
supreme, is bound to the execution of its promises, to keep its oaths. Society
is not formed upon the model of Rousseau's ideal <em>contract</em>; but there exist, in
certain cases, real pacts between the rulers and the people, to which both are
bound to adhere.</p>

<p>In the celebrated <cite>Catholic Proclamation to his pious Majesty Philip the Great,
King of Spain and Emperor of the Indies by the Counsellors and the Council
of One Hundred of the city of Barcelona</cite>, in 1640, an epoch so profoundly religious
that the Counsellors quote, as a high title of glory, <em>the zeal of the Catalonians
for the Catholic faith, the devotion of the Catalonians to our lady the
Blessed Virgin and the most holy Sacrament</em>;&mdash;at that time, which pride and
ignorance have so often taxed with fanaticism, these counsellors said to the
king, "Besides civil obligation, the customs, constitutions, and acts of the
court of Catalonia are binding on conscience, and to violate them would be a
mortal sin; for the prince has no right to annul a contract; it is made freely,
but cannot be revoked without injustice. If a contract is not subject to the
civil law, it is subject to the law of reason; and although the prince may be
the master of the laws, the contracts he makes with his vassals are inviolable,
for in making them he is a mere individual, and the vassal acquires a right
equal to his. A contract, in fine, should be made between equals. Hence, as
the vassal cannot be unfaithful to his lord, the latter, in like manner, is bound
to keep the promise he has made by solemn engagement; and indeed, the
rupture of a pact ought least of all to be expected on the part of a prince. If<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_341" id="Page_341">[Pg 341]</a></span>
the word of a king is law, that word given in a solemn contract is still more
binding." (<cite>Catholic Proclamation</cite>, sect. 27.) The courtiers urged the monarch
to measures of coercion to reduce the Catalonians to submission; the Castilian
army was preparing to enter the principality. In this extremity, after
exhausting all means of representation and entreaty, the counsellors thus
expressed themselves: "Finally, men who have vowed an inveterate hatred
against the Catalonians have been so successful in their continual persuasions,
that the uprightness and equity of your majesty have been turned from the
means of peace and tranquillity proposed by us, and which should have been
admitted, were it only on the grounds of experience; and to fill up the cup of
their malice, they now lay your majesty under an obligation of oppressing the
principality still further, by sending an army to sack and pillage wherever the
caprice of the soldier may lead him; which would place this country in a position
to say (were it not for the love it has borne, still bears, and ever will bear
to your majesty) that such a breach of sworn faith would leave it free, a thing
of which the province is unwilling to think, and prays God to avert. Nevertheless,
the principality knows from experience that these soldiers have neither
respect nor pity for any thing or person, married women and innocent virgins,
temples, or God Himself, images of the Saints or the sacred vessels of our
churches, nay, even the blessed Sacrament has twice this year been committed
to the flames by these soldiers. <em>The principality is, therefore, everywhere in
arms to defend, in such an urgent and irremediable extremity, fortune, life,
honor, liberty, home, laws, and above all the sacred temples, the sacred images,
and the holy Sacrament of the altar (be the same for ever praised). In such a
case, the holy theologians do not merely affirm that resistance is lawful, but still
further, that all persons, whether lay or clerical, may take up arms to avert the
evil; that both secular and ecclesiastical property may and ought to contribute
to the defence; that the nations invaded may, as the cause is universal, unite,
confederate, and form juntas with a view to prevent such evils.</em>" (§36)</p>

<p>Such was the language addressed to kings, at a time when religion predominated
over all things. The counsellors, according to the usage of the time,
took care to make marginal notes of the sources of their information; and we
are not aware that their doctrines have ever been condemned as heretical.
These doctrines cannot, without manifest dishonesty, be confounded with those
of many Protestants and modern revolutionists. A cursory perusal of these
writings will enable any one to discover how widely they differ. By maintaining
that it is not allowable in any case, in the greatest extremities, not even
when the most precious and sacred interests are at stake, to offer resistance to
the civil power, the thrones of kings are thought to be strengthened; for it is
generally kings that are spoken of. But it should be remembered, that this
doctrine affects every other supreme power, under every form of government.
Since the texts of Scripture recommending obedience "to the powers that be,"
do not allude to kings only, but to all supreme powers, without exception or
distinction, it follows that resistance cannot in any case be offered to the president
of a republic. Will it be said that the faculties of a president are
determined? Are not the faculties of a king also determined? Are there
not, in absolute governments, laws fixing the limits of these faculties? And
is not this the distinction constantly employed by the supporters of monarchy
to repel the errors of their adversaries, who confound monarchy with despotism?
"But," it will be said, "the president of a republic is only temporary." And
what if he were perpetual? Besides, the faculties are neither increased nor
diminished by the simple fact of their having to last a long or short period.
If a council, a man, a family, is invested with a certain right, by virtue of a
certain law; with certain restrictions, but with certain contracts and oaths;
such a council, such a man or such a family is bound to adhere to the oath<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_342" id="Page_342">[Pg 342]</a></span>
taken, whatever be the extent of its duration, temporary or perpetual. Such
are the principles of natural right; so certain and simple, that they cannot
present any difficulty.</p>

<p>Theologians, even those most attached to the Sovereign Pontiff, teach a doctrine
which we must notice here, on account of the analogy it bears to the point
under discussion. It is known that the Pope, when speaking <i lang="la">ex cathedra</i>, is
acknowledged to be infallible, but not as a simple individual; and that, in this
latter capacity, he might fall into heresy. In this case, theologians are of
opinion that he would forfeit his dignity; some maintaining that he ought to
be deposed, others that his deposition is the consequence of his having fallen
from the faith. Whichever of these opinions be admitted, in this case resistance
would become allowable, for this reason, that the Pope would have
shamefully departed from the object of his institution, would have trampled on
the basis of the laws of the Church, which is her dogmas, and would consequently
have nullified the promises and oaths of obedience made to him. Spedalieri,
in adducing this argument, observes, that kings are certainly not of
higher rank than Popes,&mdash;that power has been granted to both <i lang="la">in ædificationem
non in destructionem</i>; adding, that if Sovereign Pontiffs authorize this doctrine
with relation to themselves, temporal sovereigns cannot object to its application
to them.</p>

<p>It is strange that the monarchical zeal of Protestants and incredulous philosophers
imputes to the Catholic religion as a crime, that she has allowed it to
be maintained within her bosom, that, in certain cases, the subject may be
released from his oath of allegiance; whilst other philosophers of the same
school reproach it with having sanctioned despotism by its <em>detestable doctrine
of non-resistance</em>, as Dr. Beatty expresses it. <em>The direct, indirect, and declaratory
powers of the Popes</em> have served as an admirable bugbear to intimidate
kings; the dangerous principles of theological works formed an excellent pretext
for raising the cry of alarm, for representing Catholicity as a nest of
seditious maxims. The hour of revolutions was struck,&mdash;circumstances were
changed,&mdash;fresh necessities arose, and men adapted their language to the
times. The Catholics, a short time before seditious and regicidal, were then
declared abettors of despotism, fulsome adulators of civil power. Recently,
the Jesuits, leagued with the infernal policy of Rome, were everywhere undermining
thrones, to establish on their ruins the universal monarchy of the Pope;
but the secret of this horrid plot was discovered, and fortunately so, for the
world was otherwise about to experience a frightful catastrophe. But now that
the Jesuits are expelled, and are expiating their crimes in exile, the French
Revolution, the prelude to so many others, breaks out, and the aspect of affairs
changes immediately. Protestants and unbelievers, the <em>supporters of ancient
discipline</em>, <em>the zealous adversaries of the abuses of the Court of Rome</em>, fully comprehending
the new situation of affairs, hasten to conform to it. From that
moment, the Jesuits, the Catholics, the Pope, are no longer seditious or tyrannicides,
but Machiavellian supporters of tyranny, enemies of the liberty of the
people; and just as a league had been supposed to exist between the Jesuits
and the Pope for the foundation of a universal theocracy, there is now discovered,
thanks to the investigations of these eminent philosophers and <em>strict,
incorruptible Christians</em>, <em>an infamous pact between the Pope and kings</em> to oppress,
enslave, and degrade the unfortunate human race.</p>

<p>The answer to this enigma may be thus briefly expressed. So long as kings
maintain their power and the peaceable possession of their thrones, so long as
Providence restrains the tempest, and the monarch, raising his proud head
towards heaven, commands the people with a lofty air, the Catholic Church
does not flatter him. "Thou art dust," she says to him, "and into dust thou
shalt return; power was given thee not unto destruction, but unto edification;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_343" id="Page_343">[Pg 343]</a></span>
thy faculties are great, but not boundless. God is thy judge, as well as that
of the lowest of thy subjects." The Church is then accused of insolence; and
if any theologian should venture to investigate the origin of civil power, to
point out, with generous freedom, the duties to which this power is subject; to
write, in a word, with prudence upon public right, but without servility, the
Catholics are then declared seditious. But the tempest bursts, thrones are
overturned, revolution prevails, spills the blood of the people in torrents, cuts
off royal heads, and all in the name of liberty. The Church says: "This is
no liberty, but a succession of crimes; the fraternity and equality which I have
taught, were never your orgies and guillotines." The Church then becomes a
vile flatterer; her words, her actions, have indubitably revealed that the
Sovereign Pontiff is the surest anchor of despotism; it has been proved that
the Court of Rome has been polluted by an infamous pact.<a href="#Note_33" class="fnanchor">33</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LVII" id="CHAPTER_LVII">CHAPTER LVII.</a><br />

<small>POLITICAL SOCIETY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY</small>.</h2>


<p>We have already seen what has been the conduct of the Christian religion
with respect to society; that is to say, that not caring whether such or such
political forms were established in a country, she has ever addressed herself to
man, seeking to enlighten his understanding and to purify his heart, fully confident
that when these objects were attained, society would naturally pursue a
safe course. This is sufficient to obliterate the reproach imputed to her of
being an enemy to the liberty of the people.</p>

<p>Protestantism has certainly never revealed to the world a single dogma
which exalts the dignity of man, nor created fresh motives of consideration
and respect, or closer bonds of fraternity. The Reformation cannot, therefore,
boast of having given the least impetus to the progress of modern nations; it
cannot, consequently, lay the least claim to the gratitude of the people in this
respect. But as it frequently happens that people lay aside main points and
set a great value on appearances; and as Protestantism has been supposed to
accord much better than Catholicity with those institutions in which it is usual
to find guarantees for a high degree of liberty; we must draw a parallel.
Besides, we cannot omit it without betraying an ignorance of the genius of
this age, and authorizing the suspicion that Catholicity cannot derive any
advantage from such a comparison. In the first place, I will observe, that
those who look upon Protestantism as inseparable from public liberty do not
in this respect agree with M. Guizot, who cannot certainly be accused of any
want of sympathy for the Reformation. "In Germany," says this celebrated
publicist, "far from demanding political liberty, it has accepted, I should not
like to say political servitude, <em>but the absence of liberty</em>." (<cite>Hist. Gén. de la
Civil. en Eur.</cite> leç. 12.)</p>

<p>I quote M. Guizot, because in Spain we are so accustomed to translations,
because we Spaniards have been led to suppose, that the best thing for us is to
believe foreigners on their bare word; because amongst us, in questions of
importance, it is necessary to have recourse to foreign authorities; and hence,
a writer who appears to slight such authorities, exposes himself to the risk of
being treated as an ignoramus, as one behind the age. Besides, with a certain
class of writers, the authority of M. Guizot is decisive. In fact, a multitude
of publications have appeared amongst us bearing the title of "Philosophy of
History," whose authors, it is quite clear, have used the works of that French
writer as their text-books. Is this assertion, that Protestantism is the natural
bulwark of liberty, true or false, accurate or inaccurate? What do history and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_344" id="Page_344">[Pg 344]</a></span>
philosophy teach us on this point? Has Protestantism advanced the popular
cause, by contributing to the establishment and development of liberal forms
of government? To place the question in its true light, and discuss it thoroughly,
we must take a view of the state of Europe at the close of the fifteenth
century, and at the beginning of the sixteenth. It is incontestable that individuals
and society were then making rapid progress towards perfection. We
have sufficient evidence of this fact in the wonderful march of intellect at this
period, in the numerous measures of improvement effected at that epoch, and
in the better organization everywhere introduced. This organization is doubtless
still imperfect; but it is nevertheless such as cannot be likened to that of
former times. If we carefully examine into the state of society at that epoch,
as represented either in the writings or in the events of the time, we shall
observe a certain restlessness, anxiety, and fermentation, which, while they
indicated the existence of vast wants not yet satisfied, were evidence also of a
tolerably distinct knowledge of those wants. Far from discovering in the men
of that period a contempt or forgetfulness of their rights and dignity, or any
discouragement and pusillanimity at the sight of obstacles, we find them
abounding in foresight and ingenuity, swayed by lofty and sublime thoughts,
fired with noble sentiments, and animated with intrepid and ardent courage.
The progress of European society at that epoch was very rapid; three very
remarkable circumstances contributed to render it so: 1. The introduction of
the whole body of men to the rank of citizens, as a necessary consequence of
the abolition of slavery and the decline of feudality; 2. The very nature of civilization,
in which every thing advances together and abreast; 3. In fine, the
existence of a means for increasing its development and rapidity&mdash;this means
was the art of printing. To make use of a physico-mathematical expression,
we may say, that the amount of motion must have been very considerable, since
it was the product of the mass by the rapidity, and that the mass, as well as
the rapidity, were then very considerable.</p>

<p>This powerful movement, which proceeds from good, is in itself good, and
is productive of good, is, however, accompanied by inconveniences and perils;
it raises flattering hopes, but it also inspires apprehensions and fears. The
people of Europe are an ancient people, but they may be said to have become
young again; their inclinations, their wants, urge them to great enterprises;
and they enter upon them with the ardor of an impetuous and inexperienced
young man, feeling in his breast a great heart, and in his head the lively spark
of genius. In this situation, a great problem presents itself for solution, viz.,
to find the most proper means for directing society without impeding its progress;
and for conducting it by a way free from precipices to the objects of its
aim, <em>intelligence</em>, <em>morality</em>, <em>felicity</em>. A slight glance at this problem startles us
at its immense extent; so numerous are the objects it embraces, the relations
it bears, the obstacles and difficulties with which it is beset. Considering this
question attentively, and comparing it with man's weakness, the mind is ready
to lose courage and despond. The problem, however, exists, not as a scientific
speculation, but as a real and urgent necessity. In such a case, society is like
individuals; it attempts, essays, and makes efforts to get clear of the difficulty
as well as possible.</p>

<p>Man's civil state improves daily; but to maintain this improvement, and to
perfect it, requires a means: and this is the problem of <em>political forms</em>. What
ought these forms to be? And, above all, what elements can we make use
of? What is the respective force of these elements? What are their tendencies,
their relations, their affinities? How shall they be combined? <em>Monarchy</em>,
<em>Aristocracy</em>, <em>Democracy</em>&mdash;these three powers present themselves at the same
time to dispute for the direction and government of society. They are certainly
not equal, either in force, means of action, or in practical intelligence; but<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_345" id="Page_345">[Pg 345]</a></span>
they all command our respect, they have all pretensions to a preponderance
more or less decisive, and none of them are without the probability of obtaining
it. This simultaneous concurrence of pretensions, this rivalship of three
powers so different in their nature and aim, forms one of the leading features
of this epoch. It is, as it were, in a great measure the key to the principal
events; and, in spite of the various aspects presented by this feature, it may
be signalized as a general fact among all the civilized portion of the nations
of Europe.</p>

<p>Before proceeding further in our examination of this subject, the mere indication
of such a fact suggests the reflection, that it must be very incorrect to
say that Catholicity has tendencies opposed to the true liberty of the people;
for we see that European civilization, which, during so many ages, was under
the influence and guardianship of this religion, did not then present one single
principle of government exclusively predominating. Survey the whole of
Europe at this period, and you will not find one country in which the same
fact did not exist. In Spain, France, England, Germany, under the names
of Cortes, States-General, Parliaments, or Diets; the same thing everywhere,
with the simple modifications which necessarily result from circumstances
adapted to each people. What is very remarkable in this case is, that if there
be a single exception, it is in favor of liberty; and, strange to say, it exists
precisely in Italy, where the influence of the Popes is immediately felt. The
names of the Republics of Genoa, Pisa, Sienna, Florence, Venice, are familiar to
all. It is well known that Italy is the country in which popular forms at that
period gained most ground, and in which they were put in practice, whilst in
other countries they had already abandoned the field. I do not mean to say
that the Italian Republics were a model worthy of being imitated by the
other nations of Europe. I am well aware that these forms of government
were attended with grave inconveniences; but since so much is said of <em>spirit</em>
and <em>tendencies</em>, since the Catholic Church is reproached with her affinity to
despotism, and the Popes with a <em>taste</em> for oppression, it is well to adduce those
facts which may serve to throw some doubt upon certain authoritative assertions,
adduced as so many philosophico-historical dogmas. If Italy preserved
her independence in spite of the efforts of the Emperors of Germany to wrest
it from her, she owed it in a great part to the firmness and energy of the Popes.</p>

<p>In order to comprehend fully the relations which Catholicity bears to political
institutions, in order to ascertain what degree of affinity it bears to such and
such forms, and to form a correct idea of the influence of Protestantism in this
respect over European civilization, we must examine carefully and in detail
each of the elements claiming preponderance. When we examine them afterwards
in their relations with each other, we will ascertain, as far as possible,
where the truth lies in this shapeless mass. Every one of these three may be
considered in two ways: 1. According to the ideas formed of them at the period
we are speaking of; 2. According to the interests these elements represent, and
the part they play in society. We must lay particular stress upon this distinction,
without which we should expose ourselves to the commission of serious
errors. In fact, the ideas which were entertained upon such or such principles
of government did not coincide with the interest represented by this same
element, and with the part it acted in society; and although it is clear that
these two things must have had very close relations with each other, and could
not be disengaged from a real and reciprocal influence, yet it is most certain
that they differ considerably, and that this difference, the source of very various
considerations, shows the subject in points of view quite dissimilar.</p>

<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_346" id="Page_346">[Pg 346]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LVIII" id="CHAPTER_LVIII">CHAPTER LVIII.</a><br />

<small>MONARCHY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY</small>.</h2>


<p>The idea of monarchy has ever existed in the bosom of European society,
even at the time when the least use was made of it; and it is worthy of remark,
that at the time when its energy was taken away, and it was destroyed in
practice, it still retained its force in theory. We cannot say that our ancestors
had any very fixed notions upon the nature of the object represented by this
idea; nor can we wonder at it, since the continual variations and modifications
which they witnessed must have prevented them from forming any very correct
knowledge of it. Nevertheless, if we peruse the codes in places where monarchy
is treated of, and if we consult the writings which have been preserved upon
this matter, we shall find that their ideas on this point were more fixed than
might have been imagined. By studying the manner of thinking of this period,
we find that men in general were almost destitute of analytical knowledge,
being more erudite than philosophical; so much so, that they scarcely ventured
to express an idea without supporting it by a multitude of authorities. This
taste for erudition, which is visible at the first glance into their writings&mdash;a
mere tissue of quotations&mdash;and which must have been very natural, since it
was so general and lasting, had very advantageous results; not the least of
which was the uniting of ancient with modern society, by the preservation of
a great number of records and memorials, which, had it not been for this public
taste, must have been destroyed, and by exhuming from the dust the remains
of antiquity about to perish. But, on the other hand, it produced many evils;
amongst others, a sort of stifling of thought, which could no longer indulge in
its own inspirations, although they may have been more happy than the ancient
ones on some points.</p>

<p>However it may be, such is the fact: on examining it in relation to the
matter under discussion, we find that monarchy was represented at that time
as one single picture, in which there appeared at the same time the kings of
the Jews and the Roman emperors, whose features had been corrected by the
hand of Christianity. That is to say, the principles of monarchy were composed
of the teachings of Scripture and the Roman codes. Seek every where
the idea of emperor, king, or prince, you will always find the same thing,
whether you look for the origin of power, its extent, its exercise, or its object.
But what ideas were entertained of monarchy? What was the acceptation of
this word? Taken in a general sense, abstractedly from the various modifications
which a variety of circumstances gave to its signification, it meant, <em>the
supreme command over society, vested in the hands of one man, who was to exercise
it according to reason and justice</em>. This was the leading idea, the only one
fixed, as a sort of pole, round which all other questions revolved. Did the
monarch possess in himself the faculty of making laws without consulting
general assemblies, which, under different names, represented the different
classes of the kingdom? From the moment that we propose this question we
come upon new ground. We have descended from theory to practice; we have
brought our ideas into contact with the object to which they are to be applied.
From that moment, we must allow, every thing vacillates and becomes obscure;
a thousand incoherent, strange, and contradictory facts pass before our eyes;
the parchments upon which are inscribed the rights, liberties, and laws of the
people give rise to a variety of interpretations, which multiply doubts and
increase difficulties. We see, in the first place, that the relations of the
monarch with the subject, or, more properly speaking, the mode in which
government should be exercised, was not very well defined. The confusion<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_347" id="Page_347">[Pg 347]</a></span>
from which society was emerging was still felt, and was inevitable in an aggregation
of heterogeneous bodies, in a combination of rival and hostile elements;
that is, we discover an embryo, and consequently it is impossible as yet to find
regular and well-defined forms.</p>

<p>Did this idea of monarchy contain any thing of despotism, any thing that
subjected one man to the dominion of another by setting aside the eternal laws
of reason and justice? No; from the moment that we touch upon this point
we discover a new horizon, clear and transparent, upon which objects present
themselves distinctly, without a shade of dimness or obscurity. The answer
of all writers is decisive: Rule ought to be conformable to reason and justice;
if it is not, it is mere tyranny. So that the principle maintained by M. Guizot,
in his <cite>Discours sur la Democratie moderne</cite>, and in his <cite>History of Civilisation in
Europe</cite>, viz. that the will alone does not constitute a right; that laws, to be
laws, should accord with those of eternal reason, the only source of all legitimate
power;&mdash;that this principle, I say, which we might imagine to be newly
applied to society, is as ancient as the world. Acknowledged by ancient
philosophers, developed, inculcated, and applied by Christianity, we find it in
every page of jurists and theologians.</p>

<p>But we know what this principle was worth in the monarchies of antiquity,
and also in our own days in countries where Christianity has not yet been
established. Who, in such countries, presumes continually to remind kings
of their obligation to be just? Observe, on the contrary, what is the case
among Christians: the words 'reason' and 'justice' are constantly in the
mouth of the subject, because he knows that no one has a right to treat him
unreasonably or unjustly; and this he knows, because Christianity has impressed
him with a profound idea of his own dignity, because it has accustomed him to
look upon reason and justice, not as vain words, but as eternal characters
engraven on the heart of man by the hand of God, perpetually reminding man
that, although he is a frail creature, subject to error and to weakness, he is,
nevertheless, stamped with the image of eternal truth and of immutable justice.
If any one should question the truth of what I have advanced, it will suffice,
to convince him, to remind him of the numerous texts previously cited in this
work, and in which the most eminent Catholic writers bear testimony to their
manner of thinking on the origin and faculties of civil power.</p>

<p>So much for ideas; as for facts, they vary according to times and countries.
During the incursions of the barbarians, and so long as the feudal system
prevailed, monarchy remained much beneath its typical idea; but during the
course of the sixteenth century, matters assumed a different aspect. In Germany,
France, England, and Spain, powerful monarchs were reigning, who filled the
world with the fame of their names; in their presence aristocracy and democracy
bowed with humility; or if by chance they ventured to raise their heads, it
was only to suffer still greater degradation. The throne, it is true, had not yet
attained that ascendency of power and importance which it acquired in the
following century; but its destiny was irrevocably fixed&mdash;power and glory
awaited it. Aristocracy and democracy might have labored to take part in
future events; but it would have been labor in vain for them to attempt to
appropriate them. A fixed and powerful centre was essential to European
society, and monarchy completely satisfied this imperative necessity. The
people understood and felt it; hence we find them eagerly grasping at this
saving principle, and placing themselves under the safeguard of the throne.</p>

<p>The question is not, therefore, whether or not the throne ought to exist, or
whether it ought to preponderate over aristocracy and democracy: these two
questions have been already resolved. At the commencement of the sixteenth
century, its existence and preponderance were already necessary. The question
to be resolved is, whether the throne ought so decisively to have prevailed,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_348" id="Page_348">[Pg 348]</a></span>
that the two elements, aristocracy and democracy, should be erased from the
political world; whether the combination which had hitherto existed was still
to exist: or, whether these two elements should disappear; whether monarchical
power should be absolute. The Church resisted royal power when it attempted
to lay hands upon sacred things; but her zeal never carried her so far as to
depreciate, in the eyes of the people, an authority which was so essential to them.
On the contrary, besides continually giving to the power of kings a more
solid basis, by her doctrines favorable to all legitimate authority, she endeavored
to give them a still more sacred character by the august ceremonies
displayed at their coronations. The Church has been sometimes accused of
anarchical tendencies, for having energetically struggled against the pretensions
of sovereigns; by some, on the contrary, she has been reproached with favoring
despotism, because she preached up to the people the duty of obedience
to the <em>lawful</em> authorities. If I mistake not, these accusations, so opposite
to each other, prove that the Church has neither been adulatory nor anarchical;
she has maintained the balance even, by telling the truth both to kings and
their subjects.</p>

<p>Let the spirit of sectarianism seek, on all sides, historical facts, to prove
that the Popes have attempted to destroy civil monarchy by confiscating it to
their own profit. But let us bear in mind what the Protestant Müller says,
that the Father of the faithful was, during the barbarous ages, a tutor sent by
God to the European nations; and let us not be astonished to find that differences
have sometimes occurred between him and his pupils. To discover
the intention which dictated these reproaches against the Court of Rome,
relative to monarchy, we need only reflect upon the following question. All
writers consider as a great benefit the creation of a strong central authority,
and yet circumscribed within just limits that it may not abuse its power;
they laud to the skies every thing tending, directly or indirectly, among all
the nations of Europe, to establish such an authority. Why, then, when
speaking of the conduct of Popes, do they attribute to a pretended taste for
despotism the support which they give to royal authority, whilst they qualify
with anarchical usurpation their efforts to restrain, upon certain points, the
faculties of sovereigns? The answer is not difficult.<a href="#Note_34" class="fnanchor">34</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LIX" id="CHAPTER_LIX">CHAPTER LIX.</a><br />

<small>THE ARISTOCRACY OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY</small>.</h2>


<p>The aristocracy, as including the privileged portion of society, comprehended
two classes very distinct in their origin and nature, the nobility and the clergy.
Both abounded in power and riches; both were placed far above the people,
and were important wheels in the political machine. There was, however, this
remarkable difference between them, that the principal basis of the power and
grandeur of the Clergy was religious ideas&mdash;ideas which circulated throughout
society, which animated it, gave it life, and consequently insured for a long
time the preponderance of the ecclesiastical power; whilst the grandeur and
influence of the nobles rested solely upon a fact necessarily transient, viz. the
social organization of the epoch&mdash;an organization which was becoming rapidly
modified, since the people were then struggling to liberate themselves from the
bonds of feudalism. I do not mean, that the nobles did not possess legitimate
rights to the power and influence which they exercised; but merely that the
principal portion of these rights, even supposing them founded upon the most
just laws and titles, was not necessarily connected with any of the great conservative
principles of society&mdash;those principles which invest with an immense<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_349" id="Page_349">[Pg 349]</a></span>
force and ascendency the person or class which in any way represents them.
But we touch here upon a subject little investigated, and upon the explanation
of which depends the comprehension of great social facts. It is well, therefore,
to develop it fully, and to examine it attentively.</p>

<p>Of what was monarchy the representative? Of a principle eminently conservative
of society&mdash;a principle which has withstood all the attacks of theories
and revolutions, and to which have been attached, as the only anchor of safety,
those very nations in the bosom of which democratical ideas were diffused, and
in which liberal institutions originated. This is one of the causes why
monarchy, even in its most calamitous times, triumphed over its disasters.
Feudal pride, and the unsettled state of the times, with the agitation of rising
democracy, united to oppress it; scarcely was its power distinguishable amid
the troubled waves of society, like the broken mast of a shipwrecked vessel.
But, even at this time, we find the ideas of force and power bound to those of
monarchy. Regal dignity was trampled under foot and outraged in various
ways, but still held sacred and recognised as inviolable. Theory was not in
accordance with practice; the idea was more forcible than the fact which it
expressed: but we need not be astonished at this phenomenon, since such is
always the character of ideas producing great changes. They are, at first,
merely visible in society; they spread, take root, and penetrate into all institutions;
time continues to prepare the way; and if the idea is just and moral,
if it point to the satisfaction of a want, the moment at length comes in which
facts give way, the idea triumphs, and bends and humbles all before it. This
was the case, in the sixteenth century, with regard to monarchy; under one
form or another, with greater or less modifications, it was actually essential to
the people, as it is still; and for this reason it naturally prevailed over all its
adversaries, and survived all accidents.</p>

<p>With respect to the clergy, we need not attempt to show that they were the
representatives of the religious principle&mdash;a real social necessity for all the
nations of the earth, when taken in its general sense; and a real social necessity
for the nations of Europe, when taken in its Christian sense.</p>

<p>We have already seen that the nobility could not be compared either to
monarchy or to the clergy, since they were destitute of the high principles
represented by each of these bodies. Extensive privileges, and the ancient
possession of great estates, with the guarantee of the laws and customs of the
time; glorious traditions of military feats, pompous names, titles, and escutcheons
of illustrious ancestors; such were the insignia of the lay aristocracy. But
nothing of all this had any direct and essential relation with the great wants
of society. The nobility depended upon a particular organization, necessarily
transient; they were too nearly allied to a law purely positive and human, to
be able to reckon upon a long duration, or to flatter themselves with success in
all their pretensions and exigencies. It will be objected, perhaps, that the
existence of an intermediate class between the monarch and the people is an
essential necessity, acknowledged by all publicists, and founded upon the very
nature of things. In fact, we have seen that in nations from which the ancient
aristocracy has disappeared, a new one has been formed, either by the course
of events or by the action of governments. But this objection is not applicable
to the question in the point of view under which I consider it. I do not
deny the necessity of an intermediate class; I merely affirm that the ancient
nobility, such as it was, did not contain elements to ensure its duration, since
it was liable to be replaced by another, as it has been in effect. The classes
of the laity acquire their political and social importance from a superiority of
intellect and force; this superiority no longer existing in the nobility, its fall
was inevitable. At the beginning of the sixteenth century the throne and the
people daily acquired a greater ascendency; the former became the centre of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_350" id="Page_350">[Pg 350]</a></span>
all social forces, and the people were constantly enriching themselves by
industry and commerce. With regard to learning, the discovery of printing,
as it became general, prevented it from being henceforth the exclusive patrimony
of any particular class.</p>

<p>It was evident, therefore, that the nobility perceived, at this epoch, their
ancient power escaping, and possessed no other means of preserving a part of
it than to struggle to preserve the titles which it had given them. Unfortunately
for them, their wealth was daily decreasing, not only from the dilapidations
occasioned by luxury, but also from the extraordinary increase of
non-territorial riches; the profound changes wrought in the value of every
thing by means of the reorganization of society and the discovery of America
caused immovable property to lose much of its importance. If the force of
landed property was gradually diminishing, the rights of jurisdiction were
marching still more rapidly towards their ruin. On one hand, these rights
were opposed by the power of kings; and, on the other, by municipalities and
other centres of action possessed by the popular element; so that, in spite of
the most profound respect for acquired rights, and merely by allowing things
to take their ordinary course, the ancient nobility was inevitably sunk to that
point of depression in which it now exists. This could not happen to the
clergy. Despoiled of their wealth, entirely or partially deprived of their privileges,
there still remained for them the ministry of religion. No one could
exercise this ministry without them; which was sufficient to insure them great
influence in spite of all commotions and changes.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LX" id="CHAPTER_LX">CHAPTER LX.</a><br />

<small>ON DEMOCRACY</small>.</h2>


<p>Such was the situation of Europe during the centuries preceding the sixteenth,
that it appears difficult to find for democracy a well-defined place in
political theories. Stifled by the established powers, deprived as yet of the
resources which, in time, gave it the ascendency, it was natural it should be
almost unobserved by politicians. It was in reality very feeble; and it was
not, therefore, surprising that, owing to the influence of reality over ideas,
theorists should regard the people merely as an abject portion of society,
unworthy of honors or happiness, and fit only to labor and to serve. It is,
however, worthy of remark, that ideas from that time took a new direction; it
may even be affirmed that they were infinitely more elevated and more generous
than facts. This is one of the most convincing proofs of the intellectual
development that Christianity had operated amongst men&mdash;one of the most
unexceptionable testimonies in favor of that profound sentiment of reason and
justice which it had deposited in the heart of society. Now these elements
were not to be stifled by events the most unfavorable, nor by the rudest shocks;
for they were supported upon the very dogmas of religion, which still remain
firm, in spite of all commotion, as an immovable axis remains fixed in the midst
of broken machinery.</p>

<p>In perusing the writings of this epoch, we find established, as an indubitable
fact, the right of the people to the administration of justice; they were not to
be irritated by any vexatious regulations; the public imposts were to be equally
divided; no one was to be forced to do any thing contrary to reason or the
well-being of society: that is to say, these writers acknowledged and established
all those principles upon which were to be based the laws and customs destined
one day to produce civil liberty. This is so true, that, in proportion as circumstances
permitted, these principles were rapidly and extensively developed;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_351" id="Page_351">[Pg 351]</a></span>
vast and numerous applications were immediately made of them; and civil
liberty took such deep root among the people of modern Europe, that it has
never been erased from their bosoms; and we see it preserved in forms of absolute
government as well as in the mixed forms.</p>

<p>To complete my demonstration, that the ideas in favor of the people proceeded
from Christianity, I will adduce a reason which appears to me decisive.
The philosophy adopted by the schools of that period was that of Aristotle.
Aristotle's authority was of great weight; he was called by an autonomasia,
<em>the Philosopher</em>; a good commentary of his works was considered the highest
point to be attained in these matters. And yet, so far as the relations of
society were concerned, the doctrines of the Stagyrite were not adopted;
Christian writers took a higher and more generous view of mankind. Aristotle's
degrading doctrines upon man born to servitude, destined to this end
even by nature, anterior to all legislation; his horrible doctrines upon infanticide;
his theories, which at one blow deprived all those who professed the
mechanical arts of the title of citizen; in a word, those monstrous systems,
which the ancient philosophers unconsciously learned from the society which
surrounded them, were utterly rejected by Christian philosophers. The man
who had just perused Aristotle's work on Politics took up his Bible, or the
works of the Fathers: the authority of Aristotle was great, but that of the
Church was still greater; the works of the pagan philosopher must be interpreted
piously, or abandoned; in either case the rights of humanity were saved,
and this was an effect of the preponderating force of the Catholic faith.</p>

<p>The system of castes most forcibly contributes to arrest the development of
the popular element, by condemning the majority of the people of a country
to a state of perpetual abjection and slavery. In this system, honors, riches,
and command are confined and transferred from father to son; a barrier separates
men from each other, and ends in causing the most powerful to be considered
as belonging to a superior class of beings. The Church has ever
opposed the introduction of so fatal a system, and to apply the word <em>caste</em> to
the clergy would betray an ignorance of its meaning. On this subject M.
Guizot has done ample justice to the cause of truth. He expresses himself in
the following manner in the fifth lecture of his <cite>Histoire générale de la Civilisation
en Europe</cite>: "With regard to the mode of formation and transmission of
power in the Church, there is a word," says he, "much used in speaking of
the Christian clergy, and which I am under the obligation of discarding; it is
the word <em>caste</em>. The body of ecclesiastical magistrates has often been called a
caste. This expression is not correct; the idea of heirship is inherent in that
of <em>caste</em>. Travel over the world; take all those countries in which the system
of <em>castes</em> exists, in India, in Egypt, you will find everywhere the <em>caste</em> essentially
hereditary; it is the transmission of the same situation, of the same power,
from father to son. Where heirship does not exist, there is no caste, there is
a corporation; the spirit of corporate bodies has its inconveniences, but it is
very different from that of castes. The word caste cannot be applied to the
Christian Church. The celibacy of the clergy has prevented them from
becoming a caste. You perceive already the consequences of this difference. A
system of <em>caste</em>, and the existence of hereditary succession, inevitably involve
the idea of privileges. The very definition of a <em>caste</em> implies privileges. When
the same functions, the same powers, become hereditary in the same families,
it is evident that privileges follow, and that no one can acquire such functions
and powers unless he is born to them. This, in fact, is what has taken place:
wherever religious government has fallen into the hands of a caste, it has
become a privilege; no one has been permitted to enter it but the members of
families belonging to the caste. Nothing of this has ever occurred in the
Christian Church; on the contrary, she has ever maintained the equal admissi<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_352" id="Page_352">[Pg 352]</a></span>bility
of all men, whatever their origin, to all her functions, to all her dignities.
The ecclesiastical state, particularly from the fifth to the twelfth century, was
open to all. The Church was recruited from all ranks, from the inferior as
well as from the superior,&mdash;more commonly even from the inferior. She alone
resisted the system of castes; she alone maintained the principle of equality
of competition; she alone called all legitimate superiors to the possession of
power. This is the first grand result naturally produced by the fact that she
was a corporation, and not a caste."</p>

<p>This splendid passage of the French writer completely vindicates the Catholic
Church from the reproach of exclusiveness with which it had been attempted
to stain her; it presents to me also the opportunity of making some reflections
upon the beneficial effects of Catholicity upon the development of civilization
in favor of the plebeian classes. We are not ignorant of the numerous declamations
against religious celibacy which have proceeded from the mouths of the
pretended defenders of the rights of humanity; but is it not strange that they
forget, as M. Guizot justly observes, that celibacy is exactly what has prevented
the Christian clergy from becoming a caste? Let us examine, in fact, what
would have been the case on the contrary supposition. At the time to which
we refer, the ascendency of religious power was unlimited, and the wealth of
the Church considerable; that is to say, she possessed every thing necessary
for enabling a caste to establish its preponderance and stability. What further
was needful, therefore? Hereditary succession, nothing more; and this would
have been established by the marriage of the clergy. What I here affirm is
no vain conjecture, it is a positive fact, which I can render evident by bringing
forward historical proof. From certain remarkable regulations in ecclesiastical
legislation, we learn that it required all the energy of pontifical authority to
prevent this succession from being introduced. Every thing, in fine, tended to
such an end; and if the Church preserved itself from such a calamity, it was
owing to the horror which she always entertained of this fatal custom. Read
the 17th chapter of the first book of the Decretals of Gregory IX.; the pontifical
regulations therein contained prove that the evil here spoken of presented
alarming symptoms. The pope makes use of the strongest terms possible to be
found: "<i lang="la">Ad enormitatem istam eradicandam</i>," "observato Apostolici rescripti
decreto <i lang="la">quod successionem in Ecclesia Dei hereditariam detestatur</i>." "<i lang="la">Ad extirpandas
successiones a sanctis Dei Ecclesiis studio totius sollicitudinis debemus
intendere.</i>" "Quia igitur in Ecclesia successiones, et in prælaturis et dignitatibus
ecclesiasticis <i lang="la">statutis canonicis damnantur</i>." These expressions, and others
of a like nature, clearly show that the danger was already considered serious,
and justify the prudence of the Holy See in reserving to itself the exclusive
right of granting dispensations on this point.</p>

<p>It required the continual vigilance of the pontifical authority to prevent this
abuse from making daily progress, for it was urged on by the most powerful
feelings of nature. Four centuries had elapsed since these measures had been
taken, and yet we find that, in 1533, Pope Clement VII. was obliged to restrict
a canon of Alexander III. in order to prevent grave scandals, grievously
lamented by the pious Pontiff. Suppose that the Church had not opposed such
an abuse with all her force, and that the custom had become general; bear in
mind also, that in those ages of the grossest ignorance, the privileged classes
were every thing, and the people had scarcely a civil existence; and see
whether there would not have been formed an ecclesiastical caste along with
that of the nobility, and whether both, united by the bonds of family and
common interest, would not have opposed an invincible obstacle to the ulterior
development of the plebeian class, plunging European society into that degradation
in which Asiatic society now exists. Such would have been the consequence
of the marriage of the clergy, if the pretended reform had been realized a few<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_353" id="Page_353">[Pg 353]</a></span>
centuries sooner. When it came, at the beginning of the sixteenth century,
it found European society in a great measure formed; it had to contend against
an adult, who could not easily be made to forget his ideas and change his
habits. What has actually taken place may lead us to infer what would have
taken place. In England, a close alliance was formed between the lay aristocracy
and the Protestant clergy; and what is very remarkable, we have seen,
and we still see, in that country, something resembling castes, with the modifications
which must necessarily ensue from the great development of a certain
kind of civilization and liberty at which Great Britain has arrived.</p>

<p>If the clergy in the middle age, establishing their perpetuity by hereditary
succession, had constituted themselves an exclusive class, would not the aristocratic
alliance of which we are speaking have been a natural consequence?
And who would thenceforth have been able to break this alliance? The enemies
of the Church interpret all her discipline, and even some of her dogmas, by
imputing to her ulterior designs; and hence they consider the law of celibacy
as the result of an interested design. It was easy to see, however, that if the
Church had entertained worldly views, she might have selected as a model
those priests of other religions who have formed a separate, preponderating,
and exclusive class, for which the severity of duty did not form a brazen wall
against the enjoyments of nature. Europe, it will be objected, is not Asia.
This is true; but the Europe of our days, and even that of the sixteenth
century, is no longer the Europe of the middle ages. In those centuries, in
which none but the clergy could read and write, and in which knowledge was
exclusively in their possession, had they wished to plunge the world into darkness,
they had only to extinguish the torch with which they were enlightening
it. It is also very certain, that celibacy has given to the clergy a moral force
and ascendency which they could not have attained by any other means. But
this only proves that the Church has preferred moral to physical power, and
that the spirit of her institutions is to act by exercising a direct influence upon
the intelligence and heart of man. Now, is it not eminently praiseworthy to
use all possible moral means for the direction of mankind? Is it not an honor
to the Catholic clergy to have accomplished, by institutions severe against
themselves, what they might have realized in part by systems indulgent to
their own passions and degrading to others? Oh, we see here the work of Him
who will remain with His Church till the end of the world.</p>

<p>Whatever may be the value of these reflections, it cannot be contested, that
where Christianity has not existed, the people have been the victims of a small
number, whose contempt and insults have been the only recompense of their
labors. Consult history and experience; the fact is general and constant;
there is not an exception even in those ancient republics so vaunted for their
liberty. Under liberal forms, slavery existed; a slavery properly so called
for some men; a slavery glossed over with fine appearances for that turbulent
multitude who served the caprice of the Tribunes, and believed they were exercising
their sublime rights by condemning to ostracism or to death the most
virtuous citizens. It has sometimes happened that, among the Christians,
appearances were not in favor of liberty, but things were so in reality, if we
understand by the word liberty the empire of just laws, aiming at the well-being
of the multitude, and founded upon the consideration and profound
respect due to the rights of mankind. Observe the grand phases of European
society at the time when Catholicity exclusively predominated. With various
forms, distinct origins, different inclinations, they all follow the same course;
all tend to favor the cause of the multitude; whatever has this for its aim, endures;
whatever has not, perishes. Whence comes it that this was not the case
in other countries? If evident reasons and palpable facts, moreover, did not
manifest the salutary influence of the religion of Jesus Christ, so remarkable<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_354" id="Page_354">[Pg 354]</a></span>
a coincidence would suffice to suggest grave reflections to those, who meditate
upon the cause and character of the events which change or modify the
destiny of mankind. Let those who represent Catholicity as the enemy of
the people, point out to us a single doctrine of the Church sanctioning the
abuses under which the people were suffering, or the injustice which oppressed
them. Let them show us whether, at the commencement of the sixteenth
century, when Europe was under the exclusive domination of the Catholic
religion, the people were not as far advanced as they could be, considering the
ordinary course of things. They certainly did not possess so much wealth as
they have since acquired, and their knowledge was not so extensive as in modern
times; but is the progress which has been made in this respect attributable to
Protestantism? Was not the sixteenth century commenced under more favorable
auspices than the fifteenth, and the latter under better auspices than
the fourteenth? This proves that Europe, under the shield of Catholicity, continued
in a progressive march; that the cause of the multitude suffered no
prejudice from the influence of Catholicity; and that if great ameliorations
have since been effected, they have not been a consequence of what is called
the Reformation.</p>

<p>It is the development of industry and commerce that has most powerfully
contributed to elevate modern democracy, by diminishing the preponderance
of the aristocratic classes. I do not touch upon the events which took place
in Europe before the appearance of Protestantism; but I see at a glance that,
far from impeding such a movement, Catholic doctrines and institutions must
have favored it, since, under their shield and protection, the manufacturing
and mercantile interests were surprisingly developed. No one is ignorant of
their astonishing success in Spain: and we cannot attribute this progress to
the Moors; for Catalonia, subject exclusively to the Catholic influence, evinced
such activity, prosperity, and intelligence in industry and commerce, that we
could scarcely believe to what a state of perfection they had arrived, did not
unexceptionable documents bear ample testimony to the fact. Read the <cite>Historical
Memoirs of the Marine, Commerce, and Arts of the ancient City of Barcelona</cite>,
by our celebrated Capmany. May we not account it an honor to belong to
this Catalonian nation, whose ancestors displayed such zeal in all things, never
allowing other nations to surpass them in the march of civilization and improvement?
Whilst this phenomenon was advancing in the south of Europe,
the association of the Hanseatic towns, the origin of which is lost in the centuries
of the middle ages, was created in the north. It obtained in time such an
amount of power as to measure its force with that of kings. Its rich factories,
established all over Europe, and favored with many advantageous privileges,
elevated it to the rank of a real power. Not satisfied with the power which it
enjoyed in its own country, and in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, it extended
it to England and Russia. London and Novogorod admired the splendid
establishments of those intrepid merchants, who, by means of their wealth,
obtained exorbitant privileges; who had their own magistrates, and formed an
independent state in the centre of foreign countries.</p>

<p>It is very remarkable that the Hanseatic league selected religious communities
as their model, in all that concerned the system of life of the clerks in
their counting-houses. Their clerks ate in common, had common dormitories,
and none of them were allowed to marry. Any one of them transgressing this
law, forfeited his rights to remain a member or a citizen of the Hanseatic
Confederation. In France, the manufacturing classes were also organized, the
better to resist the elements of dissolution existing in their bosom; and this
change, so fruitful in results, is entirely due to a king venerated upon the
altars of the Catholic Church. <em>The Establishment for the Trades of Paris</em> gave
a powerful impetus to the industrial classes, by augmenting their intelligence<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_355" id="Page_355">[Pg 355]</a></span>
and improving their morals; and whatever were the abuses that crept into
that organization, it cannot be denied that St. Louis satisfactorily supplied a
great want, by organizing the trades in the best manner possible, considering
how little progress had at that time been made. What shall we say of Italy,
containing within its bosom the powerful republics of Venice, Florence, Genoa,
and Pisa? It is difficult to conceive what progress industry had made in this
peninsula, and, as a natural consequence, what a development the democratical
element received. Had the influence in itself been so oppressive, had the
breath of the Roman court been fatal to the progress of the people, is it not
evident that its effects would have been particularly felt in those countries
which were the scene of its actions? Whence comes it, then, that whilst a
great part of Europe was groaning under feudal oppression, the middle class,
whose only title to nobility was the fruit of their intelligence and labor,
appeared in Italy so powerful, so brilliant and flourishing? I will not contend
that this development was attributable to the Popes; but, at least, we must
grant that they never opposed it.</p>

<p>Now, if we observe a similar phenomenon in Spain, and particularly in
Aragon, where the Pontifical influence was great; if the same thing is observable
in the north of Europe, inhabited by people whom Catholicity alone has
civilized; if, in fine, the same phenomenon is realized, with greater or less
rapidity, in all countries exclusively subject to the belief and authority of the
Church, we may conclude that Catholicity contains nothing opposed to the
movement of civilization, and that it is not opposed to a just and legitimate
development of the popular element.</p>

<p>I cannot think how it is possible for any one who has read history to accord
to Protestantism the honor of being favorable to the interests of the multitude.
Its origin was essentially aristocratic; and in those countries in which it has
succeeded in taking root, it has established aristocracy upon such firm foundations,
that the revolutions of three centuries have not been able to overturn it.
Witness, for a proof of this, what has taken place in Germany, England, and
all the north of Europe. It has been said that Calvinism is more favorable to
the democratical element; and that if it had prevailed in France it would have
established a system of federative republic in place of monarchy. Whatever
may be the value of this conjecture upon a change which would certainly not
have been very beneficial to the future prospects of that nation, it is perfectly
certain that no other system than that of aristocracy would have been found
practicable in France; for circumstances at that period would admit of nothing
else; and the aristocrats who were at the head of religious innovation, would
admit of no other organization. Had Protestantism triumphed in France, it is
probable that the poor of that country, in imitation of their brethren in
Germany, would have claimed a share in the rich booty; but they certainly
would not have found Calvin's proverbial harshness more advantageous to
them than the furious rashness of Luther was to the Germans. It is probable
that these wretched villagers, who, according to contemporary writers, had
nothing to eat but rye-bread, with no animal food, and slept upon a bundle of
straw, with a board for their pillow, would not have felt themselves more comfortable
than their brethren in Germany, had they thought proper to participate
in the effects of the new doctrines. In this case, they would not have
been punished, but exterminated, like their brethren beyond the Rhine. In
England, the sudden disappearance of the monasteries produced pauperism.
Their property having fallen into the hands of laymen, the religious being
driven from their abodes, the poor who subsisted upon the alms of these holy
establishments were left without the means of subsistence. And observe, that
the evil was not temporary; it has continued to our own days, and is now one
of the greatest evils afflicting Great Britain. I am aware that almsgiving is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_356" id="Page_356">[Pg 356]</a></span>
said to encourage indolence; but it is very certain that England, with her
poor-laws and her legal charity, contains a far greater number of destitute
poor than Catholic countries. It will be difficult to convince me, that to let
people die of hunger is a good means of developing the popular element.
Protestantism must have contained something very repulsive to the democrats
of that period, since we find it rejected in Spain and Italy, the two countries
in which the people enjoyed the greatest share of prosperity and rights. And
this becomes still more worthy of attention, when we remark that religious innovation
took root wherever the feudal aristocracy predominated. Look, it will
be said, at the United Provinces; but this example only proves that Protestantism,
determined to find supporters, willingly took part with the mal-contents.
If Philip II. had been a zealous Protestant, the United Provinces
would probably have alleged that they were unwilling to remain any longer
subject to an heretical prince. These provinces were for a long time under
the exclusive influence of Catholicity, and yet they were prosperous; the
popular element was developed in their bosom, without meeting any obstacle
on the part of religion. Exactly at the beginning of the sixteenth century
they made the discovery, that they could no longer prosper without abjuring
the faith of their ancestors. Observe the geographical position of the United
Provinces; see them surrounded by reformists offering to assist them; and
you will find in political considerations the reason which you may seek in vain
in imaginary affinity between the Protestant system and the interests of the
people.<a href="#Note_35" class="fnanchor">35</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LXI" id="CHAPTER_LXI">CHAPTER LXI.</a><br />

<small>ON THE VALUE OF THE DIFFERENT POLITICAL FORMS&mdash;CHARACTER OF
MONARCHY IN EUROPE</small>.</h2>


<p>The enthusiasm enkindled in Europe in latter times, has cooled down by
degrees; experience has shown that a political organization not in accordance
with the social organization is of no advantage to a nation, but rather overwhelms
it with evil. Men also understand, and not without difficulty, simple
as the matter is, that political systems should be regarded solely as a means of
ameliorating the condition of the people, and that political liberty, to be at all
rational, must be made a medium for the acquisition of civil liberty. Amongst
enlightened men, these are ordinary ideas; fanaticism for such or such political
forms, considered abstractly from their civil results, is now abandoned as a
thing denoting ignorance, or as a discreditable means hypocritically made use
of by the ambitious, devoid of real merit, whose only way to fortune is disturbance
and revolution. It cannot, however, be denied that, considered as simple
instruments, certain political forms, such as mixed, moderate, constitutional,
or representative governments, or whatever they be designated, have acquired
in some countries consideration and solidity; and that, in many countries, any
principle which might be considered opposed to representative forms, and only
favorable to absolute ones, would be repudiated beforehand. Civil liberty has
become necessary to the people of Europe; and in some nations the idea of this
liberty is so identified with that of political liberty, that it is difficult to explain
how civil liberty can exist under an absolute monarchy. We must therefore
examine what are the tendencies of the Catholic and those of the Protestant
religions. I will proceed so as to discover these tendencies by an impartial
analysis of historical facts. Never, perhaps, as M. Guizot felicitously observes,
were the natural course of things, and the hidden ways of Providence, less
understood. Wheresoever we meet not with assemblies, elections, urns, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_357" id="Page_357">[Pg 357]</a></span>
votes, we imagine power must be absolute, and liberty unprotected. I have
an express design in making use of the word tendencies, because it is clear that
Catholicity has no dogma on this point&mdash;it does not pronounce upon the
advantages of any particular form of government. The Roman Pontiff
acknowledges equally as his son the Catholic seated upon the bench of an
American Assembly, and the most humble subject of the most powerful
monarch. The Catholic religion is too prudent to descend upon any such
ground. Emanating from heaven itself, she diffuses herself, like the light of
the sun, over all things, enlightens and strengthens all, and is never obscured
or tarnished. Her object is to conduct man to heaven, by furnishing him on
his passage with great assistance and consolation upon earth; she ceases not
to point out to him eternal truths; she gives him in all his affairs, salutary
counsels; but the moment we come to mere details, she has no obligation to
impose, no duty to enjoin. She impresses upon his mind her sacred maxims
of morality, admonishing him never to depart from them; like a tender mother
speaking to her son, she says to him, "Provided you depart not from my
instructions, do what you consider most expedient."</p>

<p>But is it true that there is in Catholicity at least a tendency to obstruct
liberty? What has been the result of Protestantism in Europe with regard
to political forms? In what has it corrected or ameliorated the work of Catholicity?
In the centuries preceding the sixteenth, the organization of European
society was so complicated, the development of all the intellectual faculties had
arrived at such a point, the contention of interests was so lively, in fine, every
nation was so enlarged by the successive agglomeration of provinces, that a
central, forcible, energetic power, predominating over all individual pretensions
and those of classes, was indispensable to the peace and prosperity of the
people. Europe had no other hope for peace; for wherever there exists a
great number of various, opposite, and all powerful elements, a regulating
action is necessary to prevent violent shocks, to calm excessive ardor, to moderate
the rapidity of motion, to prevent a continual war, which would necessarily
lead to destruction and chaos. This immediately gave to the monarchical
principle a fresh and irresistible impulse; and as this impulse was felt in every
European country, even in those possessing republican institutions, it evidently
resulted from causes that lay deep in the social condition of the times. At the
present day there is not a publicist of any note who would question these truths.
During the last half century, in fact, events have occurred well calculated to
demonstrate that in Europe monarchy is something more than <em>usurpation</em> and
<em>tyranny</em>. In the very countries in which democratical ideas have taken root,
it has been found necessary to modify them, and in some degree to depart from
them, in order to preserve the throne, which is regarded as the best safeguard
of the great interests of society.</p>

<p>It is the infirmity of all things human, however good and salutary they may
be, always to bring with them an accompaniment of inconveniences and evils.
Monarchy could not evidently be exempt from this general rule; in other words,
the great extension of force and power was sure to produce abuse and excess.
The European nations are not of a sufficiently patient character, nor of a sufficiently
moderate temperament, to endure with resignation all sorts of disorders.
The European entertains so profound an idea of his dignity, that he cannot
comprehend the quietism of the Oriental nations, living in the midst of degradation,
bowing their slavish heads before the despot who despises and oppresses
them. Hence, whilst we in Europe acknowledge and feel the necessity of a
very strong power, we have always endeavored to take measures for restraining
and preventing the abuse of this power. Nothing exalts so much the grandeur
and dignity of the European nations as the comparison of them with those of
Asia. The latter have no better means of delivering themselves from oppres<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_358" id="Page_358">[Pg 358]</a></span>sion
than the assassination of their sovereigns. Whilst the blood of one
monarch is still warm, another ascends his throne, trampling with a disdainful
foot on the heads of nations as cruel as they are degraded. Not so in Europe;
we have always recourse to intellectual means; we have established institutions
which lastingly protect the people from oppression and excesses. We
cannot deny that our efforts have cost torrents of blood, or affirm that we have
always adopted the most expedient means; but on this point Europe, guided
by the same spirit as in all other matters, has become anxious to substitute
right in the place of mere might. This is no recent problem; it existed when
European society was in its infancy, and in these latter times has been overlooked.
Great efforts were made many centuries ago to resolve it. Observe
how Count de Maistre states his opinions on this difficult problem:</p>

<p>"Although the greatest and most general interest of sovereignty consists in
its being just, and although the cases in which it transgresses this condition
are incomparably fewer than the others, unfortunately it does, however, frequently
transgress it; and the particular character of certain sovereigns may so
far augment these inconveniences, that in order to render them supportable,
it is necessary to compare them with those which would exist if there were no
sovereign. It was therefore impossible that men should not, from time to
time, make efforts to secure themselves against the excess of this enormous
prerogative; but on this point the world has adopted two widely different
systems. <em>The daring tribe of Japheth has at all times been gravitating</em> (if we
may use the expression) <em>towards what is termed liberty</em>; that is, towards that
social condition in which the influence of the governing powers is least sensibly
felt. Ever jealous of his rights and liberties, the European has sought to preserve
them, sometimes by expelling his rulers, and at other times by opposing
to them the barrier of law. He has tried every thing, every imaginable form of
government, to set himself free from his rulers, or to restrain their power.</p>

<p>"The <em>immense posterity of Shem and Cham</em> have pursued another course.
From the earliest ages down to our own time they have always said to their fellowmen,
<em>Do whatever you please, and when we are tired we will put you to death</em>.
Besides, they have never been able or willing to comprehend the nature of a
republic; the balance of power, all those privileges, all those fundamental laws
of which we are so proud, are totally unknown to them. Among them, the
richest and most independent man, the possessor of immense movable wealth,
absolutely at liberty to transport it whither he pleases, sure, moreover, of
entire protection upon European ground, and threatened at home with the
rope or the dagger, prefers them, nevertheless, to the misery of dying of ennui
among us. But no one will ever think of recommending to Europe the public
law of Asia and Africa, so short and clear; but as power in Europe is always
so much feared, discussed, attacked, or transferred, since nothing so much
wounds our pride as despotic government, the most general European problem
is to know <em>how sovereign power may be restrained without being destroyed</em>." (<cite>Du
Pape</cite>, liv. ii. chap. 2.)</p>

<p>This spirit of political liberty, this desire of limiting power by means of institutions,
did not originate with the French philosophers; before their time,
and long before the appearance of Protestantism, it was circulating in the veins
of the European people. History has left us irrefragable testimonies of this
truth. What institutions were deemed suitable for the accomplishment of this
object? Certain assemblies, in which the voice of the nation's interests and
opinions might be heard&mdash;assemblies formed in various ways, and meeting from
time to time around the throne to make their complaints and assert their
claims. As it was impossible for these assemblies to constitute the government
without destroying the monarchy, it was necessary, in one way or another, to
secure their influence in state affairs; and I do not see that anything better<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_359" id="Page_359">[Pg 359]</a></span>
has hitherto been devised for attaining this object than the right of intervention
in the enactment of laws, a right guaranteed to them by another, that
may be justly termed the right arm of national representation,&mdash;the right of
voting the supplies. Much has been written respecting constitutions and
representative governments, but this is the essential point. Many and various
modifications may be introduced, but in reality all consists in the establishment
of the throne as the centre of power and of action, surrounded by assemblies
that shall deliberate upon the laws and the taxes.</p>

<p>Does political liberty in this point of view originate in Protestant ideas? Is
it under any obligation to them? Has it, in fine, any reproach against
Catholicity? I open the works of Catholic writers anterior to Protestantism,
in order to ascertain their sentiments on this subject, and I find that they take
a clear view of the problem to be solved. I examine rigidly whether they
teach anything opposed to the progress of the world, to the dignity or the
rights of man; I examine, again, whether they bear any affinity to despotism
or to tyranny, and I find them full of sympathy for the progress of enlightenment
and of mankind, inflamed with noble and generous sentiments, and
zealous for the happiness of the multitude. I remark, indeed, that their hearts
swell with indignation at the mere names of tyranny and despotism. I open
the records of history; I study the opinions and customs of the nations, and
the predominating institutions; I behold on all sides nothing but <i lang="es">fueros</i>,
privileges, liberty, cortes, states-general, municipalities, and juries. All this
appears in the greatest confusion, but I see it; and I am not astonished to
discover an absence of order, for it is a new world just arisen from chaos. I
ask myself if the monarch possesses in himself the faculty of making laws; and
upon this question I very naturally find variety, uncertainty, and confusion;
but I observe that the assemblies representing the different classes of the nation
take part in the enactment of the laws. I ask whether they have any interference
in the great affairs of the state; and I find it stated in the codes that
they are to be consulted on all grave and important affairs: I see monarchs
frequently observing this precept. I ask whether these assemblies possess any
guarantees for their existence and their influence; and the codes inform me by
the most decisive texts, and a thousand facts are at hand to convince me, that
these institutions were deeply rooted in the customs and manners of the people.</p>

<p>Now what was then the predominating religion? Catholicity. Were the
people much attached to religion? So much so that the spirit of religion
predominated over all. Did the clergy possess great influence? Very great.
What was the power of the Popes? It was immense. Where do you find the
clergy attempting to extend the power of kings to the prejudice of the people?
Where are the pontifical decrees against such or such forms? Where are
the measures and plans of the Popes for the restriction of one single legitimate
right? No reply. Then I say indignantly, Europe, under the influence of
Catholicity, arose from chaos to order, civilization advanced at a firm and
steady pace, the grand problem of political forms engaged the attention of men
of wisdom, questions of morality and laws were receiving a solution favorable
to liberty, and yet the influence of the clergy was never greater even in temporal
matters, and the power of the Popes was in every sense quite colossal.</p>

<p>What! one word from the Sovereign Pontiff would have smitten unto death
every form of popular government; and yet such forms were receiving a rapid
development. Where, then, is the tendency of the Catholic religion to enslave
the people? Where the infamous alliance between kings and Popes to oppress
and harass the people, to establish on the throne a ferocious despotism, and to
rejoice under its gloomy shades over the misfortune and tears of mankind?
When the Popes had a quarrel with any kingdom, was it usually with the
king or the people? When it was necessary to oppose a firm front against<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_360" id="Page_360">[Pg 360]</a></span>
tyranny and oppression, who stood forward more promptly or more firmly than
the Sovereign Pontiff? Does not Voltaire himself admit that the Popes
restrained princes, <em>protected the people</em>, put an end to the quarrels of the time
by a wise intervention, reminded both kings and people of their duties, and
hurled anathemas against those enormities which they could not prevent?
(Quoted by M. de Maistre, <cite>Du Pape</cite>.)</p>

<p>It is very remarkable that the Bull In <cite>Cœna Domini</cite>, which created so much
alarm, contains in its fifth article an excommunication against "<em>those who should
levy new taxes upon their estates, or should increase those already existing beyond
the bounds marked out by right</em>." The spirit of deliberation, so common even
at this period, and which formed so singular a contrast with the tendency to
violent measures, arose in a great measure from the example given by the
Catholic Church during so many centuries. In fact, it is impossible to point
out a society in which more assemblies have been held, combining in them
every thing distinguished by science and virtue. General, national, provincial
Councils and diocesan synods are to be met with in every page of the Church's
history. Such an example, exposed during centuries to the view of the people,
could not fail to influence and affect customs and laws. In Spain the greatest
part of the Councils of Toledo were also national congresses; whilst the episcopal
authority performed its functions in them, watching over the purity of
dogmas, and providing for the wants of discipline, the great affairs of the state
were also discussed in them in harmony with the secular power. In them were
enacted those laws which are still an object of admiration to modern observers.
The utopias of Rousseau are now fallen into complete disrepute among the best
publicists. Representative governments are no longer to be defended as a
means of bringing the general will into action, but as an instrument, through
the medium of which reason and good sense may be consulted, which would
otherwise remain dispersed throughout the nation. Legislative assemblies are
now represented to us, in works upon constitutional law, as the foci in which
all knowledge serving to throw light on the difficulties of public affairs may be
concentrated; they are held up to us as the representatives of all legitimate
interests, as the organ of all reasonable opinions, the voice of all just complaints,
a channel of perpetual communication between governors and their
subjects, a measure of justice in the laws, a means of rendering the laws
respectable and venerable in the eyes of the people; in short, as a permanent
guarantee that a government, never consulting its own interests, should study
only public utility and expediency. At a time when we are informed in such
fine terms what these assemblies ought to be, not what they are, it will not be
uninteresting to refer to the Councils; for we see at a glance that the Councils
must in a certain manner explain the nature and spirit, and point out the
motives and aim, of political assemblies.</p>

<p>I am aware of the fundamental differences existing between these two assemblies;
men who receive their powers from popular election cannot, in fact, be
placed in the same rank as those who have been appointed by the Holy Ghost
to govern the Church of God; neither can the monarch, who derives his right
to the throne from the fundamental laws of the nation, be confounded with that
rock upon which the Church of Christ is built. I grant also that, whether
with regard to the subjects discussed in the Councils, or with regard to the
persons engaged in these discussions, and to the extension of the Church over
the whole earth, there must necessarily be a great dissimilarity between the
Councils and political assemblies, with respect to the epoch of their being
assembled, and the mode of their organization and of their proceedings. But
we are not here about to imagine an ingenious parallel, and to seek with subtilty
resemblances which do not exist; my only aim is to show the influence
which the lessons of prudence and maturity given for so long a time by the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_361" id="Page_361">[Pg 361]</a></span>
Church must have exercised upon political laws and customs. If we consult
the annals of the nations of antiquity, or those of modern times, we shall discover
that all deliberative assemblies are composed of persons who have a right
to sit in them by a regulation stated in the laws. But to admit into them a
man of knowledge, simply because he is so, is to pay a noble tribute to merit&mdash;to
proclaim in the most solemn manner, that the care of ruling the world
belongs properly to intelligence. This the Church alone has done.</p>

<p>I make this observation to prove that society is indebted mainly to the
Church for the progress it has made in this respect. I will adduce on this
point a fact that has not perhaps been sufficiently attended to, but which clearly
shows that the Catholic Church was the first to seek out men of talent wherever
they were to be found, and unhesitatingly to allow them influence in public
affairs. I will not speak of that spirit which forms one of her distinctive characteristics
among all other societies, which has ever led her to seek merit, and
nothing but merit, and to raise it to the highest functions&mdash;a spirit which no
one can deny her, and which has eminently contributed to her splendor and
preponderance. But it is very remarkable that the influence of this spirit has
been felt where, at first sight, it might have been least expected. In fact, it
is well known that, according to the doctrines of the Church, no private individual
has any right to interfere in the decisions and deliberations of the Councils;
hence, however learned a theologian or jurist may be, his knowledge gives
him no right whatever to take part in those august assemblies. Nevertheless,
it is well known that the Church has ever taken care to call to them men who,
whatever might be their titles, excelled most by their talents or their learning.
Who does not read with pleasure the list of learned men who, although not
Bishops, were present at the Council of Trent?</p>

<p>In modern society, do not talent, wisdom, and genius carry the highest head,
command the greatest consideration and respect, and present the best claims
to the direction of public affairs, and to the exercise of a preponderating
influence? These should know that nowhere have their claims been respected
or their dignity acknowledged so well as in the Church. What society, in
fact, has ever sought, as the Church has, to elevate them, to consult them in
the most important affairs, and to afford them an opportunity of shining in
grand assemblies? In the Church, birth and riches are of no importance. If
you are a man of high merit, untarnished by misconduct, and at the same time
conspicuous by your abilities and your knowledge, that is enough&mdash;she will look
upon you as a great man, will always show you extreme consideration, treat
you with respect, and listen to you with deference. And since your brow,
though sprung from obscurity, is radiant with fame, it will be held worthy to
bear the mitre, the Cardinal's hat, or the tiara. To speak in the language of
the day, I may remark, that the aristocracy of knowledge owes much of its
importance to the ideas and discipline of the Church.<a href="#Note_36" class="fnanchor">36</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LXII" id="CHAPTER_LXII">CHAPTER LXII.</a><br />

<small>THE DEVELOPMENT OF MONARCHY IN EUROPE</small>.</h2>


<p>A single glance at the state of Europe in the fifteenth century enables us
to discover that such a state of things could not long exist, and that of the three
elements claiming preference, the monarchical must necessarily prevail. And
it could not be otherwise; for we have always seen that societies, after a long
period of trouble and agitation, place themselves at last under the protection
of that power which offers them the greatest security and well-being. Beholding,
on the one hand, those great feudatories, so proud, so exacting, so turbulent,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_362" id="Page_362">[Pg 362]</a></span>
enemies to each other, and rivals of the king as well as of the people; on the
other hand, the commons, whose existence appears under so many different
forms&mdash;whose rights, privileges, <i lang="es">fueros</i> and liberties present so various and
complex an aspect&mdash;whose ideas have no constant and well defined direction;&mdash;we
conclude at once, that neither were possessed of sufficient force to struggle
against the royal power, already acting by a fixed plan and a determinate system,
seizing every opportunity which might serve to forward its views. Who
is not aware of the sagacity displayed by Ferdinand the Catholic in developing
and implanting his prominent idea&mdash;that of centralizing power, giving it vigor,
and rendering its action forcible and universal; that is, the idea of founding a
true monarchy? And why not acknowledge in the immortal Ximenes a worthy
and more eminent continuator of this policy? It would be erroneous to consider
this as an evil to nations. All publicists agree that it was necessary to
give strength and stability to power, and prevent its action from becoming weak
or intermittent; but the only representative of real power at that time was the
throne. Hence, to fortify and aggrandize royal power was of real necessity;
all plans and efforts of man would have failed to place an obstacle in its way.
But it remains, nevertheless, to be seen, whether this aggrandizement of royal
power outstepped its due bounds; and this is the place for contrasting Protestantism
with Catholicity, that we may ascertain which of them was culpable,
if either, and to what extent. This is a very important and curious subject,
but at the same time one of difficulty and delicacy. In fact, such a change
has taken place of late in the meaning of words, the aversion which parties
profess for each other is so profound, each one repels with such impetuosity
every thing which bears the most remote resemblance to what is esteemed by
his adversaries, that it is an arduous undertaking to render the state of the
question and the meaning of words comprehensible. I ask one thing of my
readers of all opinions; that is, that they will suspend their judgment until
they have read the whole of what I have to adduce on this point. If they consent
to this, and do not quarrel with the first word that shocks them&mdash;in a
word, if they have sufficient patience to hear before they judge, I am confident
that, if we do not altogether agree, which is impossible amid such a variety of
opinions, they will at least grant that I have taken an apparently reasonable
view of the subject, and that my conjectures are not altogether unfounded.</p>

<p>I shall commence, in the first place, by completely laying aside the question
whether it was advantageous or not to society that, in the greatest part of European
monarchies, royal power should have any other limits than those naturally
imposed upon it by the state of ideas and customs. This question some
will answer in the affirmative, others in the negative; and I need not observe
to what party they respectively belong. To many people the word <em>liberty</em> is a
scandal, just as the term absolute power is with others synonymous with despotism.
But what is that liberty which the former repel with so much force?
what meaning is attached to this word in their dictionaries? They have witnessed
the French Revolution, with its iniquities and frightful crimes, and
they have heard it continually crying out for liberty: they have witnessed
the Spanish Revolution, with its vociferations of death, and its sanguinary
excesses&mdash;its injustice, its disdain for every thing that Spaniards had been
accustomed to esteem the most valuable and sacred; and yet they have heard
the cries of this Revolution also for <em>liberty</em>. What was to be expected? Why,
what we now witness. They confounded the name of liberty with all sorts of
impieties and crimes; and, in consequence, they hated it, they repelled it, they
fought against it sword in hand. In vain were they informed that the cortes
was an ancient institution; they replied, that the ancient cortes was not like
that of their times. In vain were they reminded that our laws ordained the
nation's right of interference by its vote on the levying of taxes. They<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_363" id="Page_363">[Pg 363]</a></span>
replied: "We are well aware of it; but the nation is not now represented
by those who interfere in its affairs; they only avail themselves of this pretended
title to enslave both the king and the people." They were told that
the representatives of the different classes had formerly the right of intervention
in the important affairs of the state. "What class do you represent,"
they replied; "you who degrade the monarch, insult and persecute the nobility,
abuse and plunder the clergy, despising the people, and making their customs
and their religious belief a subject for your sneers? What, then, do you
represent? Is it the Spanish nation, when you trample on her religion and
laws, when you excite social dissolution on all sides, and make blood flow in
torrents? How can you call yourselves the restorers of our fundamental laws,
when we find nothing either in you or in your acts which marks the true
Spaniard; when all your theories, plans, and projects are only miserable
copies of foreign books but too well known, while you have forgotten your own
language?"</p>

<p>I pray the reader will cast his eyes over the files of the journals, the bulletins
of the cortes, and other documents that remain of the two epochs of 1812
and 1820; let him also call to mind the events we have recently witnessed;
let him afterwards peruse the records and memorials of anterior epochs,&mdash;our
codes, our books, every thing, in fine, capable of throwing light upon the character,
the ideas, and the customs of the Spanish people; then let him lay his
hand upon his heart, and, whatever be his political opinions, let him tell us,
upon his honor, if he finds the least resemblance between the past and the
present; if he does not, at the very first glance, perceive a striking and violent
contrast between the two epochs&mdash;a chasm, in fact, to fill up which, I say it
with grief, would require heaps of fresh ruins, ashes, dead bodies, and torrents
of blood. Were we to place the question beyond the influence of the empoisoned
atmosphere of human passions and of bitter recollections, we might, it is
true, very well examine the expediency of allowing the royal authority to attain
to a growth that set it free from every kind of check or restraint, even in
affairs of the most essential importance and in the voting of the government
supplies. The question would then have merely a historico-political aspect,
could not be confounded with actual practice, and, consequently, would not
affect either the interests or the opinions of our time. However that might
be, I will not stop to consider or to notice what has been thought and said upon
the subject, but will take up the hypothesis, that the disappearance from the
body politic, at that time, of every element save the monarchical, was a misfortune
to the people, and an obstacle to the progress of true civilization. And
whose was the fault? let me ask.</p>

<p>It is remarkable that the greatest increase of royal power in Europe dates
precisely from the commencement of Protestantism. In England, from the
time of Henry VIII., not only did monarchy prevail, but a despotism so cruel
that no vain appearances of impotent forms have availed to disguise its excesses.
In France, after the Huguenot war, royal power became more absolute than
ever; in Sweden, Gustavus ascended the throne, and from that time kings
began to exercise an almost unlimited power; in Denmark, monarchy continued,
and became stronger; in Germany, the kingdom of Prussia was formed,
and absolute forms generally prevailed; in Austria, the empire of Charles V.
arose in all its power and splendor; in Italy, the small republics were fast
disappearing, and the people, under some title or another, became subject to
princes; in Spain, in fine, the ancient cortes of Castile, Aragon, Valencia, and
Catalonia fell into disuse: that is to say, instead of seeing, by the accession
of Protestantism, the people take one step towards representative forms, we
find, on the contrary, that they rapidly advanced towards absolute government.
This is a certain, incontestable fact. Sufficient attention has not perhaps been<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_364" id="Page_364">[Pg 364]</a></span>
paid to so singular a coincidence; but it is not the less real, and is certainly
of a nature to suggest numerous and interesting reflections. Was this coincidence
purely accidental? Was there any hidden connection between Protestantism
and the development and definitive establishment of absolutism? I
think there was; and I will even add, that, had Catholicism retained an
exclusive sway in Europe, the power of the throne would have been gradually
diminished&mdash;that representative forms would probably not have disappeared
altogether&mdash;that the people would have continued to take part in national
affairs&mdash;that we should have been much farther advanced in civilization, much
better fitted for the enjoyment of true liberty&mdash;and that this liberty would not
be associated in our minds with scenes of horror. Yes, the fatal Reformation
has given a wrong direction to European society, injured civilization, created
necessities that previously had no existence, and opened chasms which it cannot
close. It destroyed many elements of good, and consequently produced a
radical change in the conditions of the political problem. This I think I can
demonstrate.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LXIII" id="CHAPTER_LXIII">CHAPTER LXIII.</a><br />

<small>TWO KINDS OF DEMOCRACY</small>.</h2>


<p>There is in the history of Europe one leading fact contained in all its pages,
and still visible in our days, viz. the parallel march of two democracies, which,
although sometimes apparently alike, are, in reality, very different in their
nature, origin, and aim. The one is based upon the knowledge and dignity
of man, and on the right which he possesses of enjoying a certain amount of
liberty conformable to reason and justice. With ideas more or less clear, more
or less uniform, upon the real origin of society and of power, it entertains at
least very clear, precise, and fixed ones upon the real object and aim of both.
Whether the right of commanding proceeds directly and immediately from
God, or whether we suppose it communicated previously to society, and transmitted
afterwards to those who govern, it always grants that power is for the
common weal, and that, if it does not direct its actions to this end, it falls into
tyranny. To privileges, honors, and distinctions of every kind, it applies its
favorite touchstone&mdash;the public good; whatever is opposed to this, is rejected
as noxious; whatever does not tend to promote it, is repudiated as superfluous.
Convinced that knowledge and virtue are the only things of real worth, and
deserving of consideration in the distribution of the social functions, this democracy
requires them to be sought without ceasing, that they may be elevated to
the summit of power and of glory; it goes to seek them in the midst of the
deepest obscurity. A nobleman, proud of his titles and his heraldry, and
boasting of the glorious deeds of his ancestors, without being able to imitate
them, is, in its estimation, an object of ridicule; it will allow such a man to
enjoy his riches, that the sacred right of property may not be violated; but it
will remove from his grasp, by all lawful means, the influence he might derive
from the nobility of his blood. In fine, if it takes nobility, birth or riches into
consideration, it is not for any intrinsic worth of these advantages, but because
they are signs which lead us to expect a more accomplished education, more
knowledge and probity.</p>

<p>Full of generous ideas, this democracy, placing the dignity of man in the
highest degree, reminding man of his rights, and also of his duties, is indignant
at the very name of tyranny. It hates tyranny, condemns it, repels it, and is
perpetually employed in discovering the best means for preventing it. Wise
and calm, as the inseparable companion of reason and good sense must ever be,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_365" id="Page_365">[Pg 365]</a></span>
it agrees very well with monarchy; but we may rest assured that its desires
have generally been, that the laws of the country should, in one way or another,
place a restraint upon the excesses of kings. Aware that the rock against
which they ran the risk of being wrecked, was the excess of contributions
levied upon the people, its favorite idea, which it has never abandoned, even
when it was impracticable, has been to restrain the unlimited faculties of power
with respect to contributions. Another of its predominating ideas has been to
prevent the will of man from prevailing in the formation or application of the
laws. It has ever sought to guarantee and secure in some way, that the will
should not usurp the place of reason. Such has been the force of this universal
desire, that it has been indelibly stamped upon European manners, and
the most absolute monarchs have been compelled to gratify it. Hence one
thing very worthy of remark is, that the throne has ever been surrounded by
respectable counsellors, whose existence was insured either by the laws or by
the national customs. These counsellors certainly could not preserve, in all
circumstances, the independence necessary for the accomplishment of their
object, but they did not fail to be of great service; for their mere existence
was an eloquent protest against unjust and arbitrary regulations; it was a noble
personification of reason and justice, pointing out the sacred limits ever to be
regarded as inviolable by the most powerful monarch. This is also the reason
why sovereigns in Europe never exercise themselves the faculty of pronouncing
judgment, differing in this respect from the sultans. The laws and customs of
Europe energetically repulse this faculty, as fatal to the people as it is to the
monarch; and the mere recital of such an attempt would excite public indignation
against its author.</p>

<p>The meaning of all this is, that this principle, so much extolled, that it is
not the monarch but the law that commands, has been received in Europe for
many centuries; it was in full force in all the European nations long before
modern publicists emphatically enunciated it. It will be said, perhaps, that if
this was the case in theory, it was not so in practice. I do not deny that there
were reprehensible exceptions, but the principle was generally respected. As
a case in point, let us take the most absolute reign of modern times, with the
most unlimited royal power in all its splendor, in its apogee,&mdash;the reign in
which the king could exclaim with too much pride, but yet with truth, "I am
the state"&mdash;that of Louis the Fourteenth. It lasted more than half a century,
with an astonishing variety and complication of events. How many deaths,
confiscations, and banishments took place in it, executed by the royal command,
without any judicial ordeal! Perhaps some arbitrary acts of this time may be
cited; but let them be compared with what was passing under equivalent
circumstances amongst the nations out of Europe: let any one recall to mind
what took place at the time of the Roman empire, and the excesses of absolute
royalty wherever Christianity did not exist, and he will see that the excesses
committed in European monarchies are scarcely worthy of being mentioned.
This is a proof that the distinction made between monarchical governments,
whether absolute or despotic, is not arbitrary and fictitious. Any one acquainted
with the legislation and history of Europe must be well aware that this distinction
is correct, and he will be forced to smile at those boisterous declamations
in which malice or ignorance endeavors to confound the two systems of government.</p>

<p>This limit imposed upon power, this circle of reason and justice which we
always find traced around it, derives its origin principally from the ideas disseminated
by Christianity, whether it have its guarantee in ideas and manners
or in political forms. It is Christianity that has proclaimed, "Reason and
justice, knowledge and virtue, are every thing; the mere will of man, his
birth, his titles, are of no intrinsic value." These words have penetrated<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_366" id="Page_366">[Pg 366]</a></span>
every where, from the palace of kings to the poor man's cottage; and, from
the moment that the mind of an entire people became imbued with such ideas,
Asiatic despotism became impracticable. In fact, in the absence of every
political form limiting the power of the monarch, a voice resounds in his ears
on all sides, exclaiming, "We are not thy slaves, we are thy subjects; thou
art a king, but thou art a man, and a man who, like ourselves, must appear
one day before the Supreme Judge; thou hast the power of making laws, but
merely for our interests; thou canst exact tributes from us, but only such as
are necessary for the common weal; thou canst not judge us according to thy
caprice, but only conformably to the laws; thou canst not seize our property
without rendering thyself more culpable than the common robber, nor make
an attempt on our lives, of thy own will, without becoming an assassin; the
power thou hast received is not for thy comfort or pleasure, nor for the gratification
of thy passions, but solely for our happiness; thou art a person exclusively
devoted to the public weal; if thou forgettest this, thou art a
tyrant."</p>

<p>Unfortunately, however, together with this spirit of lawful independence, of
rational liberty,&mdash;together with this just, noble, and generous democracy, there
has ever been another accompanying it, and forming with it the most lively
contrast. The latter has been extremely injurious to the former, by preventing
it from attaining the object of its just pretensions; erroneous in its principles
and perverse in its intentions, violent and unjust in its mode of acting, its
traces have been everywhere marked by a stream of blood. Instead of obtaining
true liberty for the people, it has merely served to deprive them of that
which they already possessed; or if it actually found them groaning under the
yoke of slavery, it has only served to rivet their chains. Allying itself on all
occasions with the basest passions, it has attracted to its standard all that was
most vile and abject in society, and gathered together the most turbulent and
ill-disposed men. By cheating its miserable followers with delusive promises,
and exciting them with the prospect of plunder and pillage, it has been a perpetual
source of commotions, scandals, and bitter animosities, that have at
length produced their natural results&mdash;persecutions, proscriptions, and executions.
Its fundamental dogma was the rejection of all authority of every
description, to overturn which was its constant aim; the reward it expected for
its labors was to seat itself upon a throne established amidst universal ruin, to
glut itself with the blood of thousands of victims, and to revel in the grossest
orgies during the distribution of its blood-stained spoil. In all times, in all
countries, riots, popular insurrections, and revolutions have taken place; but,
for the last seven centuries, Europe presents these scenes in so singular a
character, that it forms a most fitting subject for the reflection of philosophers.
In fact, these tendencies towards social dissolution&mdash;tendencies, the origin of
which it is not difficult to discover in the very heart of man&mdash;have not only
existed in the bosom of Europe, but have been formed into a theory; as ideas,
they have been defended with all the obstinacy and infatuation of a sectarian
spirit; and, wherever an opportunity occurred, reduced to practice with unyielding
pertinacity and unbridled fury. The system was made up of folly and
fanaticism, and carried out with obstinacy, a spirit of proselytism, and monstrous
crimes. In every page of its history this truth is attested in characters of
blood. Happy our nation, had she not tried the experiment!</p>

<p>Europe may be compared to those men of great capacity and of active and
intrepid characters, who are either the very best or the very worst of men.
Scarcely can a single fact of any weight remain isolated in Europe: there is
not a truth that is not useful, nor an error that is not fatal. Ideas have a
tendency to become realized, and facts, in their turn, incessantly call in the aid
of ideas. If virtues exist, they are explained, and their foundation is sought<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_367" id="Page_367">[Pg 367]</a></span>
for in elevated theories. If crimes are met with, their vindication is attempted
on the authority of perverse theories. Nations do not rest satisfied with the
practice either of good or evil&mdash;they strive to propagate it, and are restless till
they have induced their neighbors to imitate them. Nay, there is something
beyond a mere spirit of proselytism limited to a few countries&mdash;ideas, in our
times, aim at nothing short of universal empire. The spirit of propagandism
does not date from the French Revolution, nor even from the sixteenth
century; from the very dawn of civilization, from the times when the minds of
men began to evince symptoms of activity, this phenomenon is apparent, and
in a very striking manner. In the agitated Europe of the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, we behold the Europe of the nineteenth century, just as the
imperfectly defined lineaments of the germ contain forms of the future being.</p>

<p>A great part of the sects which assailed the Church, dating from the tenth
century, were decidedly revolutionary; they either proceeded from the fatal
democracy which I have just mentioned, or derived their support from it.
Unfortunately this democracy, restless, unjust and turbulent, having compromised
the tranquillity of Europe in the centuries anterior to the sixteenth, found
in Protestantism its most fervent propagators. Among the numerous sects
into which the pretended reform was immediately divided, some opened the
way for it, and others adopted it as their standard. And what must have been
the result in the political organization of Europe? I will say it candidly: the
disappearance of those political institutions which enabled the different classes
of the state to take part in its affairs, was inevitable. Now, as it was very
difficult for the European people, considering their character, ideas and customs,
to submit for ever to their new condition, as their predominant inclination
must have urged them to place bounds upon the extension of power, it was
natural that revolutions should ensue; it was natural that future generations
should have to witness great catastrophes, such as the English Revolution of
the seventeenth century and the French Revolution of the eighteenth. There
was a time when it might have been difficult to comprehend these truths; that
time is past. The revolutions in which for some centuries the different nations
of Europe have been successively involved, have brought within the reach of
the least intelligent that social law so frequently realized, viz. that anarchy
leads to despotism, and that despotism begets anarchy. Never, at any time,
in any nation (history and experience prove the fact), have anti-social ideas
been inculcated, the minds of the people been imbued with the spirit of insubordination
and rebellion, without almost immediately provoking the application
of the only remedy at the command of nations in such conflicts, the establishment
of a very strong government, which justly or unjustly, legally or not,
lifts up its iron arm over every one, and makes all heads bend under its yoke.
To clamor and tumult succeeds the most profound silence; the people then
easily become resigned to their new condition, for reflection and instinct teach
them that although it is well to possess a certain amount of liberty, the first
want of society is self-preservation.</p>

<p>What was the case in Germany, after the introduction of Protestantism by
a succession of religious revolutions? Maxims destructive of all society were
propagated, factions formed, insurrections took place; upon the field of battle
and upon the scaffolds blood flowed in torrents; but no sooner did the instinct
of social preservation begin to operate, than, instead of popular forms being
established and taking root, every thing tended towards the opposite extreme.
And was not this the country in which the people had been flattered by the prospect
of unrestrained liberty, of a repartition and even a community of property; in
fine, by the promise of the most absolute equality in every thing. Yet, in this
same country, the most striking inequality prevailed, and the feudal aristocracy
preserved its full force. In other countries, in which no such hopes of liberty<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_368" id="Page_368">[Pg 368]</a></span>
and equality had been held out, we can scarcely discover the limits which
separated the nobility from the people. In Germany, the nobility still retained
their wealth and their preponderance, were still surrounded by titles, privileges,
and distinctions of every description. In that very country, in which there were
such outcries against the power of kings, in which the name of king was
declared synonymous with tyrant, the most absolute monarchy was established;
and the apostate of the Teutonic order founded that kingdom of Prussia, from
which representative forms are still excluded.<a name="FNanchor_C_3" id="FNanchor_C_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_C_3" class="fnanchor">[C]</a> In Denmark, Protestantism was
established, and with it absolute power immediately took deep root; in Sweden
we find, at the very same time, the power of Gustavus established.</p>

<p>What was the case in England? Representative forms were not introduced
into that country by Protestantism; they existed centuries before, as well as
in other nations of Europe. But the monarch who founded the Anglican
Church was distinguished for his despotism, and the Parliament, which ought
to have restrained him, was most shamefully degraded. What idea can we
form of the liberty of a country whose legislators and representatives debased
themselves so far as to declare, that any one obtaining a knowledge of the
illicit amours of the Queen is bound, under pain of high treason, to bring an
accusation against her? What can we think of the liberty of a country, in
which the very men who ought to defend that liberty, cringe with so much
baseness to the unruly passions of the monarch, that they are not ashamed, in
order to flatter the jealousy of the sovereign, to establish that any young
female who should marry a king of England, should, under a pain of high
treason, be compelled before her marriage to reveal any stain there might be
on her virtue? Such ignominious enactments are certainly a stronger proof of
abject servility than the declaration of that same Parliament, establishing that
the mere will of the monarch should have the force of law. Representative
forms preserved in that country at a time when they had disappeared from
almost every other nation of Europe, were not, however, a guarantee against
tyranny; for the English cannot assuredly boast of the liberty they enjoyed
under the reigns of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth. Perhaps in no country in
Europe was less liberty enjoyed, in no country were the people more oppressed
under popular forms, in no country did despotism prevail to a greater extent.
If there be anything which can convince us of these truths, in case the facts
already cited should be found insufficient, it is undoubtedly the efforts made
by the English to acquire liberty. And if the efforts made to shake off the
yoke of oppression are to be regarded as a sure sign of its galling effects, we
are justified in thinking that the oppression under which England was groaning
must have been very severe, since that country has passed through so long and
terrible a revolution, in which so many tears and so much blood has been shed.</p>

<p>When we consider what has taken place in France, we remark that religious
wars have always given an ascendency to royal power. After such long agitations,
so many troubles and civil wars, we see the reign of Louis XIV., and
we hear that proud monarch exclaim, "<em>I am the state.</em>" We have here the
most complete personification of the absolute power which always follows
anarchy. Have the European nations had to complain of the unlimited power
exercised by monarchs? have they had to regret that all the representative
forms which could ensure their liberties perished under the ascendency of the
throne? Let them blame Protestantism for it, which spreading the germs of
anarchy all over Europe, created an imperious, urgent, and inevitable necessity
for centralizing rule, for fortifying royal power: it was necessary to stop up
every source from which dissolvent principles might flow, and to keep within
narrow bounds all the elements which, by contact and vicinity, were ready to
ignite and produce a fatal conflagration.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_369" id="Page_369">[Pg 369]</a></span></p>

<p>Every reflecting man will agree with me on this point. Considering the
aggrandizement of absolute power, they will discover in it nothing but the
realization of a fact already long ago everywhere observed. Assuredly, the
monarchs of Europe cannot be compared, either by the fact of their origin or
the character of their measures, to those despots who, under different titles,
have usurped the command of society at the critical moment when it was near
its dissolution; but it may be said with reason, that the unlimited extent of
their power has been caused by a great social necessity, viz. that of one sole
and forcible authority, without which the preservation of public order was
impossible. We cannot without dismay take a view of Europe after the
appearance of Protestantism. What frightful dissolution! What erroneous
ideas! What relaxation of morals! What a multitude of sects! What animosity
in men's minds! What rage, what ferocity! Violent disputes, interminable
debates, accusations, recriminations without end; troubles, rebellion,
intestine and foreign wars, sanguinary battles, and atrocious punishments.
Such is the picture that Europe presents; such are the effects of this apple of
discord thrown among men who are brethren. And what was sure to be the
result of this confusion, of this retrograde movement, by which society seemed
returning to violent means, to the tyranny of might over right? The result
was sure to be what it has in fact been: the instinct of preservation, stronger
than the passions and the frenzy of man, was sure to prevail; it suggested to
Europe the only means of self-preservation; royal power, already in the
ascendant, and verging towards its highest point, was sure to end by attaining
it in reality; there to become isolated and completely separated from the people,
and to impose silence on popular passions. What ought to have been effected
by a wise direction of ideas, was accomplished by the force of a very powerful
institution; the vigor of the sceptre had to neutralize the impulse given to
society towards its ruin. If we consider attentively, we shall find that such is
the meaning of the event of 1680 in Sweden, when that country was subjected
to the fierce will of Charles XI.; such the meaning of the event of 1669 in
Denmark, when that nation, wearied with anarchy, supplicated King Frederick
III. to declare the monarchy hereditary and absolute, which he in fact did;
such, in fine, is the meaning of what took place in Holland in 1747, and of
the creation of an hereditary stadtholder. If we require more convincing
examples, we have the despotism of Cromwell in England after such terrible
revolutions, and that of Napoleon in France after the republic.<a href="#Note_37" class="fnanchor">37</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LXIV" id="CHAPTER_LXIV">CHAPTER LXIV.</a><br />

<small>STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE THREE SOCIAL ELEMENTS</small>.</h2>


<p>When once these three elements of government, monarchy, aristocracy, and
democracy, began each to contend for the ascendency, the most certain means
of securing the victory to monarchy, to the exclusion of the other two elements,
was to drive one of these latter into acts of turbulence and outrage; for it thus
became absolutely necessary to establish one sole, powerful, unfettered centre
of action, that would be able to awe the turbulent and to insure public order.
Now, just at this time, the position of the popular element was full of hope,
but also beset with dangers; and hence, to preserve the influence it had already
acquired, and to increase its ascendency and power, the greatest moderation
and circumspection were requisite. Monarchy had already acquired great
power, and, having obtained it in part by espousing the cause of the people
against the lords, it came to be regarded as the natural protector of popular
interests. It certainly had some claims to this title, but no less certainly did<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_370" id="Page_370">[Pg 370]</a></span>
it find in this circumstance a most favorable opportunity for extending its power
to an unlimited degree, at the expense of the rights and liberties of the people.</p>

<p>There existed a germ of division between the aristocracy and the commons,
which afforded the monarchs an opportunity of curtailing the rights and powers
of the lords, convinced, moreover, as they were, that any measure tending to
such an object would be well received by the multitude. But, on the other
hand, the monarch might rest assured that the lords would hail with delight
any act tending to humble the people, who already had raised their heads so
high when the feudal aristocracy was to be resisted; and, in this case, if the
people committed any excesses, if they adopted maxims and doctrines subversive
of public order, no one could prevent the monarch from putting a stop to
their proceedings by all possible means. The lords, who were powerful enough
to repress such disorders themselves, would very naturally be glad to leave
such a work to the monarch, fearing lest the people, in their exasperation
against them, might deprive them of their prerogatives, their honors, their
property, and even of their lives; or from the secret satisfaction they would
naturally feel at seeing that rival power brought down which had recently
humbled themselves, and whose rivalry had been maintained through so many
and such ferocious struggles. In such an undertaking, the lords would naturally
bring the whole weight of their influence to the support of the monarch,
thus taking advantage of the false direction given to the popular movement to
revenge themselves upon the people, whilst veiling their vengeance under the
pretext of public utility. The people, it is true, possessed various means of
defence; but when isolated and opposed to the throne, they found these means
too weak to afford them any hope of victory. Learning, indeed, was no longer
the exclusive patrimony of any privileged class, but knowledge had not had
time to become diffused so far as to form a public opinion strong enough to
exercise any direct influence upon the affairs of government. The art of printing
was already producing its results, but was not yet sufficiently developed to
produce that rapid and extensive circulation of ideas which has subsequently
been attained. Notwithstanding the efforts everywhere made at that time to
promote the diffusion of knowledge, we need only understand correctly the
nature and character of the knowledge of the period, to be convinced that
neither in substance nor in form was it calculated to become, to any general
extent, the property of the popular classes. Thanks to the progress of commerce
and the arts, there arose, it is true, a new description of wealth, destined
of necessity to become the patrimony of the people. But commerce and the
arts were then in their infancy, and did not possess either the extent or the
influence which, at a later period, connected them intimately with every branch
of society. Except in some few countries of very little importance, the position
of the merchant and the artizan could not secure them any great amount of
influence of itself.</p>

<p>Considering the course of events, and the elevation which royal power had
acquired on the ruins of feudalism, the only means for restricting monarchical
power, until the democratic element should have acquired sufficient force to be
respected, was the union of the aristocracy with the people. But such a coalition
was not easily to be obtained, since between the aristocracy and the
people there existed so much animosity and rivalry&mdash;a rivalry which, to a certain
extent, was inevitable, owing to the opposition of their respective interests.
We must bear in mind, however, that the nobility were not the only aristocracy;
there was another much more powerful and influential than they&mdash;the clergy.
This latter class was at that time possessed of all the ascendency and influence
which both moral and material means can confer; in fact, besides the religious
character, which insured the respect and veneration of the people, they were
possessed, at the same time, of abundant riches; which easily secured to them,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_371" id="Page_371">[Pg 371]</a></span>
on the one hand, gratitude and influence; and, on the other, made them feared
by the great, and respected by monarchs. Now, here is one of the leading
mistakes of Protestantism: to crush the power of the clergy at such a time, was
to accelerate the complete victory of absolute monarchy, to leave the people
defenceless, the monarch unrestrained, aristocracy without a bond of union,
without a vital principle; it was to prevent the three elements&mdash;monarchy,
aristocracy, and democracy&mdash;from uniting to form a limited government,
towards which almost all the European nations appeared to be inclining. We
have already seen that it was not at that time expedient to isolate the people,
for their political existence was still feeble and precarious; and it is no less
evident that the nobility, as a means of government, ought not to have been
left to themselves. This class, possessing no other vital principle than that
derived from their titles and privileges, were incapable of resisting the attacks
continually aimed at them by the royal power. In spite of themselves, the
nobility were under the necessity of yielding to the monarch's will, of abandoning
their inaccessible castles, to resort to the sumptuous palaces of kings, and
play the part of courtiers.</p>

<p>Protestantism crushed the power of the clergy, not only in the countries in
which it succeeded in implanting its errors, but also in others. In fact, where
it could not fully introduce itself, its ideas, when not in open opposition to the
Catholic faith, exercised a certain degree of influence. From that time the
power of the clergy lost its principal support in the political influence of the
Popes, for whilst kings assumed a tone of greater boldness against the pretensions
of the Holy See, the Popes, on their side, that they might give no
pretext, no occasion for the declamations of Protestants, were obliged to act
with great circumspection in every thing relating to temporal affairs. All this
has been regarded as the progress of European civilization,&mdash;as one step
towards liberty; however, the rapid sketch which I have just given of the
political condition of that period, clearly proves that, instead of taking the
surest way to the development of representative forms, the road to absolute
monarchy was chosen. Protestantism, interested in crushing by all possible
means the power of the Popes, exalted that of kings even in spiritual matters.
By thus concentrating in their hands the spiritual and temporal powers, it left
the throne without any sort of counterpoise. By destroying the hope of
obtaining liberty by peaceable means, it led the people to have recourse to
force, and opened the crater of those revolutions which have cost modern
Europe so many tears.</p>

<p>In order that the forms of political liberty should take root and attain to
perfection, they were not to be forced prematurely from the atmosphere which
gave them birth; for in this atmosphere existed together the monarchical, aristocratical,
and popular elements, all strengthened and directed by the Catholic
religion; under the influence of this same religion, these elements were being
gradually combined, politics were not to be separated from religion. Instead
of regarding the clergy as a fatal element, it was important to look upon them
as a mediator among all classes and powers, ready to calm the ardor of strife,
to place bounds against excess, to prevent the exclusive preponderance of the
monarch, the nobility, or the people. Whenever powers and interests of different
natures are to be combined, a mediator is essential, or some sort of
intervention to prevent violent shocks; if this mediator does not exist in the
very nature of the circumstances, recourse must be had to the law for the creation
of one. From this it is evident what an evil Protestantism inflicted upon
Europe; since its first act was completely to isolate the temporal power, to
place it in rivalship and hostility to the spiritual, and to leave no mediator
between the monarch and the people. The lay aristocracy at once lost their
political influence; for they had now lost their force and bond of union, which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_372" id="Page_372">[Pg 372]</a></span>
they derived from their connection with the ecclesiastical aristocracy. When
once the nobles were reduced to mere courtiers, the power of the throne was
entirely without a counterpoise.</p>

<p>I have said it, and I repeat it, that the strengthening of the royal power,
even at the expense of the rights and liberties of the lords and of the commons,
tended powerfully to the maintenance of public order, and consequently to the
progress of civilization; but, at the same time, the extreme preponderance
obtained by this power is much to be lamented; and it may be well to reflect,
that one of the principal causes of this preponderance was the removal of the
clergy from the sphere of politics. At the commencement of the sixteenth
century, the question no longer was, whether those numerous castles should
be left standing, from the heights of which proud barons gave the law to their
vassals, and held themselves justified in despising the ordinances of the monarch;
nor whether that long list of communal liberties should be preserved,
which had no connection with each other, which were opposed to the pretensions
of the great, and at the same time embarrassed the action of the sovereign,
by preventing the formation of a central government capable of insuring order,
of protecting legitimate interests, of giving an impulse to the movement of
civilization, which had everywhere commenced with so much activity. This
was no longer the question; on all sides the castles were being levelled, the
great lords were descending from their fortresses, and becoming more humane
towards the people; they were giving up their exactions, and beginning to show
respect to the power of the monarch; and the commons, obliged to submit to
an amalgamation of the multitude of petty states, to form extensive monarchies,
were forced to part with so much of their rights and liberties as was opposed
to the system of general centralization.</p>

<p>The question was, to discover whether there existed any means of limiting
power, and yet securing to the people the benefits of its centralization and
augmentation; whether it was possible, without embarrassing or weakening
the action of power, to secure to the people a reasonable amount of influence
over the progress of affairs, and, above all, the right they had already acquired
of watching over the public revenues. That is, at once to prevent the sanguinary
horrors of revolutions, and the abuses and disorders of court favorites.
The people alone were incapable of preserving this influence, unless they had
been furnished with a knowledge of the public affairs; an indispensable resource
in such a case, but of which they were in general completely destitute. I do
not mean to deny the existence of a certain kind of knowledge amongst the
commons; but we must bear in mind that the term <em>public affairs</em> had acquired
an extensive signification; for it was not merely applied to a municipality or a
province; centralization becoming everywhere more general and triumphant,
caused this term to be applied to whole kingdoms, not merely considered as
isolated, but in the whole of their relations with other nations. From that
time European civilization began to assume that character of <em>generality</em>, which
still distinguishes it: from that time, to understand aright the private affairs
of any one kingdom, it was necessary to look abroad over the whole of Europe,
sometimes over the whole world. Men capable of such elevated views could
not be very common in society; moreover, as the most exalted part of society
was attracted by the splendor of the throne of the monarch, a focus of intelligence
was sure to be formed there, with exclusive pretensions to the government.
Compare with this centre of action and intelligence, the people alone,
still weak and ignorant, and the result may be easily guessed. Weakness and
ignorance never prevailed over force and intelligence. But, what remedy was
there for this difficulty? The preservation of the Catholic religion all over
Europe, and consequently the influence of the clergy; for it is well known that
the clergy were still considered at this epoch as the centre of learning.</p>

<p>Those who have extolled Protestantism for having weakened the influence of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_373" id="Page_373">[Pg 373]</a></span>
the Catholic clergy, have not sufficiently reflected upon the nature of that
influence. It would have been difficult to discover at that epoch a class of
citizens connected with the three elements of power by common interests with
each, and yet not exclusively allied to any. Monarchy had nothing to fear
from the clergy. In fact, how can we imagine that the ministers of a religion
regarding power as an emanation from Heaven would declare themselves the
enemies of royal power, which was acknowledged to be at the head of all others?
Neither had the aristocracy any thing to apprehend on the part of the clergy,
so long as they did not outstep the bounds of reason. The titles, by virtue of
which they claimed the possession of riches, their rights to a certain degree of
consideration and of precedence were not likely to be combated by a class
whose principles and interests were necessarily favorable to every thing within
the bounds of reason, of justice, and of the laws. The democracy, comprising
the generality of the people, found support and most generous protection in the
Church. How could the Church, which had labored so much to emancipate
them from the ancient slavery, and at a later period from feudal chains, declare
herself the enemy of a class which might be considered as her creature? If the
people experienced an amelioration in their civil condition, it was owing to the
efforts of the clergy; if they acquired political influence, it was owing to the
amelioration of their condition&mdash;another favor obtained through the influence
of the clergy; and if the clergy had any where a sure support, it was natural
to look for it in that popular class which, continually in contact with them,
received from them their inspirations and instructions.</p>

<p>Besides, the Church selected her members indiscriminately from all classes.
To elevate a man to the sacred ministry she required neither titles of nobility
nor riches, and this alone was sufficient to insure intimate relations between the
clergy and the people, and to prevent the latter from regarding them with
aversion and estrangement. Hence the clergy, united to all classes, were an
element perfectly adapted to prevent the exclusive preponderance of any of
these classes, to maintain all social elements in a certain gentle and productive
fermentation, which in time would have produced and matured a natural combination.
I do not mean to assert that there would not have arisen differences,
disputes, perhaps conflicts, inevitable occurrences so long as men shall be men;
but who does not see that the terrible effusion of blood in the wars of Germany,
in the revolutions of England and France, would have been impossible? It
will be said, perhaps, that the spirit of European civilization necessarily tended
to diminish the extreme inequality of classes; I grant it, and will even add,
that this tendency was conformable to the principles and maxims of the
Christian religion, continually reminding men of their equality before God, of
their common origin and destination, of the emptiness of honors and riches, and
proclaiming that virtue is the only thing solid upon earth, the only thing
capable of rendering us pleasing in the eyes of God. But to reform is not to
destroy; to cure the disease, we must not kill the patient. It was deemed
better to overthrow at one blow what might have been corrected by legal means;
European civilization having been corrupted by the fatal innovations of the
sixteenth century, legitimate authority having been disregarded even in matters
within its exclusive sphere, its mild and beneficent action has been replaced by
the disastrous expedients of violence. Three centuries of calamity have more
or less opened the eyes of nations, by teaching them how perilous it is, even
for the success of an enterprise, to confide it to the cruel hazard of the employment
of force; but it is probable that if Protestantism, like an apple of
discord, had not been thrown into the middle of Europe, all these great social
and political questions would, at the present time, be much nearer being solved
in a safe, peaceable, and certain manner, if, indeed, they had not been already
solved long since.<a href="#Note_38" class="fnanchor">38</a></p>

<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_374" id="Page_374">[Pg 374]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LXV" id="CHAPTER_LXV">CHAPTER LXV.</a><br />

<small>POLITICAL DOCTRINES BEFORE THE APPEARANCE OF PROTESTANTISM</small>.</h2>


<p>In matters appertaining to representative government, modern political science
boasts of its great progress: we hear it continually asserting that the school
in which the deputies of the Constituent Assembly imbibed their lessons was
totally ignorant of political constitutions. Now when we compare the doctrines
of the predominating school of the present day with those of the preceding
school, what difference do we discover between them? On what points do they
differ? Where is this boasted progress?</p>

<p>The school of the eighteenth century said: "The king is the natural enemy
of the people; his power must either be totally destroyed, or at least so far
restrained and limited, that he may only appear with his hands tied on the
summit of the social edifice, merely invested with the faculty of approving the
measures of the representatives of the people." And what says the modern
school, which boasts of its progress, of the advantage it has derived from experience,
and of having hit the exact point marked out by reason and good
sense? "Monarchy," says this school, "is essential to the great European
nations; the attempts at republicanism made in America, whatever may be
their results, require, as yet, the test of time; besides, they were made under
circumstances very different from those in which we are placed, and consequently,
are not to be imitated by us. The king should not be regarded as the
enemy of the people, but as their father; instead of presenting him to public
view with his hands tied, he should be represented surrounded with power,
grandeur, and even with majesty and pomp; without which it is impossible
for the throne to fulfil the high functions with which it is invested. The king
should be inviolable&mdash;not nominally, but really and effectually, so that his
power cannot, under any pretext, be attacked. He should be placed in a sphere
beyond the whirlwind of passion and party, like a tutelar divinity, a stranger
to mean views and base passions; he ought to be, as it were, the representative
of reason and justice." "Fools," exclaims this school to its adversaries, "can
you not see that it would be better to have no king at all than such a one as
you would have? Your king would always be an enemy to the constitution, for
he would find this constitution always attacking, embarrassing, restricting, and
humiliating him."</p>

<p>We will now compare this progress with the doctrines predominating in
Europe long before the appearance of Protestantism. This comparison will
enable us to show clearly that every thing reasonable, just, and useful, contained
in these doctrines, was already known and generally propagated in
Europe when society was under the exclusive influence of the Catholic Church.</p>

<p><em>A king is essential</em>, says the modern school; and, thanks to the influence of
the Catholic religion, all the great nations of Europe had a king: <em>the king
must not be regarded as the enemy, but as the father of the people</em>; and he was
already called the father of the people: <em>the power of the king should be great</em>;
that power was great: <em>the king should be inviolable, his person sacred</em>; his
person was sacred, and his prerogative insured to him by the Church from the
earliest ages, in an august and solemn ceremony, that of his coronation. "The
people are supreme," said the school of the last century; "the law is the
expression of the general will, the representatives of the people are alone,
therefore, invested with legislative faculties; the monarch cannot resist this
will. The laws are submitted to his sanction through mere formality; if the
king refuses this sanction, the laws are to undergo another examination; but
if the will of the representatives of the people still remains the same, it shall<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_375" id="Page_375">[Pg 375]</a></span>
be raised to the dignity of law; and the monarch who, by the refusal of his
sanction, shall show that he regards this general will as detrimental to the public
good, shall be compelled, at the expense of his dignity and independence, to
give effect to it."</p>

<p>In reply to this, the modern school says: "The supremacy of the people is
either unmeaning, or has a dangerous sense; the law should not be the expression
of will, but of reason; mere will does not constitute a law; for this
purpose, reason, justice, and public expediency are required." These ideas
were general long before the sixteenth century, not only amongst educated
men, but even among the most simple and ignorant classes. A doctor of the
thirteenth century admirably expressed it in his habitual laconic language:
"<em>It is a rule dictated by reason, and having the common weal for its aim.</em>"
"Would you," continued the modern school, "have royal power a truth, you
must assign it the first place among legislative powers; you must entrust it
with an absolute <em>veto</em>. In the ancient cortes, in the ancient states-general and
parliaments, the king did occupy this place among the legislative powers;
nothing was done without his consent; he possessed <em>an absolute veto</em>."</p>

<p>"Away with classes!" exclaims the Constituent Assembly; "away with
distinctions! The king face to face with the people, directly and immediately;
the rest is an attempt against imprescriptible rights." "You are rash," replies
the modern school; "if there are no distinctions, they must be created. If
there are not in society classes forming in themselves a second legislative body
a mediator between the king and the people, there must be artificial ones;
through the medium of the law must be created what does not exist in society;
if reality is wanting, recourse must be had to fiction." Now these classes existed
in ancient society, they took part in public affairs, they were organized
as active instruments, they formed the first legislative bodies. I ask now,
whether this parallel does not show, as clear as the light of day, that what is
now termed progress in matters of government, is, in fact, a true return towards
what was every where taught and practised under the influence of the Catholic
religion before the appearance of Protestantism? In addressing myself to men
endowed with the least intelligence upon social and political questions, I may
assuredly dispense with the differences which must necessarily result from the
two epochs. I grant that the course of events would of itself have caused
important modifications; political institutions were to be accommodated to the
fresh wants to be satisfied. But I maintain, at the same time, that, so far as
circumstances permitted, European civilization was advancing on the right
road to a better state, containing within itself the means necessary for reforming
without destroying. But for this purpose a spontaneous development of events
was necessary to bear in mind that the mere action of man is of little avail,
that sudden attempts are dangerous; that the great productions of society are
like those of nature, both requiring an indispensable element, <em>time</em>.</p>

<p>There is one fact which appears to me to have been too little reflected upon,
although including the explanation of some strange phenomena of the last three
centuries. This fact is, that Protestantism has prevented civilization from
becoming homogeneous, in spite of a strong tendency urging all the nations of
Europe to homogeneity. The civilization of the nations without doubt receives
its nature and its characteristics from the principles that have given it life and
movement; now these principles being the same, or very nearly so, in all the
nations of Europe, these nations must have borne a close resemblance to each
other. History and philosophy agree on this point; therefore, so long as the
European nations did not receive the inculcation of any germ of division, their
civil and political institutions were developed with a very remarkable similarity.
True, certain differences were observable in them, which were the
inevitable consequences of a variety of circumstances; but we see that they<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_376" id="Page_376">[Pg 376]</a></span>
were becoming more and more alike and forming Europe into one vast whole,
of which we can scarcely form a correct idea, accustomed as we are to ideas of
disunion. This homogeneity would have arrived at its perfection through the
effect of the rapidity which the increase and prosperity of commerce and the
arts gave to intellectual and material communications; the art of printing
would have contributed to it more than anything else, for the ebb and flow of
ideas would have dispersed the inequalities separating the nations one from
another.</p>

<p>But unfortunately, Protestantism appeared and separated the European
people into two great families, which, since their division, have professed a
mortal hatred towards each other. This hatred has been the cause of furious
wars, in which torrents of blood have been shed. One thing yet more fatal
than these catastrophies was the germ of civil, political, and literary schism,
introduced into the bosom of Europe by the absence of religious unity. Civil
and political institutions, and all the branches of learning, had appeared and
prospered in Europe under the influence of religion; the schism was religious;
it affected even the root, and extended to the branches. Thus arose among
the various nations those brazen walls which kept them separate; the spirit of
suspicion and mistrust was everywhere spread; things which before would
have been deemed innocent or without importance, from that time were looked
upon as eminently dangerous.</p>

<p>What uneasiness, disquietude, and agitation must have been the result of
these fatal complications! We may say that in this detestable germ is contained
the history of the calamities with which Europe was afflicted during the
last three centuries. To what may we attribute the Anabaptist wars in Germany,
those of the empire, and the Thirty-years war; those of the Huguenots
in France, and the bloody scenes of the League; and that profound source of
division, that uninterrupted series of discord, which beginning with the
Huguenots, was continued by the Jansenists, and then by philosophers, terminating
in the Convention? Had England not contained in her bosom that
nest of sects engendered by Protestantism, would she have had to suffer the
disasters of a revolution which lasted so many years? Had Henry VIII. not
seceded from the Catholic Church, Great Britain would not have passed two-thirds
of the sixteenth century in the most atrocious religious persecutions,
and under the most brutal despotism; she would not have been drowned during
the greater part of the seventeenth in torrents of blood, shed by sectarian fanaticism.
Had it not been for Protestantism, would England have been in the fatal
position in which she is placed by the Irish question, scarcely leaving her a
choice between a dismemberment of the empire and a terrible revolution?
Would not nations of brethren have found the means of coming to an amicable
understanding, if, during the last three centuries, religious discords had not
separated them by a lake of blood? Those offensive and defensive confederations
between nation and nation, which divided Europe into two parties,
as inimical to each other as the Christians to the Mussulmans, that traditional
hatred between the North and the South, that profound separation between
Protestant and Catholic Germany, between Spain and England, between that
country and France, were sure to have an extraordinary effect in retarding
communications between European nations; and what would have been obtained
much sooner by moral means, could only be obtained by material ones. Steam
tends to convert Europe into one vast city; if men who were one day to live
under the same roof hated one another for three centuries, what was the cause
of it? If people's hearts had been united long before in mutual affection,
would not the happy moment in which they were to join hands have been
hastened?</p>

<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_377" id="Page_377">[Pg 377]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LXVI" id="CHAPTER_LXVI">CHAPTER LXVI.</a><br />

<small>POLITICAL DOCTRINES IN SPAIN</small>.</h2>


<p>My explanation of this matter would be incomplete, were I to leave the following
difficulty unresolved: "In Spain, Catholicity has prevailed exclusively,
and under it an absolute monarchy was established, a sufficient indication that
Catholic doctrines are inimical to political liberty." The great majority of
men never look deeply into the real nature of things, nor pay due attention to
the true meaning of words. Present them with something in strong relief that
will make a vivid impression on their imagination, and they take facts just as
they appear at the first glance, thoughtlessly confounding <em>causality</em> with <em>coincidence</em>.
It cannot be denied that the empire of the Catholic religion <em>coincided</em>
in Spain with the final <em>preponderance</em> of absolute monarchy; but the question
is, <em>Was the Catholic religion the true cause of this preponderance?</em> Was it she
that overturned the ancient cortes, to establish the throne of absolute monarchs
on the ruins of popular institutions?</p>

<p>Before we commence our examination into the cause that destroyed the influence
of the nation on public affairs, it may be well to remind the reader
that in Denmark, Sweden, and Germany, absolutism was established and upheld
in juxtaposition with Protestantism. Hence the argument of coincidence
is very little worth, as, owing to the exact identity of circumstances in the two
cases, it could just as well be proved that Protestantism leads to absolutism.
I will just observe here, that in my endeavors to demonstrate in the foregoing
chapters that the pseudo-Reformation tended to the overthrow of political
liberty, I have not rested my arguments upon coincidences only, however careful
I may have been to point them out to the reader. I have said that Protestantism,
by diffusing dissolvent doctrines, had occasioned a necessity for an extension
of temporal power; that by destroying the political influence of the clergy
and the Popes, it had destroyed the equilibrium between the social classes, left
no counterpoise to the throne, and further augmented the power of the
monarch, by granting him ecclesiastical supremacy in Protestant countries, and
exaggerating his prerogatives in Catholic nations.</p>

<p>But we will dismiss these general considerations, and fix our attention upon
Spain. This nation has the misfortune to be one of those that are least known;
its history is not properly studied, nor are sound views taken of its present
condition. Its troubles, its rebellions, its civil wars, proclaim that it has not
yet received its true system of government, which proves that the nation to be
governed is but imperfectly understood. Its history is, if possible, still less
perfectly understood. The present influence of events already very remote,
works secretly and almost imperceptibly; and hence the eye of the observer
is satisfied with a superficial view of affairs, and he forms his opinions too
hastily&mdash;opinions which too often, in consequence, take the place of facts
and reality. In treating of the causes that have deprived Spain of her
political liberty, almost all authors fix their attention principally or exclusively
upon Castile, giving monarchs infinitely more credit for sagacity than
the course of events would seem to justify. They generally select the war
of the <i lang="es">Communeros</i> as their point of view, and, according to certain writers,
but for the defeat at Villalar, the liberties of Spain would have been forever
secure. I admit that the war of the <i lang="es">Communeros</i> affords an excellent point of
view for the study of this matter; in fact, the field of Villalar was in some
measure witness to the conclusion of the drama. Castile should be regarded
as the centre of events; and it is here that the Spanish monarchs gave proof
of great sagacity in the manner in which they brought the enterprise to a
close. Nevertheless, I do not deem it just to give an exclusive preference to one<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_378" id="Page_378">[Pg 378]</a></span>
of these considerations, and it does appear to me that the real state of the
question is generally misconceived: effects are taken for causes, accessories for
principals.</p>

<p>In my opinion, the ruin of free institutions resulted from the following
causes:&mdash;1st, the premature and immoderately extensive development of these
institutions; 2dly, the formation of the Spanish nation out of a successive
reunion of very heterogeneous parts, all possessing institutions extremely
popular; 3dly, the establishment of the centre of power in the middle of the
provinces where these forms were most restricted, and where the authority of
the crown was the greatest; 4thly, the extreme abundance of wealth, the power
and the splendor which the Spanish people saw everywhere around them, and
which lulled them to sleep in the arms of prosperity; 5thly, the exclusively
military position of the Spanish monarchs, whose armies were everywhere victorious,
their military power and prestige being at their height precisely at the
critical time when the quarrel had to be decided. I will take a rapid view of
these causes, although the nature of this work does not permit me to devote to
them the space which the gravity and importance of the subject demand. The
reader will pardon me this political digression on account of the close connection
existing between this subject and the religious question.</p>

<p>As regards popular forms of government, Spain has been in advance of all
monarchical nations. This is an indubitable fact. In Spain, these forms
received a premature and extreme development; and this contributed to their
ruin, as a child sickens and dies, if, in its tender years, its growth is too rapid,
or its intellect too precocious. This active spirit of liberty, this multitude of
<i lang="es">fueros</i> and of privileges, these impediments everywhere placed in the way of
power, checking the rapidity and energy of its action&mdash;this great development
of the popular element, in its very nature restless and turbulent, existing
simultaneously with the wealth, the power, and the pride of the aristocracy,
very naturally gave rise to many commotions. Elements so numerous, so
various, and so opposite to each other, which, moreover, had not time to be
combined so as to form a peaceable and harmonious whole, were not likely to
work tranquilly together. Order is the prime necessity of society; it is essential
to the growth of the ideas, the manners, and the laws of a nation.
Wherever there exists a germ of continual disorder, how deep soever it may
have struck its roots, it is sure to be extirpated, or at least crushed, so as no
longer to keep public tranquillity in perpetual danger. The municipal and
political organization of Spain had this inconvenience, and hence an imperative
necessity for its modification. But the ideas and the manners of the time were
such, that matters could not be expected to stop at a simple modification. The
system of constituencies, which so easily creates numerous assemblies, either
to enact new fundamental codes or to reform the old ones, was not then understood
as it is in our days; neither were men's ideas at that time so generalized
as to place them above all that exclusively and particularly relates to a people,
at a point of elevation whence they could no longer observe every petty local
object, but had their attention wholly engrossed by mankind, society, the nation,
or the government. It was not so at that time: a charter of liberty granted
by a king to a city or a town; an immunity wrested from a feudal lord by his
armed vassals; some privilege obtained in reward of warlike achievements, or
sometimes granted as a recompense for the bravery of a man's ancestors; a
concession to the cortes, made by the monarch in exchange for the grant of a
contribution, or, as it was then termed, of a <em>service</em>,&mdash;a law or custom, the
antiquity of which lay hidden in the depths of the past, or confounded with
the infancy of monarchy: such, to give a few instances, were the titles of which
they were proud, and which they maintained with jealous ardor.</p>

<p>Liberty now-a-days is more vague, and sometimes less positive, owing to the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_379" id="Page_379">[Pg 379]</a></span>
generalization and elevation which men's ideas have assumed; but then it is
far less liable to destruction. Speaking a language well understood by the
people, and appearing as the common cause of all nations, it awakens universal
sympathies, and is in a position to found more extensive associations as a guarantee
against the attacks of power. The words liberty, equality, rights of
man, intervention of the people in public affairs, ministerial responsibility,
public opinion, liberty of the press, toleration, and other similar ones, do
undoubtedly contain a great diversity of meanings, which it would be difficult
to determine and to classify when we come to make a specific application of
them; and yet these words present to the mind certain ideas which, although
complicated and confused, have a false appearance of clearness and simplicity.
On the other hand, these words represent certain striking objects that dazzle
the mind by their vivid and flattering colors, and hence they cannot be uttered
without exciting a lively interest; they are understood by the masses, and
hence every self-constituted champion of the ideas they convey is at once
regarded as a defender of the rights of all mankind. But imagine yourself
living among the people of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and your
position will be found very different. Take for your subject the franchises of
Catalonia or of Castile, and address yourself to the Aragonese, who were so
intractable on the subject of their <i lang="es">fueros</i>, and you will produce no effect&mdash;will
not succeed in awakening either their zeal or their interest; a charter that does
not contain the name of one of their towns or cities is, in their eyes, a thing of
no importance, and foreign to their wishes. This inconvenience, originating in
the ideas of the times, which were naturally confined to local circumstances,
became very great in Spain, where, under the same sceptre, there was formed
an amalgamation of people differing most widely in their manners, in their
municipal and political organization, and divided, moreover, by rivalries and
animosities. In such a state of things it was comparatively easy to curtail the
liberties of one province without giving umbrage to the others, or exciting their
apprehensions for their own liberties. If, at the period of the insurrections of
the <i lang="es">Communeros</i> in Castile against Charles V., there had existed that communication
of ideas and sentiments, and those lively sympathies, which at the
present time unite people together, the defeat of Villalar would have been a
simple defeat and nothing more; the cry of alarm, resounding throughout Aragon
and Castile, would certainly have given more trouble to the young and
ill-advised monarch. But such was not the case; all the efforts of the people
were isolated, and consequently barren of results. The royal power, proceeding
upon a fixed and steady plan, was able to beat down piecemeal these
scattered forces, and the result was not doubtful. In 1521, Padilla, Bravo,
and Maldonado perished on the scaffold; in 1591, D. Diego de Heredia, D.
Juan de Luna, and the Justiciary himself, D. Antonio de Lanuza, met the same
fate; when, in 1640, the Catalonians rose in insurrection for the defence of
their rights, notwithstanding the manifestos they issued to attract supporters,
they found no one to assist them. There were then no flying sheets, coming
every morning to fix the attention of the people upon all sorts of questions, and
to stir up alarm at the least appearance of danger to their liberties. The people,
warmly attached to their customs and usages, satisfied with the nominal
confirmations which their monarchs were daily giving to their <i lang="es">fueros</i>, proud
also of the respect shown to their ancient liberties, were little aware that they
were confronted by a sagacious adversary, who never resorted to force but to
effect a decisive blow, yet constantly held his powerful arm ready to crush
them. An attentive study of the history of Spain will show that the concentration
of the whole governing power in the hands of the monarch, to the
exclusion, as far as was possible, of popular influence, dates from the reign of
Ferdinand and Isabella. Nor is this surprising; for there was then a greater<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_380" id="Page_380">[Pg 380]</a></span>
necessity for such a course, and it could be more easily adopted. There was a
greater necessity; for, from that time, the action of government began to
extend from one common center over the whole of Spain, the various portions
of which differed so widely in their laws, their manners, and their customs;
hence the central action naturally felt more sensibly the embarrassment occasioned
by so great a diversity of cortes, of municipalities, of codes, and of
privileges; and, as every government wishes its action to be rapid and efficacious,
the idea of simplifying, uniting, and centralizing their power naturally
took possession of the kings of Spain. It is, in fact, easy to understand that
a monarch at the head of numerous armies, with magnificent fleets at his disposal,
who had, on a hundred occasions, humbled his most powerful foes, and
won the respect of foreign nations, would not like to be continually going to
preside over the cortes in Castile, in Aragon, in Valencia, and in Catalonia.
It would undoubtedly cost him dear to be constantly repeating the oath binding
him to protect the rights and liberties of his subjects, and listening to the perpetual
strain re-echoed in his ears by the <i lang="es">procuradores</i> of Castile, and the
<i lang="es">brazos</i> of Aragon, Valencia, and Catalonia. It was hard for him to be obliged
humbly to solicit from the cortes assistance for the expenses of the state, and
particularly for almost continual wars. If he submitted to this, it was only
from the dread of those resolute men, real lions in the battle-field when fighting
in defence of their religion, their country, and their king, and who would have
fought with no less intrepidity in their streets and houses, had an attempt been
made to despoil them of those rights and franchises which they inherited from
their forefathers.</p>

<p>The union of the crowns of Aragon and Castile alone so far prepared the
way for the ruin of popular institutions, that it followed almost necessarily.
From that time, in fact, the throne had obtained too great a preponderance for
the <i lang="es">fueros</i> of the kingdoms recently united to oppose it with success. To imagine
the existence at that period of a political power capable of resisting the
crown, we must suppose all the assemblies held from time to time in the
different kingdoms under the name of cortes united into one grand national
representative body, with a power analogous to that of the king; we must suppose
this central assembly actuated by a zeal equal to that of the ancient
assemblies for the preservation of their <i lang="es">fueros</i> and privileges, ready to sacrifice
all their rivalries to the public good, and advancing towards their object with a
firm step, in one compact mass, and never giving an advantage to their adversary.
In other words, we must suppose what was utterly impossible at that
period; impossible, on account of the ideas, the habits, and the rivalries of the
people; impossible, at a time when the people were incapable of comprehending
the question in so lofty a sense; impossible, owing to the resistance which it
would have met with from the monarchs; to the embarrassment and complication,
arising from the municipal, social, and political organization. In a
word, it was something impossible to effect or even to conceive.</p>

<p>Every circumstance was in favor of the aggrandizement of the royal power.
The monarch being no longer merely king of Aragon or of Castile, but of Spain,
the ancient kingdoms dwindled into insignificance before the majesty and the
splendor of the throne, and sank by degrees to the rank which alone suited
them, that of provinces. From that moment the action of the monarch became
more extensive and complicated, and consequently he could not come so frequently
into contact with his vassals. The celebration of the cortes in each of
the recently united kingdoms, would have occasioned long delays; for the king
was oftentimes engaged at another part of the empire. When sedition was to
be chastised, abuses to be checked, or excesses to be repressed, he was no
longer obliged to have recourse to the forces of the particular kingdom in which
these things occurred, as he could employ the arms of Castile to subdue insur<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_381" id="Page_381">[Pg 381]</a></span>rection
in the kingdom of Aragon, and those of Aragon to put down the rebels
of Castile. Grenada lay at his feet; Italy yielded to one of his victorious
captains; in his fleet was Columbus, who had just discovered a new world;
under these circumstances, it was in vain to listen for the murmurs of the
cortes and of <i lang="es">ayuntamientos</i>,&mdash;these were no longer heard, they had totally
disappeared.</p>

<p>Had the national manners had a peaceable tendency, had not Spain been
habituated to war, democratic institutions would probably have been preserved
with less difficulty. Had the attention of the people been fixed exclusively upon
their municipal and political affairs, they would have better understood their
real interests; kings themselves would not have been so ready to rush into war,
and the throne would in some degree have lost the prestige it obtained from
the splendor and success of its armies; the administration would not have been
imbued with that blunt harshness for which military habits are always more
or less remarkable; and the ancient <i lang="es">fueros</i> would thus have more easily retained
some consideration. But precisely at that period Spain was the most warlike
nation in the world; it was in its element on the battle-field; seven centuries
of combats had made it a nation of soldiers. Its recent victories over the
Moors; the exploits of its armies in Italy; the discoveries of Columbus; every
thing, in fine, contributed to its exaltation, and to inspire it with that spirit of
chivalry which, for so long a time, was one of its distinguishing characteristics.
It was necessary for the king to be a captain; and he was certain to captivate
the minds of Spaniards, so long as he won renown by brilliant feats of arms.
Now, arms are the bane of popular institutions. After a victory on the field
of battle, the order and discipline of the camp are usually transferred to the
city.</p>

<p>From the time of Ferdinand and Isabella, the throne rose to such a height
of power that liberal institutions were almost lost sight of. The people and
the grandees, it is true, reappeared upon the scene after the death of Isabella;
but this was entirely owing to the misunderstanding between Ferdinand the
Catholic and Philip le Bel, which impaired the unity, and consequently the
strength of the throne; and hence, as soon as these circumstances disappeared,
the throne again resumed its full preponderance, and that not only during the
last days of Ferdinand, but even under the regency of Ximenes. The men of
Castile, exasperated by the excesses of the Flemish, and encouraged perhaps
by the hope, that the rule of a young monarch would be, as it usually is, only
feeble, again raised their voices; their remonstrances and complaints speedily
ended in commotions and in open insurrection. Notwithstanding many circumstances
highly favorable to the <i lang="es">Communeros</i>, and the probability that
their conduct would be followed by all the provinces of the monarchy, we find
that the insurrection, although considerable, did not assume either the importance
or extent of a national movement; a great portion of the Peninsula preserved
a strict neutrality, and the rest inclined to the cause of monarchy. If
I am not mistaken, this fact indicates that the throne had already obtained an
immense prestige, and was regarded as the highest and most powerful institution.
The entire reign of Charles V. was extremely well calculated to perfect
this beginning. Commenced under the auspices of the battle of Villalar, this
reign continued through an uninterrupted series of wars, in which the treasures
and the blood of Spain were spent with incredible profusion in all the countries
of Europe, Africa, and America. The nation was not allowed time even to
think of its affairs: almost always deprived of the presence of its king, it had
become a province at the disposal of the Emperor of Germany, the ruler of
Europe. True, the cortes of 1538 boldly gave Charles a severe lecture instead
of the succor he demanded. But it was already too late; the clergy and the
nobility were expelled from the cortes, and the representation of Castile was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_382" id="Page_382">[Pg 382]</a></span>
restricted for the future to the <i lang="es">procuradores</i> alone; that is, it was doomed to be
no more than the shadow of what it had been&mdash;a mere instrument of the
royal will.</p>

<p>Much has been said against Philip II.; but, in my opinion, this monarch
merely kept his place, and allowed things to take their natural course. The
crisis was already past; the question already decided; the Spanish nation
could not regain its lost influence, save by the regenerating action of centuries.
Still, we must not imagine that absolute power was so fully and completely
established as to leave not a vestige of ancient liberty; but this liberty could
do nothing from its asylum in Aragon and Catalonia against the giant that
held it in check from the midst of a country entirely subject to his sway, from
the capital of Castile. The monarchs might probably, by one bold and heavy
blow, have struck down every thing that opposed them; but whatever probabilities
of success they had in the vast means at their disposal, they were very
careful not to make the attempt, but left the inhabitants of Navarre, the subjects
of the crown of Aragon, in the tranquil enjoyment of their franchises,
rights, and privileges. At the same time, they were careful to prevent the
contagion spreading to the other provinces. By means of partial attacks, and
more especially by leading the people to allow their ancient liberties to fall
into desuetude, they gradually diminished their zeal for them, and insensibly
brought them to a habit of tamely bending under the action of a central
power.<a href="#Note_39" class="fnanchor">39</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LXVII" id="CHAPTER_LXVII">CHAPTER LXVII.</a><br />

<small>POLITICAL LIBERTY AND RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE</small>.</h2>


<p>In the sketch I have here drawn, the rigorous accuracy of which no one can
question, we have not discovered any thing like oppression in Catholicity, nor
any alliance between the clergy and the throne for the destruction of liberty:
what we <em>have</em> discovered is merely the regular and natural order of things,&mdash;a
successive development of events contained in each other, as the plant is
contained in the germ. As for the Inquisition, I think I have said enough respecting
it in the chapters that treat of it: in this place I will merely observe,
that it was not a political instrument in the hands of kings, ready to be used
at their beck. Religion was its object; and as we have seen, far from losing
sight of this object to suit the wishes of the sovereign, it unhesitatingly condemned
the doctrines that would have unjustly extended the powers of the
monarch. Shall I be told, that the Inquisition was in its very nature intolerant,
and consequently opposed to the growth of liberty? I answer, that toleration,
as now understood, had at that time no existence in any European
country. Besides, it was under the direct and full influence of religious intolerance
that the people were emancipated, municipalities organized, the system
of large representative assemblies established, which, under different names,
and more or less directly, interfered in public affairs.</p>

<p>Men's ideas were not yet so far perverted as to lead them to believe that
religion was favorable and conducive to the oppression of the people; on the
contrary, we observe in the hearts of these people a vehement desire for liberty
and progress, whilst at the same time they clung with enthusiasm to a faith, in
the sight of which it appeared to them just and salutary to refuse toleration to
any doctrine at variance with the teaching of the Church of Rome. Unity of
faith does not fetter the people&mdash;does not impede their movements in any direction&mdash;as
well, indeed, might it be said, that the mariner is fettered by the compass
that guides him in safety through the wide expanse of waters. Was the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_383" id="Page_383">[Pg 383]</a></span>
ancient unity of European civilization wanting in grandeur, in variety, or in
beauty? Did Catholic unity, presiding over the destinies of society, arrest its
progress, even in the ages of barbarism? Let us fix our eyes upon the grand
and delightful spectacle exhibited in the centuries preceding the sixteenth, and
pause a moment to reflect; we shall all the better understand in what manner
Protestantism has given a wrong direction to the course of civilization.</p>

<p>The immense agitation occasioned by the gigantic enterprise of the Crusades
shows in what a state of fermentation were the elements deposited in the bosom
of society. The shock excited them to activity&mdash;union augmented their force&mdash;every
where, and in every sense, was to be seen a vigorous and active movement,
a sure presage of the high degree of civilization and refinement which
Europe was about to attain. The arts and sciences, as if called into life by
some powerful voice, reappeared, loudly asserting their claim to protection and
an honorable reception. On the feudal castles, those heirlooms of the manners
of the period of conquest, a ray of light suddenly gleamed, that illuminated
with the rapidity of lightning all climates and all people. Those masses
of men, who had hitherto bent in painful toil for the benefit of their masters,
now lifted up their heads, and, with bold hearts and enfranchised lips, demanded
a share in social advantages. Addressing each other with a look of intelligence,
they combined together, and insisted in common that the law should be
substituted for caprice. Then towns sprang up, increased in size and importance,
and were surrounded with ramparts; municipal institutions arose, and
began to develop themselves; kings, till then the sport of the pride, ambition
or stubbornness of the feudal lords, seized upon an opportunity so favorable,
and made common cause with the people. Threatened with destruction, feudalism
entered valiantly into the contest, but in vain; and, restrained by a power
even more irresistible than the weapons of its adversaries, and, as if oppressed
by the air it breathed, it felt its action impeded, its energies enfeebled, and,
despairing of victory, it gave itself up to the enjoyment to be found in the
patronage of the arts.</p>

<p>To the coat of mail now succeeded elegance of dress; to the powerful shield,
the pompous escutcheon; to the bearing and address of the warrior, the manners
of the courtier:&mdash;thus was the whole power of feudalism undermined; the
popular element was left completely at liberty to develop itself; and the powers
of monarchs became every day more extensive. Royalty thus strengthened,
municipal institutions in full vigor, and feudalism undermined, the remnants
of barbarism and oppression still existing in the laws fell one by one beneath
the attacks of so many adversaries; and, for the first time in the world's history,
there was seen a considerable number of great nations presenting the peaceful
spectacle of many millions of men living in social union, and enjoying together
the rights of men and of citizens. Until this period, public tranquillity, and
even the very existence of society, had to be secured by carefully excluding
from the working of the political machine a great number of individuals by
means of slavery&mdash;a system that proved at once the intrinsic inferiority and
weakness of the governments of antiquity. The Christian religion, with the
courage inspired by the consciousness of strength, and with an ardent love for
humanity, had never doubted that she held in her hands other means of restraining
men than a recourse to degradation and violence, and had, in fact,
resolved the problem in a manner the most noble and generous. She had said
to society: "Dost thou dread this immense multitude, that have no sufficient
titles to thy confidence? I will stand security for them. Thou enslavest them;
thou puttest chains around their necks; I will subdue their hearts. Leave
them free; and this multitude, before which thou tremblest as before a herd of
wild beasts, will become a class of men serviceable to themselves and to thee."
This voice had been heard, and all men were freed from the yoke of slavery&mdash;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_384" id="Page_384">[Pg 384]</a></span>
all entered upon this noble struggle, which was to place society in equilibrium,
without destroying or shaking its foundations. We have already said above,
that there existed powerful adversaries. Shocks more or less violent were
inevitable; but there was no cause for anticipating any serious catastrophe,
unless some fatal combination of circumstances arose to overthrow the only
power capable of moderating the inflamed, and sometimes exasperated, passions
of men&mdash;to impose silence upon that powerful voice, ever ready to say to the
combatants, <em>That is enough</em>. That voice&mdash;the voice of Christianity&mdash;might
have been heard with greater or less docility; but it would always have sufficed
to calm down the fury of the passions, to moderate the fierceness of their conflicts,
and thus to prevent scenes of bloodshed.</p>

<p>If we take a glance at Europe at the end of the fifteenth and beginning of
the sixteenth centuries, with a view to discover the social elements, whose
struggle seemed likely to disturb public tranquillity, we shall find the power
of the throne already far superior to that of the lords and of the people; we
shall see it endeavoring to please its rivals, lending its aid to one for the subjugation
of the others: but already this power was evidently indestructible.
Held more or less in check by the proud remnants of feudalism, and by the
ever-growing and encroaching power of the people, monarchy nevertheless
maintained its position as a central force for the protection of society against
violence and excess. This tendency was so strong, that we every where meet
with the same phenomenon, manifested with more or less distinctness, and with
characters of greater or less identity. The nations of Europe were great both
in numbers and extent; the abolition of slavery gave a sanction to the principle,
that man ought to live free in the midst of society, enjoying its most
essential advantages, and with sufficient room to enable him to take a more or
less elevated rank, according to the means he employs to gain it. Thus society
had said to each individual: "I acknowledge thee as a man and a citizen; from
this moment I guarantee to thee the possession of these titles. If thou desirest
to lead a quiet life in the bosom of thy family&mdash;labor and be careful; no one
shall wrest from thee the rewards of thy labors, nor trammel the free exercise
of thy faculties. Dost thou aspire to the possession of wealth&mdash;consider how
others have acquired it, and display a similar activity and intelligence. Art
thou ambitious of fame, of rising to an elevated rank, to splendid titles&mdash;the
sciences and the military profession are before thee. If thou hast inherited an
illustrious name, thou mayest still increase its lustre; if thou art not in possession
of such a name, thou art free to acquire one."</p>

<p>Such was the condition of the social problem at the end of the fifteenth
century. Every thing was made public, all the great means of action were
openly developing themselves with rapidity; the art of printing already transmitted
men's thoughts from one end of the world to the other with the speed
of lightning, and insured their preservation for the benefit of future generations.
The frequent intercourse between nations, the revival of literature and
the arts, the cultivation of the sciences, the inclination for travelling and commerce,
the discovery of a new passage to the East Indies, the discovery of
America, the preference given to political negotiations for effecting the arrangements
of international relations,&mdash;every thing combined to give to the minds
of men that strong impulse, that shock which at once arouses and develops all
their faculties, and gives new life. It is difficult to understand by what process
of reasoning, in the face of facts so positive and certain,&mdash;facts that stand so
prominently forward in every page of history, any man could ever seriously
maintain that Protestantism aided human progress. If previous to Luther's
reform society had been found stationary, and still submerged in the chaos
into which it had been plunged by the irruptions of the barbarians; if the people
had not succeeded, previously to that reform, in forming themselves into great<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_385" id="Page_385">[Pg 385]</a></span>
nations, and in providing themselves with systems of government more or less
perfectly organized, but all unquestionably superior to any that had hitherto
existed,&mdash;the assertion might carry with it a degree of plausibility, or, at all
events, it would not stand, as it unfortunately does, in direct opposition to
the most authentic and notorious facts. But what, on the contrary, was the
actual state of Europe at the time of Luther's appearance? The administration
of justice, exercised with more or less perfection, already possessed a highly
moral, rational, and equitable system of legislation for the guidance of its
decisions; the people had in great part shaken off the yoke of feudalism, and
had acquired abundant resources for the preservation and defence of their
liberties; the executive had made immense progress, owing to the establishment,
extension, and amelioration of municipalities; the royal authority,
enlarged, fortified, and consolidated, formed in the midst of society a
central force powerful to work good, to prevent evil, to restrain the passions, to
preserve the balance of interests, to prevent ruinous social contests, and to
watch over the general welfare of society by constant protection and effectual
encouragement; in fine, at that period, nations were seen to fix a look of great
foresight and sagacity on the rock upon which the vessel of society is in danger
of being wrecked, whenever the power of royalty is left without any sort of
counterpoise. Such was already the condition of Europe before the religious
revolution of the sixteenth century.</p>

<p>I promptly concede that great progress has been made since that period in
all matters of a social, political and administrative nature; but does it follow
that this progress is owing to the Protestant Reformation? To prove that it is,
it would be necessary to produce two societies absolutely similar in position
and circumstances, but separated by a long space of time, that would
render all reciprocal influence between them impossible, and subjected, one
to the influence of the Catholic, the other to the Protestant principle; then
each of the two religions might come forward and say to the world, "This is
my work." But it is absurd to compare, as is often done, times so widely different,
circumstances so utterly dissimilar and exceptional with ordinary cases;
it should also be remembered, that, in every thing, the first step is always the
most difficult, and the greatest merit is always due to invention; in a word,
after so many other violations of the rules of logic, our opponents should not
obstinately persist in deducing from one single fact all other facts, simply
because the latter happen to be posterior to the former, otherwise they will
fall under suspicion of insincerity in their search after truth, and of a wish to
falsify history.</p>

<p>The organization of European society, such as Protestantism found it, was,
assuredly not perfect, but it was, at all events, as perfect as was possible. Unless
Providence had vouchsafed to govern the world by prodigies, Europe, at this
period, could not have attained to a more advantageous position. The elements
of progress, of happiness, of civilization and refinement, were in her bosom; they
were numerous and powerful; time was developing them by degrees in a manner
truly wonderful; and as mournful experience is every day lessening the
prestige and credit of destructive doctrines, the time is perhaps not far distant,
when philosophers, examining dispassionately this period of history, will agree
that society had even then received the most fortunate impulse. It will be seen
that Protestantism, by giving a wrong direction to the march of society, only precipitated
it upon a perilous route, where it has been on the brink of ruin; and
would perhaps have been ruined altogether, had not the hand of the Most High
been stronger than the feeble arm of man. Protestants boast of having rendered
great service to society by having destroyed in some countries, and impaired
in others, the power of the Popes. As regards the Papal supremacy in relation
to matters of faith, what I have elsewhere said will suffice to demonstrate<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_386" id="Page_386">[Pg 386]</a></span>
the disastrous consequences of the exercise of private judgment; as to discipline,
I am unwilling to enter upon questions that would indefinitely extend the
limits of this work. I will merely ask my opponents, whether they deem it prudent
to leave a society co-extensive with the world without a legislator, without a
judge, without an arbitrator, without a counsellor, without a chief?</p>

<p><em>Temporal power.</em>&mdash;This term has long been the bugbear of kings&mdash;the
watchword of the anti-Catholic party&mdash;a snare into which many upright men
have fallen&mdash;a butt for the shafts of discontented statesmen, disappointed
writers, and snarling canonists; and nothing more natural, seeing that the
subject afforded them an opportunity of pouring out their resentments, and of
giving currency to their suspicious doctrines, well assured that, by affecting
zeal for the power of the monarch, they would find, in case of danger, a ready
asylum in the palaces of kings. The present is not the place for the discussion
of a question that has been the subject of so many vehement and learned
disputes; and it would be the more inopportune, as, in the existing state of
things, assuredly no power apprehends the least temporal usurpation on the
part of the Holy See, which, whatever its enemies may say, has evinced at all
times, and even humanly speaking, more prudence, tact, patience, and wisdom
than any other power upon earth; and amidst the extreme difficulties of modern
times, has taken up a position that enables it to yield to the various exigencies
of the times without any compromise of its high dignity, without any deviation
from its sublime obligations. It is certain that the temporal power of the
Popes had risen in the course of time to such a height, that the successor of St.
Peter had become a universal counsellor, arbitrator, and judge, from whose
sentence it was dangerous to appeal, even in purely political matters. The general
movement throughout Europe had somewhat weakened this power; but yet, at
the moment when Protestantism made its appearance, it still had such an ascendency
over the minds of men, it commanded so much veneration and respect,
and was possessed of such vast means for defending its rights, enforcing its
pretensions, supporting its decisions, and making its counsels respected, that
the most powerful monarchs of Europe considered it a very serious matter to
have the Court of Rome opposed to them in any affair whatever; and consequently
they eagerly sought on all occasions, to secure its favor and friendship.
Rome had thus become a general centre of negotiation, and no affair of importance
could escape its influence.</p>

<p>Such have been the outcries raised against the colossal power, against this
pretended usurpation of rights, that one might suppose the Popes to have been
a succession of deep conspirators, who, by their intrigues and artifices, aimed
at nothing short of universal monarchy. As our opponents plume themselves
on their spirit of observation and historical analysis, I felt it necessary to
observe, that the temporal power of the Popes was strengthened and extended
at a time when no other power was as yet really constituted. To call that
power usurpation therefore, is not merely an inaccuracy&mdash;it is an anachronism.
In the general confusion brought upon all European society by the irruptions
of the barbarians, in that strange medley of races, laws, manners, and traditions,
there remained only one solid foundation for the structure of the edifice
of civilization and refinement, only one luminous body to shine upon the chaos,
only one element capable of giving life to the germ of regeneration that lay
buried in blood-stained ruins&mdash;Christianity, predominant over and annihilating
the remains of other religions, arose, in this age of desolation, like a solitary
column in the center of a ruined city, or like a bright beacon amid darkness.</p>

<p>Barbarians, and proud of their triumphs as they were, the conquering people
bowed their heads beneath the pastoral staff that governs the flock of Jesus
Christ. The spiritual pastors, a body of men quite new to these barbarians,
and speaking a lofty and divine language, obtained over the chiefs of the fero<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_387" id="Page_387">[Pg 387]</a></span>cious
hordes from the north a complete and permanent ascendency, which the
course of ages could not destroy. Such was the foundation of the temporal
power in the Church; and it will be easily conceived that as the Pope towered
above all the other pastors in the ecclesiastical edifice, like a superb cupola
above the other parts of a magnificent temple, his temporal power must have
risen far higher than that of ordinary bishops; and must also have had a deeper,
more solid, and more lasting foundation. All the principles of legislation, all
the foundations of society, all the elements of intellectual culture, all that
remained of the arts and sciences, all was in the hands of religion; and all very
naturally sought protection from the pontifical throne, the only power acting
with order, concert, and regularity, and the only one that offered any guarantee
for stability and permanence. Wars succeeded to wars, convulsions to convulsions,
the forms of society were continually changing; but the one great,
general, and dominant fact, the stability and influence of religion, remained
still the same: and it is ridiculous in any man to declaim against a phenomenon
so natural, so inevitable, and, above all, so advantageous, designating it, "A
succession of usurpations of temporal power."</p>

<p>Power, ere it can be usurped, must exist; and where, I pray, did temporal
power then exist? Was it in kings?&mdash;the sport, and frequently the victims
of the haughty barons? In the feudal lords?&mdash;continually engaged in contests
amongst themselves, with kings, and with the people? In fine, was it in the
people?&mdash;a troop of slaves, who, thanks to the efforts of religion, were slowly
working out their freedom? The people, it is true, united against the lords&mdash;they
raised their voices to demand protection from the monarch, or to solicit
the aid of the Church against the vexations and outrages inflicted on them by
both; still, however, they as yet formed but an unorganized embryo of society,
without any fixed rule, without government, and without laws. Could we
honestly compare modern times with these? Could we apply to these bygone
ages restrictions and distinctions of authority that are admissible only in a state
of society in which the elements of life and civilization have been developed,
in which solid and permanent foundations have been laid, in which, consequently,
the functions of social authority could be, and have in effect been,
regulated, after a minute analysis of the limits of their respective jurisdictions?
To reason otherwise, would be to seek order in chaos, smoothness on the surface
of a tempest-tossed ocean. We should not forget, either, a general and
unvarying fact, founded on the very nature of things,&mdash;a fact, moreover, to
which the history of all times and all countries is continually calling our attention,
and which has received a striking confirmation from the revolutions of
modern times,&mdash;viz. that whenever society is deeply diseased, there is always
at hand a principle of life to stay the progress of the malady. A contest takes
place&mdash;collisions occur one after another&mdash;they become more frequent and more
violent; but ultimately the principle of order prevails over that of disorder, and
continues long afterwards to predominate in society. This principle may be
more or less just, more or less rational, more or less violent, more or less adequate
to attain its object; but whatever it be in these respects, it always
prevails in the end, unless, during the struggle, another, a better and more
powerful principle takes its place.</p>

<p>Now, in the middle ages, this principle was the Christian Church. She alone
could be this principle, for she had truth in her doctrines, justice in her laws,
and regularity and prudence in her government. She was the only element of
life that existed at this period&mdash;the only depository of the grand idea upon
which the reorganization of society depended; and this idea was not vague and
abstract, but positive and practicable, for it proceeded from the lips of Him
whose word calls forth worlds out of nothing, and makes light to shine forth in
the midst of darkness. When once the sublime doctrines of the Church had<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_388" id="Page_388">[Pg 388]</a></span>
penetrated into the heart of society, her pure, fraternal, and consoling morality
necessarily influenced its manners. Forms of government also, and systems
of legislation were, in like manner, more or less affected by her mild and powerful
influence. These are facts&mdash;undeniable facts. Now, the Roman Pontiffs
were the center of this happy preponderance which religion so legitimately
obtained and so justly deserved; hence it is clear that the power of the Holy
See very naturally rose above all other powers.</p>

<p>After having contemplated this sublime picture, drawn from the plain and
authentic records of history, why dwell on the defects or the vices of some few
individuals? Why drag to light the excesses, the errors, the disorders ever
incident to humanity? Why maliciously seek out facts through a long succession
of obscure ages, collecting them together and placing them in a light
most calculated to make an impression, and to mislead the ignorant? Why,
in fine, urge, exaggerate, disfigure, and paint these facts in the darkest possible
colors? To do so, is to betray a very shallow understanding of the philosophy
of history, a spirit of great partiality, low views, grovelling sentiments, and
miserable spleen. It should be loudly proclaimed to the whole world, and a
thousand times repeated, that it may never be forgotten, that limits which have
no existence cannot be respected&mdash;that to create power is not to usurp it&mdash;that
to make laws is not to violate them&mdash;that to reduce to order the chaos in which
society is overwhelmed is not to disturb society. Now this was the work of
the Church&mdash;this is what was done by the Popes.<a href="#Note_40" class="fnanchor">40</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LXVIII" id="CHAPTER_LXVIII">CHAPTER LXVIII.</a><br />

<small>UNITY IN FAITH NOT ADVERSE TO POLITICAL LIBERTY</small>.</h2>


<p>The supposed incompatibility of unity in faith with political liberty is an
invention of the irreligious philosophy of the last century. Whatever political
opinions be adopted, it is of extreme importance that we be on our guard
against such a doctrine. We must not forget that the Catholic religion occupies
a sphere far above all forms of government&mdash;she does not reject from her
bosom either the citizen of the United States, or the inhabitant of Russia, but
embraces all men with equal tenderness, commanding all to obey the legitimate
governments of their respective countries. She considers them all as children
of the same father, participators in the same redemption, heirs to the same
glory. It is very important to bear in mind that irreligion allies itself to liberty
or to despotism, according as its interests incline; lavish of its applause when
an infuriated populace are burning temples and massacring the ministers of the
altar, it is ever ready to flatter monarchs, to exaggerate their power beyond
measure, whenever they win its favor by despoiling the clergy, subverting discipline,
and insulting the Pope. Caring little what instruments it employs,
provided it accomplishes its work, it is royalist when in a position to sway the
minds of kings, to expel the Jesuits from France, from Spain, from Portugal,
to pursue them to the four quarters of the globe without allowing them either
respite or repose; liberal in the midst of popular assemblies that exact sacrilegious
oaths from the clergy, and send into exile or to the scaffold the ministers
of religion who remain faithful to their duty.</p>

<p>The man who cannot see that what I have advanced is strictly true, must
have forgotten history, and paid little attention to very recent occurrences.
With religion and morality, all forms of government are good; without them,
none can be good. An absolute monarch, imbued with religious ideas, surrounded
by counsellors of sound doctrines, and reigning over a people amongst
whom the same doctrines prevail, may make his subjects happy, and will be sure<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_389" id="Page_389">[Pg 389]</a></span>
to do so as far as circumstances of time and place permit. A wicked monarch,
or one surrounded by wicked counsellors, will do mischief in proportion to the
extent of his powers; he will be even more to be dreaded than revolution itself,
because better able to arrange his plans, and to carry them out more rapidly,
with fewer obstacles, a greater appearance of legality, more pretensions to public
utility, and consequently with more certainty of success and of permanent
results. Revolutions have undoubtedly done great injury to the Church; but
persecuting monarchs have done equally as much. A freak of Henry VIII.
established Protestantism in England; the cupidity of certain other princes
produced a like result in the nations of the north; and in our own days, a
decree of the Autocrat of Russia drives millions of souls into schism. It follows
that an unmixed monarchy, if it be not religious, is not desirable; for
irreligion, immoral in its nature, naturally tends to injustice, and consequently
to tyranny. If irreligion be seated on an absolute throne, or if she hold possession
of the mind of its occupant, her powers are unlimited; and, for my part,
I know nothing more horrible than the omnipotence of wickedness.</p>

<p>In recent times, European democracy has signalized itself lamentably by its
attacks upon religion; a circumstance which, far from favoring its cause, has
injured it extremely. We can indeed form an idea of a government more or
less free, when society is virtuous, moral, and religious; but not when these
conditions are wanting. In the latter case, the only form of government that
remains is despotism, the rule of force, for force alone can govern men who are
without conscience and without God. If we attentively consider the points of
difference between the revolution of the United States and that of France, we
shall find that one of the principal points of difference consists in this, that the
American revolution was essentially democratic, that of France essentially impious.
In the manifestos by which the former was inaugurated, the name of
God, of Providence, is every where seen; the men engaged in the perilous
enterprise of shaking off the yoke of Great Britain, far from blaspheming the
Almighty, invoke his assistance, convinced that the cause of independence was
the cause of reason and of justice. The French began by deifying the leaders
of irreligion, overthrowing altars, watering with the blood of priests the temples,
the streets, and the scaffolds&mdash;the only emblem of revolution recognized
by the people is Atheism hand in hand with liberty. This folly has borne its
fruits&mdash;it communicated its fatal contagion to other revolutions in recent times&mdash;the
new order of things has been inaugurated with sacrilegious crimes; and
the proclamation of the rights of man was begun by the profanation of the
temples of Him from whom all rights emanate.</p>

<p>Modern demagogues, it is true, have only imitated their predecessors the
Protestants, the Hussites, the Albigenses; with this difference, however, that in
our days irreligion has manifested itself openly, side by side with its companion,
the democracy of blood and baseness; whilst the democracy of former times
was allied with sectarian fanaticism. The dissolving doctrines of Protestantism
rendered a stronger power necessary, precipitated the overthrow of
ancient liberties, and obliged authority to hold itself continually on the alert,
and ready to strike. When the influence of Catholicity had been enfeebled,
the void had to be filled up by a system of espionage and force. Do not forget
this, you who make war upon religion in the name of liberty; do not forget
that like causes produce like effects. Where moral influences do not exist,
their absence must be supplied by physical force: if you take from the people
the sweet yoke of religion, you leave governments no other resource than the
vigilance of police, and the force of bayonets. Reflect, and choose. Before
the advent of Protestantism, European civilization, under the ægis of the Catholic
religion, was evidently tending towards that general harmony, the absence
of which has rendered necessary an excessive employment of force. Unity<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_390" id="Page_390">[Pg 390]</a></span>
of faith disappeared, opening the way to an unrestrained liberty of opinion and
religious discord; the influence of the clergy was in some countries destroyed,
in others weakened: thus was the equilibrium between different classes put an
end to, and the class naturally destined to fill the office of mediator rendered
powerless. By abridging the power of the Popes, both people and governments
were let loose from that gentle curb which restrained without oppressing, and
corrected without degrading; kings and people were arrayed against each other,
without any body of men possessed of authority to interpose between them in
case of a conflict; without a single judge, who, the friend of both parties, and
disinterested in the quarrel, might have settled their differences with impartiality,
governments began to place their reliance upon standing armies, and the
people upon insurrections.</p>

<p>And it is of no avail to allege that in countries where Catholicity prevailed,
a political phenomenon arose similar to that which we observe in Protestant
nations; for I maintain that amongst Catholics themselves events did not
follow the course which they naturally would have followed, had not the fatal
Reformation intervened. To attain its complete development, European civilization
required the unity from which it had sprung; it could not by any other
means establish harmony amongst the diverse elements which it sheltered in its
bosom. Its homogeneity was gone the moment unity of faith disappeared.
From that hour no nation could adequately effect its organization without taking
into account, not only its own internal wants, but also the principles that
prevailed in other countries, against the influence of which it had to be on its
guard. Do you suppose, for instance, that the policy of the Spanish government,
constituted as it was the protector of Catholicity against powerful Protestant
nations, was not powerfully influenced by the peculiar and very dangerous
position of the country?</p>

<p>I think I have shown that the Church has never been opposed to the legitimate
development of any form of government; that she has taken them all
under her protection, and consequently that to assert that she is the enemy of
popular institutions is a calumny. I have also placed it equally beyond a
doubt, that the sects hostile to the Catholic Church, by encouraging a democracy
either irreligious or blinded by fanaticism, so far from aiding in the
establishment of just and rational liberty, have, in fact, left the people no
alternative between unbridled licentiousness and unrestrained despotism. The
lesson thus furnished by history is confirmed by experience; and the future
will serve only to corroborate its truth. The more religious and moral men
are, the more deserving they are of liberty; for they have then less need of
external restraints, having a most powerful one in their own consciences. An
irreligious and immoral people stand in need of some authority to keep them
in order, otherwise they will be constantly abusing their rights, and will consequently
deserve to lose them. St. Augustine perfectly understood these
truths, and explains briefly and beautifully the conditions necessary for all
forms of government. The holy Doctor shows that popular forms are good
where the people are moral and conscientious; where they are corrupt, they
require either an oligarchy or an unmixed monarchy.</p>

<p>I have no doubt that an interesting passage, in the form of a dialogue, that
we meet with in his first book on Free Will, chap. vi., will be read with
pleasure.</p>

<p>"<i>Augustine.</i> You would not maintain, for instance, that men or people are
so constituted by nature as to be absolutely eternal, and subject neither to
destruction nor change?&mdash;<i>Evodius.</i> Who can doubt that they are changeable,
and subject to the influence of time?&mdash;<i>Augustine.</i> If the people are serious
and temperate; and if, moreover, they have such a concern for the public good
that each one would prefer the public interest to his own, <em>is it not true that it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_391" id="Page_391">[Pg 391]</a></span>
would be advisable to enact that such a people should choose their own authorities
the administration of their affairs?</em>&mdash;<i>Evodius.</i> Certainly.&mdash;<i>Augustine.</i>
But, in case these same people become so corrupt that <em>the citizens prefer their
own to the public good; if they sell their votes; if, corrupted by ambitious men,
they intrust the government of the state to men as criminal and corrupt as themselves</em>;
is it not true that, in such a case, if there be amongst them a man of
integrity, and possessing sufficient power for the purpose, he will do well to
take from these people the power of conferring honors, and concentrate it in
the hands of a small number of upright men, or even in the hands of one
man?&mdash;<i>Evodius.</i> Undoubtedly.&mdash;<i>Augustine.</i> Yet, since these laws appear
very much opposed to each other, the one granting the people the right of
conferring honors, the other depriving them of that right; since, moreover,
they cannot both be in force at once, <em>are we to affirm that one of these laws is
unjust, or that it should not have been enacted?</em>&mdash;<i>Evodius.</i> By no means."<a name="FNanchor_D_4" id="FNanchor_D_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_D_4" class="fnanchor">[D]</a></p>

<p>The whole question is here comprised in a few words: Can monarchy, aristocracy,
and democracy, be one and all legitimate and proper? Yes. By what
considerations are we to be guided in our decision as to which of these forms
is legitimate and proper in any given case? By the consideration of existing
rights, and of the condition of the people to whom such form is to be applied.
Can a form once good become bad? Certainly it may; for all human things
are subject to change. These reflections, as solid as they are simple, will prevent
all excessive enthusiasm in favor of any particular form of government.
This is not a mere question of theory, but one of prudence also. Now, prudence
does not decide before having attentively considered and weighed all circumstances.
But there is one predominant idea in this doctrine of St. Augustine:
this idea I have already indicated, viz. that great virtue and disinterestedness
are required under a free government. Those who are laboring to
establish political liberty on the ruins of all religious belief would do well to
reflect upon the words of the illustrious doctor.</p>

<p>How would you have people exercise extensive rights, if you disqualify them
by perverting their ideas and corrupting their morals? You say that under
representative forms of government reason and justice are secured by means
of elections; and yet you labor to banish this reason and justice from the
bosom of that society in which you talk of securing them. You sow the wind,
and reap the whirlwind; instead of models of wisdom and prudence, you offer
the people scandalous scenes. Do not say that we are condemning the age,
and that it progresses in spite of us: we reject nothing that is good; but perversity
and corruption we must reprobate. The age progresses&mdash;true; but
neither you nor we know whither. Catholics know one thing&mdash;a thing which
it needs not a prophet to tell, viz. that a good social condition cannot be formed
out of bad men; that immoral men are bad; that where there is no religion,
morality cannot take root. Firm in our faith, we shall leave you to try, if
you choose, a thousand forms of government, to apply your palliatives to your
own social patient, to impose upon him with deceitful words; his frequent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_392" id="Page_392">[Pg 392]</a></span>
convulsions&mdash;his continued restlessness&mdash;are evidences of your incapacity; and
well is it for your patient that he still feels this anxiety: it is a sure sign that
you have not entirely succeeded in securing his confidence. If ever you do
secure it&mdash;if ever he fall asleep quietly in your arms&mdash;"all flesh will then have
corrupted its way;" and it may also be feared lest God should resolve to sweep
man from the face of the earth.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LXIX" id="CHAPTER_LXIX">CHAPTER LXIX.</a><br />

<small>OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY</small>.</h2>


<p>It has been abundantly proved in the course of this work, that the pseudo-Reformation
has not in any way contributed to the perfection either of individuals
or of society; from which we may naturally infer that the case is the
same as regards the development of the intellect. I am unwilling, however,
to let this truth stand merely as a corollary, and I believe it to be susceptible
of a special elucidation. We may freely examine what advantage Protestantism
has conferred upon the various branches of human learning, without any
fear of the result as regards Catholicity. When we are to examine objects
naturally embracing a great many different relations, it is not enough merely
to pronounce certain conspicuous names, or to cite with emphasis one or two
facts. This is not the way to place a question in its proper light; and to treat
it adequately, much more is required. A discussion, either confined within
limits too narrow to admit of its full development, or allowed an indefinite
range, carries with it, in the eyes of an observer of only slight penetration, an
air of universality, elevation, and boldness, whilst in reality it is all uncertainty
and vagueness, and is liable to be involved in endless contradictions.</p>

<p>To investigate this question satisfactorily, we must, it seems to me, grasp
the Catholic and Protestant principles respectively, subject them to a most
rigid scrutiny, and seize upon every point that appears favorable or inimical
to the development of the human mind. Further, we should survey, in its
widest range, the history of the intellect; pausing here and there at the epochs
where the influence of the principle whose tendencies and effects we are studying
has been most effectively exerted; then, rejecting anomalous exceptions,
as proving nothing either one way or the other, and facts too insignificant and
isolated to affect in any way the course of events, the mind, sufficiently elevated,
and observing attentively, and with a sincere desire to know the truth, will be
enabled to discover how far its philosophical deductions are in accordance with
facts; and thus will it complete the solution of the problem.</p>

<p>One of the fundamental principles of Catholicity, one of its distinctive
characteristics, is the submission of the intellect to authority in matters of
faith. This is the point against which the attacks of Protestants have ever
been and still are directed: and this is quite natural, seeing that Protestants
profess resistance to authority as a fundamental and constituent principle.
From this fatal source flow all their other errors. If there be in Catholicity
any thing capable of arresting the march of the mind or of lowering its flight,
it must unquestionably be the principle of submission to authority. With this
principle must rest all the blame in this respect, if indeed the Catholic religion
be chargeable with any.</p>

<p><em>Submission of the intellect to authority.</em> These words, it cannot be denied,
do, unless we have seized upon their true meaning, and ascertained the precise
objects to which this submission is applicable, at first sight, convey an idea of
antagonism to intellectual development. If you cherish an ardent affection for
the dignity of our nature; if you are an enthusiastic advocate of scientific<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_393" id="Page_393">[Pg 393]</a></span>
progress, and behold with delight the brilliant efforts of a bold, vigorous, and
accomplished genius; you will discover something repulsive in a principle
which appears to invoke slavery, since it checks the flight of the mind, clips the
wings of the intellect, and casts it into the dust. But if you examine this
principle in its essence, apply it to the various branches of learning, and observe
what are the points of contact which it offers with the methods adopted for
the cultivation of the mind, will you discover any foundation for these suspicions
and apprehensions? What truth will you find in the reproaches of which
Catholicity has been made the object? How vain and puerile will appear all
the declamation published on this subject!</p>

<p>We will now enter fully into the examination of this difficulty; we will take
the Catholic principle, and analyze it with the eye of impartial philosophy.
With this principle before us, we will survey the whole field of science, and
consult the testimony of the greatest men. If we find that it has ever been
opposed to the genuine development of any one branch of learning; if, on visiting
the tombs where repose the most illustrious, they tell us that the principle
of submission to authority chained down their intellects, obscured their imaginations,
and withered their hearts,&mdash;we will then acknowledge that Protestants
are right in the reproaches which they are constantly directing against the
Catholic religion on this subject. God, man, society, nature, the entire creation&mdash;such
are the objects on which our minds can be occupied; beyond the
sphere of these objects we cannot reach, for they embrace infinity&mdash;there is
nothing beyond them. Well, then, the Catholic principle opposes no obstacle
to the mind's progress. Whether as regards God or man, society or nature, it
imposes no shackles, places no obstacle in the way of the human mind; instead
of checking this progress, it rather serves as a lofty beacon, which, far from
interfering with the mariner's liberty, guides him in safety amid the obscurity
of night.</p>

<p>How does the Catholic principle oppose the freedom of the human mind in
anything relating to the Divinity? Protestants surely will not tell us that
there is anything at all wrong in the idea which the Catholic religion gives of
God. Agreeing with us on the idea of a being eternal, immutable, infinite,
the Creator of heaven and earth, just, holy, full of goodness, a rewarder of the
good, and a punisher of the wicked, they admit this to be the only reasonable
idea of God that can be presented to the mind of man. To this idea the
Catholic religion unites an incomprehensible, profound, and ineffable mystery,
veiled from the sight of weak mortals,&mdash;the august mystery of the Trinity; but
on this point Protestants cannot reproach us, unless they are prepared to avow
themselves Socinians. The Lutherans, the Calvinists, the Anglicans, and many
other sects, condemn, as well as we do, those who deny this august mystery.
We may remark here, that Calvin had Michael Servetus burned at Geneva for
his heretical doctrines on the Trinity. I am well aware of the ravages that
Socinianism has made among the separated Churches, where the spirit and the
right of private judgment in matters of faith have converted Christians into
unbelieving philosophers; but, notwithstanding this, the mystery of the Trinity
was long respected by the leading Protestant sects, and is so yet, externally at
least, by the greater part of them.</p>

<p>In any case, I cannot see how this mystery shackles human reason in its
contemplation of the Divinity. Does it prevent it from going forth into immensity?
What limit does it fix to the infinite ocean of light and being implied
in the word <em>God</em>? Does it in the least obscure this splendor? When the
mind of man, soaring above the regions of creation, and detaching itself from
the body that would bear it down, abandons itself to the delights of sublime
meditation on the infinite Being, Creator of heaven and earth, does this august
mystery stop him in his heavenward flight? Ask the innumerable volumes<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_394" id="Page_394">[Pg 394]</a></span>
written on the Divinity, eloquent and irrefragable testimonies of liberty enjoyed
by the human mind wherever Catholicity prevails. The doctrines of Catholicity
relative to the Divinity may be considered under two aspects; either as
having reference to mysteries above our comprehension, or as touching what is
within the reach of reason. As regards mysteries, their abode is in a region
so sublime, they appertain to an order of things so superior to any created
thought, that the mind, even after the most extensive, most profound, and, at
the same time, most free investigations, is unable, without the aid of revelation,
to form even the most remote idea of these ineffable wonders. How can things
that never meet, which are of a totally distinct order, and which are an immense
distance apart, interfere with each other? The intellect can fix upon one of
them by means of meditation, can lose itself in contemplating it, without even
thinking of the other. Can the moon's orbit come into contact with the
remotest of the fixed stars?</p>

<p>Do you fear that the revelation of a mystery may limit the sphere of your
reason's operations? Are you apprehensive lest, in wandering through immensity,
you may be smothered in the narrowness of your reason? Was space
wanted for the genius of Descartes, of Gassendi, of Mallebranche? Did these
men complain that their intellects were limited, imprisoned? Why, indeed,
should they complain (I speak not of them only, but of all the great minds of
modern times who have treated of the Divinity), when they cannot but own
that they are indebted to Catholicity for the most splendid and sublime ideas
that enrich their writings? The philosophers of antiquity, in their treatises
on the Divinity, are at an immense distance below the least eminent of our
metaphysical theologians. What would Plato himself be compared to Lewis
of Granada, Louis de Léon, Fénélon, or Bossuet? Before Christianity appeared
upon earth, before the faith of the Chair of Peter had taken possession of the
world, the primitive ideas on the Divinity having been effaced, the human mind
wandered amongst a thousand errors, a thousand monstrous fancies; feeling
the necessity of a God, man substituted for the Supreme Being the creation of
his own imagination. But ever since the ineffable splendor, descending from
the bosom of the Father of light, has shone upon the whole earth, ideas of the
Divinity have remained so fixed, clear, and simple, and at the same time so
lofty and sublime, that human reason has obtained a wider range; the veil
which concealed the origin of the universe has been withdrawn; the world's
destiny has been marked out, and man has received the key that explains the
wonders which fill and surround him. Protestants have felt the force of this
truth; their aversion for every thing Catholic was almost fanatical; yet, generally
speaking, they may be said to have respected the idea of the Divinity. On
this point, of all others, the spirit of innovation has been felt the least. How,
indeed, could it be otherwise? The God of the Catholics was too great to be
replaced by any other. Newton and Leibnitz, embracing heaven and earth in
their speculations, could say nothing new of the Author of so many wonders,
nothing but what had already been taught by the Catholic religion.</p>

<p>Well had it been for Protestants if, whilst in the midst of their wanderings
they preserved this precious treasure, they had faithfully followed the example
of their predecessors, and had rejected that monstrous philosophy which
threatens us with the revival of all errors, ancient and modern, beginning with
the substitution of a monstrous pantheism for the sublime Deity of Christianity.
Let those Protestants who are friends of truth, jealous of the honor
of their communion, devoted to their country's welfare, and interested in the
future prospects of mankind, be warned in time. If pantheism should prevail,
it will not be the spiritualist but the naturalist philosophers who will triumph.
The German philosophers may in vain seek refuge in abstraction and enigmas,
in vain condemn the sensualist philosophy of the last century; a God con<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_395" id="Page_395">[Pg 395]</a></span>founded
with nature is not God, a God identified with every thing is nothing;
pantheism is a deification of the universe, that is, a denial of God.</p>

<p>What sorrowful reflections suggest themselves to us when we consider the
direction now taken by the minds of men in different parts of Europe, and more
especially in Germany! Catholics long since told them they would begin with
resistance to authority by denying a dogma, but would end by a denial of all,
and fall into atheism; and the course of ideas during the last three centuries
has fully confirmed the truth of the prediction. Strange, that German philosophy
should aim at producing a reaction against the materialist school, and
with all its spiritualism end in pantheism! Providence, it would seem, has
ordained that the soil which has produced so many errors should be barren of
truth. Out of the Church all is unsteadiness and confusion; materialism ending
in atheism, wild idealism and fantastic spiritualism resulting in pantheism!
Verily, God still abhors pride, and repeats the terrible chastisement of the confusion
of tongues. Catholicity triumphs the while; but mourns in the midst
of her triumphs. I do not see either how it can be that Catholicity impedes
the operation of the intellect as regards the study of man. What does the
Church require of us on this point? What does she teach on the subject?
How far extends the circle embracing the doctrines we are forbidden to call in
question?</p>

<p>Philosophers are divided into two schools, the materialists and the spiritualists.
The former assert that the human soul is only a portion of matter,
which, by a certain modification, produces in us what we call thought and will;
the latter maintains that the energy accompanying thought and will is incompatible
with the inertness of matter; that what is divisible, composed of divers
parts, and consequently of divers entities, could not harmonize with the simple
unity essential to a being that thinks, wills, reasons, with itself upon every
thing, and possesses the profound consciousness of individuality. For these
reasons they assert that the contrary opinion is false and absurd; and they
ground their opinion upon a variety of considerations. The Catholic Church
intervenes in the dispute, and says: "The soul of man is not corporeal, it is a
spirit; you cannot be both a Catholic and a materialist." But ask the Catholic
Church by what systems you are to explain the ideas, the sensations, the acts
of the will, and human feelings,&mdash;and she will tell you that on these matters
you are perfectly free to hold what you consider most in accordance with reason;
that faith does not descend to particular questions appertaining to the
affairs of this world, which God himself delivered to the consideration of men.
Before the light of the Gospel shone upon the world, the schools of philosophy
were in the most profound ignorance on the subject of our origin and our destiny;
none of the philosophers could explain the profound contradictions that
are found in man; none of them succeeded in pointing out the cause of that
strange mixture of greatness and littleness, of goodness and malice, of knowledge
and ignorance, of excellence and baseness. But religion came forth, and
said: "Man is the work of God; his destiny is to be for evermore united with
God; for him the earth is a place of exile only; man is no longer what he was
when he came forth from the hands of his Creator; the whole human race is
subjected to the consequences of a great fall." Now I would defy all philosophers,
ancient and modern, to show wherein the obligation of believing these
things militates in the slightest degree against the progress of true philosophy.</p>

<p>So far, indeed, are the doctrines of Catholicity from checking philosophical
progress, that they are, on the contrary, a most fruitful source of this progress
in every respect. If we wish to make progress in any of the sciences, it is no
slight advantage for the intellect to have a safe and firm axis around which it
may revolve; it is a fortunate thing to be enabled to avoid at the very outset
in the intellectual race, a multitude of questions which would entangle us in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_396" id="Page_396">[Pg 396]</a></span>
inextricable labyrinths, or from which we could not escape without falling into
most lamentable absurdities; in a word, when we approach the investigation
of these questions, we ought to consider ourselves happy in finding them
resolved beforehand in their most important points, and in knowing where the
truth lies, and where the danger of falling into error. The philosopher's position
is then that of a man who, sure of the existence of a mine in a certain
spot, does not waste his time in searching after it, but, knowing his ground,
his researches and labors are profitable from the first. This is the cause of
the vast advantage which in these matters modern philosophers possess over
those of antiquity: the ancients had to grope in the dark; the moderns, preceded
by brilliant lights, advance with a firm and sure step, and march straight
to their destination. They may boast incessantly that they set aside revelation,
that they hold it in disdain, perhaps that they even openly attack it. Even in
this case religion enlightens them, and often guides their steps; for there are
a thousand splendid ideas for which they are indebted to religion, and which
they cannot erase from their minds; ideas which they have found in books,
learned in catechisms, and imbibed with their milk; ideas which they hear
uttered by every one around them, which are spread everywhere, and which
impregnate with their vivifying and beneficent influence the atmosphere they
breathe. In repudiating religion, these same moderns are carrying ingratitude
to great lengths; for at the very moment they insult her, they are profiting by
her favors.</p>

<p>This is not the place to enter into details on this matter, or numerous proofs
might easily be adduced in support of the foregoing observations; a comparison
between the first works of modern philosophy that came to hand and the works
of the ancients would be decisive; but such a labor would still be incomplete
for those who are not versed in these matters; and for those who are so, it
would be superfluous. I leave the question with entire confidence to the perspicacity
and impartiality of my readers; it will, I think, be acknowledged that
whenever our modern philosophers have spoken of man with truth and dignity,
their language has borne the impress of Christian ideas. Such is the influence
of Catholicity upon those sciences which, confined to a purely speculative order,
allow the genius of the philosopher the widest range and the greatest freedom
possible; but if, as regards those sciences, the influence of Catholicity, instead
of checking the mind in its flight, only enlarges its range, increases its sublimity,
its daring, and at the same time its security, by preventing it from
running astray, what shall we say of its influence on the study of ethics? Has
the whole body of philosophers together ever discovered any thing beyond what
is contained in the Gospel? What doctrine excels in purity, in sanctity, in
sublimity that taught by the Catholic religion? On this point we will do justice
to the philosophers, even to those most hostile to the Christian religion.
They have attacked its doctrines, and smiled at the divinity of its origin; but
have always evinced a profound respect for its morality. I know not what
secret influence has constrained them into an avowal that must certainly have
cost them dear. "Yes," they invariably say, "it cannot be denied that the
morality of Catholicity is excellent."</p>

<p>There are certain doctrines of Catholicity which cannot be said to appertain
directly either to God, to man, or to morality, in the sense generally given to
this word. The Catholic religion is a revealed religion, of an order far superior
to any thing that the human mind is capable of conceiving. Its object is
to guide us to a destiny that we could neither attain nor even imagine by our
own strength, and it is based upon this principle, that human nature, corrupted
by the fall, requires to be restored and purified; evidently, therefore, it should
contain certain doctrines explanatory of the mode in which this work of restoration
and purification is to be effected, whether in a general or particular<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_397" id="Page_397">[Pg 397]</a></span>
sense; and at the same time pointing out the means which God has chosen to
lead man to happiness. Such are the doctrines of the Incarnation, of Redemption,
of Grace, and of the Sacraments.</p>

<p>These dogmas embrace a wide field; the relations in which they stand to
God and to man are very extensive; the doctrines of the Catholic Church are,
and always have been, unchangeable. Well then! extensive as they are, they
afford not a single point that can be said to have a tendency to embarrass the
free action of the intellect in investigations of any kind. The cause of this fact
is the same as that I have already indicated. Those who have attentively compared
the sciences of philosophy and theology may have remarked that theology,
in the sublime questions mentioned above, occupies a sphere so distinct and
supereminent as scarcely to preserve a single point of contact with that in which
philosophy moves. They are two vast and sublime orbits, occupying in the
depths of space positions very distant from each other. Man sometimes tries
to make them approximate, and would be glad if a ray of terrestrial light could
penetrate into the region of incomprehensible mysteries; but he scarcely knows
how to begin this, and we hear him avow, with a profound sense of his own
weakness, that he is <em>speaking only conventionally</em> and <em>by analogy</em>, merely with
a view to make himself better understood. The Church allows such attempts,
owing to the good intentions they evince; sometimes she even prompts and
encourages them, desiring, as far as possible, to accommodate what is incomprehensible
in her doctrines to the feeble capacities of men.</p>

<p>After all their reasonings on the attributes of the Divinity and the relations
of man to God, have philosophers discovered any thing incompatible with
these doctrines of Catholicity? Have revealed truths stood in their way as a
stumbling-block to their investigations? When Descartes, in the seventeenth
century, effected a revolution in philosophy, a singular incident occurred that
will throw a strong light on this subject. The Catholic doctrine respecting the
august mystery of the Eucharist is known, and also in what the dogma of
<em>transubstantiation</em> consists. Many theologians, the reader is also probably
aware, in order to explain the supernatural phenomenon which takes place
after the consummation of the miracle, had recourse to the doctrine of accidents,
which they distinguished from the substance. Now the theory of Descartes,
and of almost all other modern philosophers, was incompatible with this
explanation, for they denied the existence of accidents distinct from the substance.
It consequently appeared at first sight that a difficulty would here
arise for the Catholic doctrine, and that the Church would have to oppose this
system of philosophy. And did it so happen? Not at all. Upon a careful
investigation of the matter, it was seen that the Catholic dogma belonged to a
region infinitely above that uncertain one in which the philosophic doctrine
was discovered, however closely they might have seemed to approximate. In
vain theologians discussed the matter, indulged in mutual recriminations, drew
from the new doctrine all sorts of inferences, in order to represent it as dangerous.
The Church, always superior to the thoughts of men, kept aloof from
these disputes, maintaining that grave, majestic, and impassive attitude so well
becoming her to whom Jesus Christ confided the sacred deposit of His doctrine.
Such is the liberty accorded by the Church to the genius of philosophers, that
it is free in every sense. The Church has no need to be continually imposing
restrictions and conditions; the sacred doctrines of which she is the depository
dwelling in so elevated a region that the mind of man can scarcely ever meet
them, at least so long as his investigations do not wander from the track of
true philosophy.</p>

<p>But this human reason, at once so powerful and so feeble, sometimes becomes
puffed up with arrogance and pride, and in the name of liberty and independence
claims a right to blaspheme the Almighty, to deny man's free will,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_398" id="Page_398">[Pg 398]</a></span>
the immortality and spirituality of his soul, her sublime origin and her heavenly
destiny. At such a time we avow, and we glory in the avowal, the Church
does raise her voice, not to oppress or tyrannize over the human mind, but to
defend the rights of the Supreme Being and the dignity of human nature;
then, indeed, we behold her opposing, with unyielding firmness, that senseless
liberty which consists in the fatal right of uttering all sorts of extravagances.
This liberty Catholics neither possess nor desire, knowing that in these matters,
as in others, there is a sacred line of demarcation between liberty and licentiousness.
Happy slavery, that keeps us from atheism, materialism, and from
doubting whether our souls come from God, whether they tend towards Him,
and whether there exists for unhappy mortals, after the sufferings that weigh
upon them in this life, a life of eternal happiness purchased by the merits of a
God-man! As for the sciences which have society for their object, I think I
need not vindicate the Catholic religion from the reproach of having in this
respect oppressed the human mind. The long train of reflections in which I
have set forth her doctrines and her influence, as regards the nature and extent
of power, and the civil and political liberty of nations, proves to a demonstration
that the Catholic religion, without descending to the arena in which the
passions of men strive and contend, teaches a doctrine most favorable to true
civilization and to the rightly-understood liberties of the people.</p>

<p>I will also touch briefly upon the relations of the Catholic principle with the
study of the natural sciences. Assuredly it is not easy to see in what way
this principle can be injurious to the progress of the human mind in this department
of knowledge. I have said, it is not easy; I might have said impossible,
and that for a very simple reason, founded upon a fact within the reach
of every man; viz. the extreme reserve which the Catholic religion evinces in
every thing relating to purely natural science. One might suppose that God
had designed, on this matter, to read us a severe lesson on our excessive curiosity:
you have only to read the Bible to be convinced of the truth of what I
have advanced. I do not mean that nature is never noticed in the Bible; that
divine book presents her to us in her grandest, noblest, and most sublime aspect;
as a living whole, in fact, together with all her relations and her sublime
destiny, but without any kind of analysis or decomposition. In these
sacred pages the painter's pencil and the poet's fancy will meet with magnificent
models; but the inquisitive philosopher will look in vain for the hints
he is in quest of. The Holy Spirit did not aim at making naturalists, but
virtuous men; hence, in describing the creation, He represents it solely in a
light the best adapted to excite in us feelings of admiration and gratitude towards
the Author of so many wonders and benefits. Nature, as she appears in
the sacred text, has not much to gratify the curiosity of the philosopher; but
then she delights and ennobles the imagination&mdash;she moves and penetrates the
heart.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LXX" id="CHAPTER_LXX">CHAPTER LXX.</a><br />

<small>HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT</small>.</h2>


<p>From the rapid view we have taken of the several branches of learning in
their relations to the authority of the Church, it is clear to a demonstration,
that the alleged enslavement of the intellect amongst Catholics is nothing but
a mere bugbear: in no respect does our faith either arrest or retard the progress
of learning. Since, however, it not unfrequently happens that, in arguments
apparently the most solid, a flaw is discovered when they are brought to the
test of facts, it will be well to corroborate our assertion by historical testimony;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_399" id="Page_399">[Pg 399]</a></span>
fully assured as we are, that the result must be favorable to the cause of
truth. We will begin at the beginning.</p>

<p>M. Guizot maintains that the contest between the Church and the advocates
of the freedom of thought originated in the middle ages. Noticing the efforts
of John Erigena, Roscelin, Abelard, and the alarm they excited in the Church,
he observes: "This was the great event that occurred at the end of the eleventh,
and at the beginning of the twelfth centuries, at a time when the Church was
under theocratic and monastic influence. It was then that, for the first time,
a serious struggle was commenced between the clergy and the freethinkers."
(<cite>Hist. Générale de la Civilisation en Europe. Leçon 6.</cite>) The entire scope of
M. Guizot's work shows that, in his judgment, the best-founded reproach that
could be cast upon the Catholic Church was, that she checked the freedom of
thought. According to him, this is the point upon which the advantage of the
Protestant system over Catholicity is the least controvertible. His object being
the complete development of this idea, in treating of the religious revolution
of the sixteenth century it was requisite for him to deposit it as a seed in his
preliminary lectures; as otherwise the fact of the Reformation would have appeared
isolated, and shorn of its importance. Besides, it was necessary that the
resistance of Protestants to the Catholic Church should have a meaning; that
it should carry with it the appearance of a noble and generous thought; that
it should be regarded as the proclamation of the freedom of the human mind.
To attain this end, the Church, on the one hand, must be represented as asserting
claims in the middle ages to which she had not previously pretended; and,
on the other, those writers who resisted these alleged pretensions of the Church
must be held up as men of extraordinary penetration.</p>

<p>Now, such is precisely the thread of M. Guizot's discourse; and we hence
infer his efforts to prepare beforehand the triumph of his opinions. His plan,
however, is ill-concerted; for he appears to have overlooked the most palpable
facts in the history of the Church; and not even to have known what were the
doctrines of the three champions, whose names he invokes with so much complacency.
That no one may accuse me of making inconsiderate assertions, I
will here quote his words literally: "Thus every thing," says he, "seemed
turning to the advantage of the Church, of her unity, and of her power. But
whilst the Papacy was grasping at the government of the world, whilst the
monasteries were undergoing a moral reformation, a few powerful but isolated
individuals claimed for human reason the right of being something in man, the
right to interfere in the formation of his opinions. Most of them refrained
from attacking received opinions, or religious belief; they merely said that
reason had a right to prove them; and that it was not enough that they were
affirmed by authority. John Erigena, Roscelin, and Abelard were the interpreters,
through whom individual reason began to lay claim to her inheritance&mdash;the
first authors of that movement of liberty, which was associated with the
reform movement of Hildebrand and St. Bernard. If we seek the dominant
feature of this movement, we shall find that it was not a change of opinion, a
revolt against the system of public belief; it was simply the right of reasoning
claimed for reason." (<cite>Hist. Générale de la Civilisation en Europe.
Leçon 6.</cite>)</p>

<p>We will pass over the author's singular parallel between the efforts of John
Erigena, Roscelin, and Abelard, and those of the great reformers, Hildebrand
or St. Gregory VII., and St. Bernard. These latter sought to reform the
Church by legitimate means, to render the clergy more venerable by making
them more virtuous, and to win greater respect for authority by sanctifying
the persons entrusted with its exercise: the others, according to M. Guizot,
resisted this authority in matters of faith; that is, they aimed at its overthrow,
and for this purpose laid the axe to the root; the former <em>were</em> reformers,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_400" id="Page_400">[Pg 400]</a></span>
the latter devastators: and yet we are told that their efforts were directed to
one and the same object, had one and the same tendency. Verily, the philosophy
of history were a sorry thing, if it could allow of such a confusion of
ideas! What progress can be made in this branch of knowledge, by men who
have so strange a way of dealing with facts? But, I repeat, let us take leave
of these aberrations, and fix our attention specially on two points: the worth
of these three writers, so much vaunted, and the idea we are told to entertain
of their resistance to authority. Doubtless the names of John Erigena and
Roscelin are already pronounced with respect by those persons who would fain
be thought well versed in the philosophy of history, without having ever read
history, and who are obliged to content themselves with those easy lessons that
are learned in an hour, and studied in an evening. With persons of this description,
it is enough to have heard these names pronounced with emphasis, to
have seen them coupled with epithets, such as <em>powerful men</em>, <em>advocates of
human reason</em>, <em>interpreters of individual reason</em>, to make them fancy that learning
is no less indebted to Erigena and Roscelin than to Descartes or Bacon.</p>

<p>Without bearing in mind the remarks I have already made on the peculiarity
of M. Guizot's position, it would not be easy to conjecture why he
should seek to represent as new and extraordinary, what was, in fact, neither
new nor uncommon; how he could say that the Church first began the contest
against liberty of thought, when she put down Erigena, Roscelin, and Abelard.
He brings forward these three writers, as though their influence had been paramount;
whereas they had no more influence than other sectarians, who abounded
in preceding centuries. Who and what really was this John Erigena? A
writer but imperfectly versed in theological science; but who, puffed up by the
favor shown him by Charles the Bold, broached certain errors on the subject
of the Eucharist, predestination and grace. In all that, I see only a man
departing from the doctrine of the Church; and in Nicholas the First attempting
to stop him in his career, I see only a Pope fulfilling his duty. What is
there in all this either new or extraordinary? Does not the whole history of
the Church, from the time of the Apostles, exhibit an unbroken succession of
similar facts?</p>

<p>I repeat, it is impossible to conceive for what purpose the name of Erigena
is brought forward. His errors produced no result of importance; and the age
in which he lived cannot be considered as having exercised any great influence
on the intellectual development of subsequent times. He lived in the ninth
century. Now, this century had no share in the movement of those that followed;
indeed, it is well known that the tenth century was the darkest period
of ignorance during the middle ages; and that the intellectual movement commenced
only at the close of the tenth, and at the opening of the eleventh
century. Erigena and Roscelin are separated by two centuries. As for Roscelin
and Abelard, it is easier to understand why their names are cited. Every
one knows the noise that Abelard made in the world by his doctrines, and
perhaps still more by his adventures. Roscelin may also command attention
by his errors, and especially as the master of Abelard.</p>

<p>To give an idea of the spirit that guided these men, and of the opinion we
are to form of their intentions, we must enter into some details touching their
lives and their doctrines. Roscelin was one of the most crafty men of his time.
A subtle dialectician and warm partizan of the sect of the Nominalists, he substituted
his own opinions for the teaching of the Church; and ended by falling
into the gravest errors on the sacred mystery of the Trinity. History has
recorded a fact, that proves incontestably the notorious dishonesty of the man&mdash;his
want of probity and of modesty. At the time that Roscelin was propagating
his errors, St. Anselm, who was afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, was
living, but at that time abbot of Beck. Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_401" id="Page_401">[Pg 401]</a></span>
who died some time before, had left behind him the highest reputation for virtue
and sound doctrine. Roscelin thought that the authority of so high a name
would give currency and consideration to his errors; and, resorting to the
foulest calumny, he affirmed that his opinions were the same as those of Archbishop
Lanfranc, and Anselm, abbot of Beck. To this calumny Lanfranc could
not reply, as he was already in the tomb; but the abbot of Beck vigorously
repelled so unjust an imputation; and at the same time vindicated the reputation
of Lanfranc, who had been his master. The works of St. Anselm leave
no doubt as to the nature of Roscelin's errors. We find them recorded with
the greatest precision. In fact, it were difficult to say why M. Guizot has
conferred so much importance upon this man, or why he should be adduced as
one of the principal champions of the freedom of thought. There is nothing
in Roscelin to distinguish him from other heretics. He is a man who employs
artifices and subtleties, and falls into error; but nothing is more common in the
history of the Church; and it certainly cannot be considered matter of astonishment.</p>

<p>Abelard is more deserving of notice: his name has become so famous that no
one is unacquainted with his sad adventures. A disciple of Roscelin, and as
well skilled as his master in the dialectics of the age, endowed with great
talents, and eager to parade them on the principal theatres of literature, Abelard
earned a reputation never attained by the dialectician of Compiègne. His
errors on points of very great importance produced much mischief in the Church,
and drew upon himself many sorrows. But it is not true, as M. Guizot will
have it, that his doctrines met with less reproof than his method; neither is it
true that he and his master Roscelin had no intention of effecting a radical
change in matters of doctrine. Evidence of a most unexceptionable kind fortunately
places the matter beyond all doubt, and proves that it was not Roscelin's
method, but his error on the Trinity, for which he was condemned. Nor
have we less certainty in the case of Abelard; for the various errors taken from
his works are preserved in the form of articles.</p>

<p>We learn from St. Bernard, that on the Trinity, Abelard held the opinions
of Arius&mdash;on the Incarnation, those of Nestorius&mdash;on grace, those of Pelagius.
All this did not merely <em>tend</em> to a radical change of doctrine, but actually was
one. I do not know that Abelard ever protested against the truth of these
accusations; and even if he had, we all know how to estimate such a protest.
It is certain that, in the famous Assembly of Sens&mdash;convoked at the request
of Abelard himself&mdash;he had not a word to say in reply to the sainted abbot of
Clairvaux, who reproached him with his errors; and laying before him the very
words of his propositions, extracted from his writings, urged him either to
defend or abjure them. Abelard, confronted with so formidable an adversary,
was so embarrassed that he could only say, in reply, that he appealed to Rome.
The Council of Sens, out of respect for the Holy See, abstained from condemning
the person of the innovator, but did not fail to condemn his errors; and
this condemnation was approved by the Sovereign Pontiff, and extended to his
person also. Now, from the articles containing the errors of Abelard, it does
not appear that his dominant idea was to proclaim the liberty of thought. He
has, it is true, an overweening confidence in his own subtleties; but, beyond
this, his only fault is an erroneous and dogmatizing spirit on points of the
greatest importance; a fault which he had in common with all the heretics who
preceded him.</p>

<p>All this M. Guizot ought to have known; how he can have overlooked it I
cannot imagine, nor why he attaches to these authors an importance which they
really do not deserve. Perhaps he was anxious to furnish Protestants with some
illustrious predecessors, when he laid such stress on the names of Roscelin and
Abelard. These two, after all, were not deficient in ability or in erudition,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_402" id="Page_402">[Pg 402]</a></span>
and they lived precisely during the early period of the intellectual movement.
Probably M. Guizot thought, that to bring these two innovators upon the scene
would answer his purpose extremely well, as showing that, from the very dawn
of intellectual development, men of the greatest fame had raised their voices in
favor of freedom of thought. After all, had M. Guizot succeeded in proving
that John Erigena, Roscelin, and Abelard aimed at nothing more than the
assertion of the right of private examination in matters of faith, it would not
follow that these innovators had not sought to effect a radical change in matters
of doctrine. In fact, what can be more radical as regards matters of faith
than that which strikes at authority, the root of all certainty? Neither would
it follow, that in condemning the errors of these men the Church had taken
alarm merely at their <em>method</em>; for if this method was to consist in withdrawing
the intellect from the yoke of authority, even in matters of faith, it was itself a
very grievous error, combated at all times by the Catholic Church, which never
would consent to have her authority called in question on points of faith.</p>

<p>And yet, if these innovators had entered into the contest chiefly for the purpose
of contending against authority in matters of faith, M. Guizot would have
had some reason to notice their proceedings as constituting a new era; but,
strange to say, their propositions do not appear to have been drawn up with a
view to advocate the independence of thought, nor against authority in matters
of faith; it was not for such an attempt, but for other errors, that the Church
condemned them. Where, then, are the accuracy and historical truth which
we should expect from such a man as M. Guizot? How could he venture, in
addressing a numerous audience, thus to substitute his own thoughts for facts?
The fact is, he well knew that these were matters generally treated very superficially;
that to gain the sympathy of superficial men it would suffice to speak
in pompous terms of the liberty of thought, to pronounce certain names probably
heard by many for the first time, such as Erigena and Roscelin, and
especially to mention the unfortunate lover of Heloïse.</p>

<p>M. Guizot, unable to conceal from himself that his observations upon this
period were somewhat feeble, tries to apply a remedy by inserting a passage
from the <cite>Introduction to the Theology</cite> of Abelard, which, in my opinion, is very
far from answering the purpose of the publicist. His object, in fact, is to show
that from that very period a vigorous spirit of resistance to the authority of the
Church in matters of faith had sprung up, and that the human mind was even
then longing to burst asunder the fetters in which it had been held. He would
have us believe that Abelard, yielding to the importunities of his own disciples,
had the courage to throw off the yoke of authority; and that his writings were,
to a certain extent, the expression of a necessity long felt, of an idea with
which many minds had long been agitated. The following is the passage
referred to: "If we seek the dominant feature of this movement, we shall
find that it was not a change of opinion, a revolt against the system of public
belief; it was simply the right of reasoning claimed for reason."</p>

<p>We have already seen how utterly devoid of truth is this assertion of the
publicist. The very attack upon authority was itself a radical change in opinions,
and a revolution in received doctrines; for the authority of the Church
was in itself a dogma, and formed the basis of all religious belief, as experience
has satisfactorily shown, since the appearance of Protestantism at the commencement
of the sixteenth century. But let us allow the historian to proceed:
"The disciples of Abelard, as he himself tells us in his <cite>Introduction to Theology</cite>,
required of him philosophical arguments, and such as would satisfy reason,
requesting him to teach them not merely to repeat his instructions, but to understand
them also; for no one can believe what he does not understand, and
it is ridiculous to preach to others things that neither the teacher nor his pupils
understand. 'What object can the study of philosophy have but that of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_403" id="Page_403">[Pg 403]</a></span>
leading the mind to the contemplation of God, to whom all things are to be
referred? Why are the faithful allowed to read works treating of worldly
affairs and the books of the Gentiles, except to prepare them to understand the
sacred Scriptures, and to furnish them with the skill necessary for their defence?...
For this purpose alone we should avail ourselves of all our
reasoning powers, lest, on questions so difficult and complicated as those that
form the object of Christian faith, the subtilty of our opponents should too
readily injure the purity of our faith.'"</p>

<p>It cannot be denied, that in Abelard's time a lively curiosity aroused men's
minds to employ all their powers to be able to give a reason for what they believed;
but it is not true that the Church threw any obstacle in the way of
this movement, considering it as a scientific method, and so long as it did not
overstep legitimate bounds, and attack or undermine the articles of faith. It
is impossible to take a more unfavorable view of the Church than M. Guizot
has here taken of her; nor could any one more completely overlook, I will
even say distort, facts.</p>

<p>"The importance of this first attempt at liberty," says he, "of this revival
of the spirit of inquiry, was soon felt. The Church, though engaged in effecting
her own reform, took the alarm nevertheless, and at once declared war
against the reformers, whose new methods menaced her with more evils than
their doctrines."</p>

<p>Thus is the Church represented as conspiring against the progress of thought,
repressing with a strong arm the first attempts of the mind to advance in the
path of science, and laying aside questions of doctrine to contend against
methods; and all this, we are told, as if it were something new and wonderful.
"For," says M. Guizot, "this was the great event which occurred at the end
of the eleventh and beginning of the twelfth centuries, at a time when the
Church was under theocratic and monastic influence. It was now that, for the
first time, a serious struggle commenced between the clergy and the freethinkers.
The quarrels of Abelard and St. Bernard, the Councils of Soissons and Sens,
in which Abelard was condemned, merely give expression to this event, which
has occupied so large a space in the history of modern civilization."</p>

<p>Still the same confusion of ideas. I have said already, and must repeat here
that the Church has condemned no method; it was not a <em>method</em>, but error, that
the Church condemned, unless by a method be meant an assault upon the
articles of faith, under pretence of breaking the fetters of authority, which is
not merely a method, but an error of the very highest import. In reproving
a pernicious doctrine, subversive of all faith, and denying the infallibility of
the See of St. Peter in matters of doctrine, the Church did not put forth any
new pretensions; her conduct has always been the same ever since the time of
the Apostles, and is the same still. The moment a doctrine is propagated that
appears in the least degree dangerous, the Church examines it, compares it with
the sacred deposit of truth confided to her; if the doctrine is not inconsistent
with divine truth, she allows it free circulation, for she is not ignorant that
<em>God has given up the world to the controversies of men</em>; but if it is opposed to
the faith, its condemnation is irremissible, without concern or regret. Were
the Church to act otherwise, she would contradict herself, and cease to be what
she is, the jealous depository of divine truth. If she allowed her infallible
authority to be questioned, that moment she would forget one of her most
sacred obligations, and would lose all claim on our belief; for, in betraying an
indifference for truth, she would prove herself to be no longer a religion descended
from heaven, but a mere delusion.</p>

<p>Precisely at the time of which M. Guizot speaks, we observe a fact which
proves that the Church allows free scope to the exercise of thought. The high
reputation which St. Anselm sustained during his whole career, and the great<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_404" id="Page_404">[Pg 404]</a></span>
esteem in which he was held by the Sovereign Pontiffs of his time, are well
known; yet St. Anselm philosophised with great freedom. In the introduction
to his <cite>Monologue</cite>, he tells us that some persons entreated him to explain things
by reason alone, without the aid of the sacred Scriptures. The Saint was not
afraid to comply with their request, and he accordingly wrote the little work
we have just named. In other parts of his works, too, St. Anselm adopts the
same method. Very few persons concern themselves now-a-days about ancient
writers, and doubtless very few have read the works of the holy Doctor of
whom we are speaking. They display, however, such perspicuity of thought,
such solid reasoning, and above all such a discreet and temperate judgment,
that we are surprised to find the human mind, at the very commencement of
the intellectual movement, attaining to so high an elevation. In him we find
the greatest freedom of thought combined with the respect due to the authority
of the Church; and far from impairing the vigor of his ideas, this respect
augments their force and perspicuity. From his works we learn that Abelard
was not the only one who taught, <em>not merely to repeat his lectures, but also to
understand them</em>; for St. Anselm, some years previous, followed the same
method with a clearness and solidity far beyond what could be expected at that
time. We there discover, also, that in the bosom of the Catholic Church men
carried the operations of reason to the greatest possible extent, though always
within the bounds prescribed by its own weakness, and with reverential regard
to the sacred veil that shrouds august mysteries.</p>

<p>The works of St. Anselm prove that Abelard was not exactly the man to
teach the world that the end of philosophical studies is to lead the mind to the
contemplation of God, to whom all things should be referred; and that we
should avail ourselves of all our reasoning powers, lest on questions so difficult
and complicated as those that form the object of Christian faith, the subtilties
of our opponents should too readily injure the purity of our faith. But from
the Saint's profound submission to the authority of the Church, from the candor
and ingenuousness with which he acknowledges the limits of the human
mind, we see that he was persuaded <em>that it is not impossible to believe what we
do not comprehend</em>; and, in fact, there is a wide difference between the conviction
that a thing exists, and a clear knowledge of the nature of the thing in
the existence of which we believe.</p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LXXI" id="CHAPTER_LXXI">CHAPTER LXXI.</a><br />

<small>RELIGION AND THE HUMAN MIND IN EUROPE</small>.</h2>


<p>As we are to examine what was, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the
conduct of the Church in reference to innovators, we will avail ourselves of the
excellent opportunity afforded by this epoch for noticing the progress of the
human mind. It has been said that in Europe intellectual development was
exclusively theological. This is true, and necessarily so; all the faculties of
man receive their development according to the circumstances that surround
him; and as his health, his temperament, his strength, his color even, and his
stature depend upon climate, food, mode of life, and other circumstances affecting
him, so in like manner his moral and intellectual faculties bear the stamp
of the principles which predominate in the family and society of which he
forms a constituent part. Now, in Europe, religion was the predominating
element; in every thing religion made herself heard and felt; nowhere was
there a principle of life or action discoverable unconnected with religion. It
was quite natural, therefore, that in Europe all the faculties of man should
have their development in a religious sense. A little attention will show us<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_405" id="Page_405">[Pg 405]</a></span>
that this was the case not with the intellect only, but likewise with the heart,
with the passions even, and with the whole moral man; just as, in whatever
direction we go in Europe, we meet at every step with some monument of religion;
so whatever faculty we examine in the individual European, we find
upon it the impress of religion.</p>

<p>And the case was the same with families and society as with individuals;
religion was equally predominant in both. Wherever man has progressed
towards a state of perfection, we observe a similar phenomenon; and it is an
invariable fact in the history of the human race, that no society ever entered
on the road to civilization, save under the direction and impulse of religious
principles. True or false, rational or absurd, wherever man is on the road to
improvement, these principles are found. Some nations, indeed, may well
excite our pity at the monstrous superstitions into which they have fallen; but
we still must acknowledge, that, under these very superstitions, lay concealed
germs of good that did not fail to produce considerable benefits. The Egyptians,
Phœnicians, Greeks, and Romans were all extremely superstitious; yet
the progress they made in civilization and intellectual culture was such, that
their monuments and memorials strike us even yet with admiration. It is easy
to smile at an extravagant observance or a senseless dogma; but we should
remember that the growth and preservation of certain moral principles cannot
be otherwise secured than under the protecting shade of religious belief. Now,
these principles are most indispensably necessary to prevent individuals from
being monstrously changed, and to maintain the social and family ties unbroken.
Much has been said against the immorality tolerated, permitted, and sometimes
even taught by certain forms of religion; and certainly nothing is more lamentable
than to behold man thus led astray by that which ought to be his best
guide. Let us, however, look for a reality beneath these shadows, which
appear at first so gloomy, and we shall soon discover some rays of light that
may lead us to regard false religions, not indeed with indulgence, but with less
horror than those infamous systems which make matter self-existent, and
pleasure the only divinity.</p>

<p>To preserve the idea of moral good and evil, an idea without meaning except
in the supposition that there exists a divine power, is itself an inestimable
advantage. Now this advantage adheres inseparably to every form of religion,
even to those that make the most absurd and most criminal applications of
the idea of good and evil. Doubtless, the people of antiquity, and those of
our own time who have not received the light of Christianity, have gone most
deplorably astray; but, in the midst of their very wanderings, there always
remains a certain degree of light; and this light, however dimly it shines,
however faint and feeble its rays, is incomparably better than the thick darkness
of atheism. Between the nations of antiquity and those of Europe there
is this very remarkable difference, that the former passed from a state of infancy
to a state of civilization; while the latter advanced to this, in passing from that
undefinable state which, in Europe, was the result of the invasion of the barbarians,
of the confused mixture of a young with a decrepit society, of rude
and ferocious nations with others that were civilized, cultivated, or rather
effeminate. Hence, amongst the ancients the imagination was developed before
the intellect, whilst amongst Europeans the intellect came before the imagination.
With the former, poetry came first; with the latter, what is termed dialectics
and metaphysics.</p>

<p>What is the reason of so striking a difference? When a people are yet in
their infancy, either an infancy properly so called, or having lived long in
ignorance, in a state similar to that of an infant people, we find them rich in
sensations, but very poor in ideas. Nature, with her majesty, her wonders,
and her mysteries, affects such a people the most; their language is grand,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_406" id="Page_406">[Pg 406]</a></span>
picturesque, and highly poetical; their passions are not refined, but, on the
other hand, they are very energetic and violent. Now an intellect that ingenuously
seeks the light, loves truth in its purity and simplicity, confesses and
embraces it readily, lending itself neither to subtilties, artifices, nor disputes.
The least thing that makes a vivid impression upon the senses or the imagination
of such a people fills them with surprise and wonder; you cannot inspire
them with enthusiasm without setting before them something heroic and sublime.</p>

<p>On the first glance at the state of the people of Europe in the middle ages,
we perceive in them a certain resemblance to an infant people, but, at the same
time, a very striking difference on several points. Their passions are very
strong, they are pleased beyond every thing with the wonderful and the extraordinary,
and, for want of realities, their imagination conjures up gigantic
phantoms. The profession of arms is their favorite occupation; they rush
eagerly into the most perilous adventures, and meet them with incredible
courage. All this indicates a development of the feelings of sensibility and
imagination, inasmuch as they produce intrepidity and valor; but, strange to
say, together with these dispositions, we find a singular taste for things the
most purely intellectual; with the most lively, ardent, and picturesque reality,
we find associated a taste for the coldest and barest abstractions. A knight,
with the cross on his shoulder, gorgeously clad, covered with trophies, beaming
with glory won in a hundred combats; a subtile dialectician, disputing on the
system of the Nominalists, and urging his subtilely devised abstractions till he
becomes unintelligible;&mdash;these are certainly two characters very dissimilar,
and yet they exist together in the same society; both have their prestige,
receive the greatest homage, and are followed by enthusiastic admirers. Even
when we have taken into account the singular position of the European nations
at that period, it is not easy to assign a cause for this anomaly. We can easily
understand how the people of Europe, emerging, for the most part, from the
forests of the North, and engaged for a long time either in intestine wars or in
conflicts with vanquished tribes, should have preserved, together with their
warlike habits, a strong and lively imagination and violent passions; but it is
not so easy to account for their taste for an order of ideas purely metaphysical
and dialectical. When, however, we come to look deeply into the matter, we
discover that this apparent anomaly had its origin in the very nature of things.
How is it that a people in their infancy have so much imagination and sensibility?
Because the objects by which these faculties are naturally excited
abound around them; because individuals, being continually exposed to the
influence of external things, these objects operate upon them more forcibly.
Man first feels and imagines; later he understands and reflects: this is the
natural order in which his faculties begin to operate. Hence, with every people
the development of the imagination and of the passions precedes that of the
intellect; the passions and the imagination finding their object and aliment
before the intellect. This accounts, also, for the fact that the poetical always
precedes the philosophical era. From this it follows, that nations in their
infancy think little, as they want ideas; and this is the chief distinctive mark
between them and the people of Europe at the period we are speaking of. In
fact, <em>ideas</em> at that time <em>abounded in Europe</em>; and hence the purely intellectual
was held in such repute even amidst the most profound ignorance. Hence,
also, the intellect strove to shine even before its time appeared to have arrived.
Sound ideas respecting God, respecting man and society, were already everywhere
disseminated, thanks to the incessant teaching of Christianity; and as
there still remained numerous traces of the wisdom of antiquity, both Christian
and Pagan, the consequence was, that every man possessed of a little learning
had, in fact, a great fund of ideas.</p>

<p>It is clear, however, that notwithstanding these advantages, the minds of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_407" id="Page_407">[Pg 407]</a></span>
men could not, amidst the chaos of erudition and philosophy that then presented
itself, escape the confusion naturally resulting from the wide-spread
ignorance, occasioned by a long succession of revolutions. They could not
possess sufficient discrimination and judgment to pursue all at once, and with
success, the study of the Bible, of the writings of the holy Fathers, of the
civil and canon law, of the works of Aristotle, and of the Arabian commentaries.
Yet these were all studied at the same time; on all these, disputes
were zealously maintained; and the errors and extravagances which in such
a state of things were inevitable were accompanied by the presumption that
is invariably inherent in ignorance. To succeed in explaining certain passages
of the Bible, of the Fathers, of the codes, and of the works of philosophers,
great preparatory labors were necessary, as the experience of subsequent ages
has proved. It was necessary to study languages, to examine archives and
monuments, to collect together from all parts an immense mass of materials;
then, to reduce these to order, to compare them together, and to discriminate
between them; in a word, it was necessary to possess a rich fund of learning,
enlightened by the torch of criticism. Now all this was then wanting, and
could only be attained in the course of ages. The consequence was inevitable,
considering the mania that existed for explaining every thing. If a difficulty
arose, and the facts and knowledge requisite for its solution were wanting, they
adopted a roundabout way; instead of seeking the support derivable from facts,
the disputants took their stand upon an idea; substituting some subtle abstraction
for solid reasoning; where they found it impossible to form a body of
sound doctrine, they threw together a confused mass of ideas and words. Who
could repress a smile, or not feel pity for Abelard, for instance, promising his
disciples to explain to them the prophet Ezechiel, with very little time for preparation,
and actually fulfilling his promise? I would ask the reader whether,
in the middle of the thirteenth century, an explanation of Ezechiel, given with
only a slight preparation, could have been successful or interesting?</p>

<p>The study of dialectics and metaphysics was embraced with so much ardor,
that in a short time these branches of knowledge superseded all others. The
consequences were prejudicial to the minds of men; their attention being wholly
engrossed by this object of their choice, the pursuit of more solid learning was
regarded with indifference&mdash;history was neglected, literature unnoticed, in a
word, the mind was only half developed. Every thing appertaining to the
imagination and the feelings was sacrificed to the cultivation of the intellect;
not, indeed, in its most useful operations,&mdash;the formation of a clear and perfect
perception, of a mature judgment, of a habit of sound and accurate reasoning,&mdash;but
in those which are astute, subtle, and extravagant.</p>

<p>Those who would reproach the Church for her conduct at that period in reference
to innovators have a very imperfect understanding of the actual condition
of Europe as regards science and religion. We have already seen that the
intellectual development was religious; consequently, even when it deviated
from the right path, it still retained this character, and the oddest subtilties
were applied to mysteries the most sublime. Almost all the heretics of the
time were renowned dialecticians, and their errors arose from an excess of
subtilty. Roscelin, one of the leading dialecticians of his time, was the
founder, or at least one of the leaders of the sect of the Nominalists. Abelard
was celebrated for the readiness of his talents, his skill in disputation, and his
address in explaining every thing to suit his thesis. The abuse of his intellect
led him into the errors which we have already spoken of&mdash;errors which
he would have avoided, had he not proudly yielded himself up to his own vain
thoughts. The mania for subtilising every thing drew Gilbert de la Poirée
into the most lamentable errors on the subject of the Divinity; Amaury, another
celebrated philosopher, after the fashion of the time, took up so warmly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_408" id="Page_408">[Pg 408]</a></span>
the question of Aristotle's primordial matter, that he ended by declaring matter
to be God. The Church strenuously opposed these errors, which arose in
great numbers in minds led astray by vain arguments, and puffed up with foolish
pride. It would argue a strange misconception of the true interests of
science, to suppose that the Church's resistance to these raving innovators was
not most favorable to intellectual progress.</p>

<p>These headstrong men, eager in the pursuit of knowledge, and captivated
by the first chimera presented to their imagination, stood greatly in need of
some discreet authority to restrain them within the bounds of reason and
moderation. The intellect had scarcely taken the first steps in the career of
knowledge, and yet fancied it already knew every thing, "pretending to know
all things except the <i lang="la">nescio</i>, I know not," as St. Bernard reproaches the vain
Abelard. Why should we not, for the good of humanity, and the credit of
the human intellect, approve the condemnation pronounced by the Church
against the errors of Gilbert, which aimed at nothing less than the overthrow
of the ideas that we have of God? If Amaury and his disciple David de
Dinant are smitten by the sentence of the Church, it is because they destroy
the idea of the Divinity by confounding the Creator with <em>primordial matter</em>.
Was it for the advantage of Europe that its intellectual movement should be
commenced by precipitating itself at the very outset into the abyss of pantheism?</p>

<p>Had the human intellect followed in its development the way marked out
for it by the Church, European civilization would have gained at least two
centuries; the fourteenth century would have been as far advanced as the sixteenth
was. To convince ourselves of the truth of this assertion, we have only
to compare writings with writings, and men with men; the men most firmly
attached to the faith of the Church attained to such eminence that they left
the age in which they lived far behind them. Roscelin's antagonist was St.
Anselm; the latter always remained faithful to the authority of the Church;
the former rebelled against her: and who, let met ask, would have the hardihood
to compare the dialectician of Compiègne with the learned Archbishop
of Canterbury? How vast the difference between the profound and skilful
metaphysician who composed the Monologue and the Prosologue, and the frivolous
leader of the disputes of the Nominalists! Have the subtilties and
cavillings of Roscelin any weight whatever against the lofty thoughts of the
man who, in the eleventh century, to prove the existence of God, could reject
all vain and captious reasonings, concentrate himself within himself, consult
his own ideas, compare them with their object, and demonstrate the existence
of God from the very idea of God, thus anticipating Descartes by five
hundred years? Who best understood the true interests of science? Show
me how the intellect of St. Anselm was degraded or shackled by the influence
of the formidable authority of the Church, by any usurpation on the part of
Popes of the rights of the human mind. And can Abelard himself be compared,
either as a man, or as a writer, with his Catholic adversary, St. Bernard?
Abelard was a perfect master of all the subtilties of the schools; noisy
disputes were his amusement; he was intoxicated with the applause of his
disciples, who were dazzled by their master's talents and courage, and still more
by the learned follies of the age; yet what has become of his works? Who
reads them? Who ever thinks of finding in them a single page of sound reasoning,
the description of a single great event, or a picture of the manners of
the time, in other words, the least matter of interest to science or history?
On the contrary, what man of learning has not often sought this in the immortal
works of St. Bernard?</p>

<p>It is impossible to find a more sublime personification of the Church combating
against the heretics of his time than the illustrious Abbot of Clairvaux,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_409" id="Page_409">[Pg 409]</a></span>
contending against all innovators, and speaking, if we may use the term, in
the name of the Catholic faith. No one could more worthily represent the
ideas and sentiments which the Church endeavored to diffuse amongst mankind,
nor more faithfully delineate the course through which Catholicity would
have led the human mind. Let us pause for a moment in the presence of this
gigantic mind, which attained to an eminence far beyond any of its contemporaries.
This extraordinary man fills the world with his name&mdash;upheaves it
by his words&mdash;sways it by his influence; in the midst of darkness he is its
light; he forms, as it were, a mysterious link, connecting the two epochs of
St. Jerome and St. Augustine, of Bossuet and Bourdaloue. In the midst of
a general relaxation and corruption of morals, by the strictest observances and
the most perfect purity he is proof against every assault. Ignorance prevails
throughout all classes; he studies night and day to enlighten his mind. A
false and counterfeit erudition usurps the place of true knowledge; he knows
its unsoundness, disdains and despises it; and his eagle eye discovers at a glance
that the star of truth moves at an immense distance from this false reflection,
from this crude mass of subtilties and follies, which the men of his time termed
philosophy. If at that period there existed any useful learning, it was to be
sought in the Bible, and in the writings of the holy Fathers; to the study of
these, therefore, St. Bernard devotes himself unremittingly. Far from consulting
the vain babblers who are arguing and declaiming in the schools, St.
Bernard seeks his inspirations in the silence of the cloister, or in the august
sanctuary of the temple; if he goes out, it is to contemplate the great book
of nature, to study eternal truths in the solitude of the desert, and, as he himself
has expressed it, "in forests of beech-trees."</p>

<p>Thus did this great man, rising superior to the prejudices of his time, avoid
the evil produced in his contemporaries by the method then prevailing. By
this method the imagination and the feelings were stifled; the judgment
warped; the intellect sharpened to excess; and learning converted into a labyrinth
of confusion. Read the works of the sainted Abbot of Clairvaux, and
you will find that all his faculties go, as it were, hand in hand. If you look
for imagination, you will find the finest coloring, faithful portraits, and splendid
descriptions. If you want feeling, you will learn how skilfully he finds
his way into the heart, captivates, subdues, and fashions it to his will. Now
he strikes a salutary fear into the hardened sinner, tracing with great force the
formidable picture of the divine justice and the eternal vengeance; then he
consoles and sustains the man who is sinking under worldly adversity, the assaults
of his passions, the recollection of his transgressions, or an exaggerated
fear of the divine justice. Do you want pathos? Listen to his colloquies with
Jesus and Mary; hear him speaking of the blessed Virgin with such enrapturing
sweetness, that he seems to exhaust all the epithets that the liveliest
hope and the most pure and tender love can suggest. Would you have vigor
and vehemence of style, and that irresistible torrent of eloquence which nothing
can resist, which carries the mind beyond itself, fires it with enthusiasm,
compels it to enter upon the most arduous paths, and to undertake the most
heroic enterprises? See him with his burning words inflaming the zeal of the
people, nobles, and kings; moving them to quit their homes, to take up arms,
and to unite in numerous armies that pour into Asia to rescue the Holy Sepulchre.
This extraordinary man is every where met with, every where heard. Entirely
free from ambition, he possesses, nevertheless, a leading influence in the great
affairs of Europe: though fond of solitude and retirement, he is continually
obliged to quit the obscurity of the cloister to assist in the councils of kings
and popes. He never flatters, never betrays the truth, never dissembles the
sacred ardor which burns within his breast; and yet he is every where listened
to with profound respect; his stern voice is heard in the cottages of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_410" id="Page_410">[Pg 410]</a></span>
poor and in the palaces of kings; he admonishes with terrible severity the
most obscure monk and the Sovereign Pontiff.</p>

<p>In the midst of so much ardor and activity, his mind loses none of its
clearness or precision. His exposition of a point of doctrine is remarkable
for ease and lucidity; his demonstrations are vigorous and conclusive; his reasoning
is conducted with a force of logic that presses close upon his adversary,
and leaves him no means of escape: in defence, his quickness and address are
surprising. In his answers he is clear and precise; in repartee, quick and
penetrating; and without dealing in the subtilties of the schools, he displays
wonderful tact in disentangling truth from error, sound reason from artifice and
fraud. Here is a man formed entirely and exclusively under the influence of
Catholicity; a man who never strayed from the pale of the Church, who never
dreamed of setting his intellect free from the yoke of authority; and yet he
rises like a mighty pyramid above all the men of his time.</p>

<p>To the eternal honor of the Catholic Church, and utterly to disprove the
accusation brought against her, of exerting an influence hostile to the freedom
of the human mind, I must observe that St. Bernard was not the only man who
rose superior to the age, and pointed out the way to genuine progress. It is
unquestionably certain, that the most distinguished men of that period, those
least influenced by the evils that so long kept the human mind in pursuit of
mere vanities and shadows, were precisely the men most devotedly attached to
Catholicity. These men set an example of what was necessary to be done for
the advancement of learning; an example that for a long time had, it is true,
but few followers, but which found some in subsequent ages: now it is to be
observed that the progress of learning was due to the credit obtained by this
method&mdash;I speak of the study of antiquity.</p>

<p>The sacred sciences were the chief object of attention at this period; as the
intellect was theologically developed, dialectics and metaphysics were studied
with a view to their application to theology. With Roscelin, Abelard, Gilbert
de la Poirée, and Amaury, the phrase was: "Let us reason, subtilise, and
apply our systems to all sorts of questions; let our reason be our rule and
guide, without which knowledge is impossible." With St. Bernard, St. Anselm,
Hugh and Richard de St. Victor, Peter Lombard, on the contrary, it was:
"Let us see what antiquity teaches; let us study the works of the holy Fathers;
let us analyse and compare their texts; we cannot place our dependence
exclusively on arguments, which are sometime dangerous and sometimes futile."
Which of these two judgments has been actually confirmed? Which of these
methods was adopted when real progress was to be made? Was not recourse
had to an unremitting study of ancient works? Was it not found necessary
to throw aside the cavils of the dialecticians? Protestants themselves boast
of having taken this way; their theologians consider it an honor to be versed
in antiquity; and would be offended if treated as mere dialecticians. On which
side, then, was reason? With the heretics, or with the Church? Who best
understood the method most favorable to intellectual progress? The heretical
dialectician, or the orthodox doctor? To these questions there can only be one
reply. These are not mere opinions&mdash;they are facts; not an empty theory,
but the actual history of learning, as known by all the world, and as represented
to us in irrefragable documents. Unless prepossessed by the authority of M.
Guizot, the reader certainly cannot complain that I have eschewed questions of
history, or claimed his belief on my own bare word.</p>

<p>Unhappily, mankind seemed doomed never to find the true road without
going a long way round; thus the intellect, taking the very worst way of all,
went in pursuit of subtilties and cavils, forsaking the beaten track of reason
and good sense. At the beginning of the twelfth century the evil had reached
to such a height, that to apply a remedy was no slight undertaking; nor is it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_411" id="Page_411">[Pg 411]</a></span>
easy to say how far matters might have gone, nor what evils would have ensued
in various ways, had not Providence, who never abandons the care of the moral,
any more than of the physical universe, raised up an extraordinary genius, who,
rising to an immense height above the men of his age, reduced the chaos to
order. Out of the undigested mass, by retrenching here, adding there, classifying
and explaining, this man collected a fund of real learning. Persons acquainted
with the history of learning at that time will readily understand that
I speak of St. Thomas Aquinas. Rightly to appreciate the extraordinary
merit of this great Doctor, we must view him in connection with the times and
circumstances of which we are treating. Beholding in St. Thomas Aquinas
one of the most luminous, most comprehensive, and most penetrating intellects
that have ever adorned the human race, we are almost tempted to think that
his appearance in the thirteenth century was inopportune; we regret that he
did not live in a more recent age, to enter the lists with the most illustrious
men of whom modern Europe can boast. But, upon further reflection, we find
that the human mind owes so much to him, we see so clearly the reason why
his appearance at the time when Europe received his lectures was most opportune,
that we have no other feeling left than one of profound admiration of
the designs of Providence.</p>

<p>What was the philosophy of his time? Amidst the strange compound of
Greek and Arabian philosophy and of Christian ideas, what would have become
of dialectics, metaphysics, and morality? We have already seen what sort of
fruit began to grow out of such combinations, favored by a degree of ignorance
unable to distinguish the real nature of things, and encouraged by pride that
pretended to a knowledge of every thing. And yet the evil was only beginning;
its further development would have been attended with symptoms still
more alarming. Fortunately, this great man appeared; the first touch of his
powerful hand advanced learning two or three centuries. He could not root
out the evil, but at least he applied a remedy; owing to his indisputable superiority,
his method and his learning soon won their way everywhere. He
became, as it were, the centre of a grand system, round which all other scholastic
writers were forced to revolve; he thus prevented a multitude of errors
that without his intervention would have been almost inevitable. He found
the schools in a state of complete anarchy; he reduced them to order; and on
account of his angelic intellect, and his eminent sanctity, was looked up to as
their sublime dictator. This is the view I take of the mission of St. Thomas;
it will be viewed in the same light by all those who study his works, and do
not content themselves with a hasty perusal of a biographical article respecting
him.</p>

<p>Now this man was a Catholic, and the Catholic Church venerates him upon
her altars, and I do not see that his mind was shackled by authority in matters
of faith; it goes abroad freely amongst all the branches of knowledge; he
unites in his person such extensive and profound acquirements as to appear a
prodigy for the age in which he lived. We observe in St. Thomas, notwithstanding
the purely scholastic method which he adopted, the same characteristic
that we discover in all the eminent Catholic writers of the times. He reasons
much; but it is easy to see that he does not trust entirely to his reason, but
proceeds with that wise diffidence which is an unequivocal sign of real learning.
He avails himself of the doctrines of Aristotle; but evidently would have made
less use of them, and more of the Fathers, but for his leading idea, which was,
to make the philosophy of his time subservient to the defence of religion. The
reader must not suppose that his metaphysics and moral philosophy are a congeries
of inexplicable enigmas, as a knowledge of the period at which he wrote
might lead us to apprehend. Nothing of the kind; and any one who entertains
such an idea has evidently not spent much time in the study of his writings.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_412" id="Page_412">[Pg 412]</a></span>
His metaphysical works, it must be acknowledged, make us perfectly acquainted
with the dominant ideas of the time; but it is equally undeniable, that in every
page we meet with the most luminous passages on the most complicated questions
of ideology, ontology, cosmology, and psychology; so much so, that we
almost imagine we are reading the works of a philosopher who wrote after the
fullest development of the sciences had been attained.</p>

<p>What his political ideas were, we have already seen; were it necessary, and
did the nature of the present work permit, I might here produce many fragments
from his <cite>Treatise on Laws and on Justice</cite>, distinguished for such solid
principles, such lofty views, so profound a knowledge of the nature of society,
that they would occupy an honorable position amongst the best works on legislation
written in modern times. His treatises on virtues and vices, whether
considered generally, or in detail, exhaust the subject, and defy all subsequent
writers to produce a single idea of any importance that has not been already
either developed, or at least suggested in them. Above all, his works are
remarkable for moderation and extreme reserve in doctrinal expositions, in
which respect they are eminently conformable to the spirit of Catholicity; and
assuredly if all writers had followed in his footsteps, the field of science would
have presented us with an assembly of sages, and would not have been converted
into a blood-stained arena for furious combatants. Such is his modesty,
that he does not relate a single incident in his life, private or public; from
him we hear nothing but the language of enlightened reason, calmly dispensing
its treasures: the man, with his fame, his misfortunes, his labors, and all his
vain pretensions, with which other writers are wont to weary us, never appears
for an instant.<a href="#Note_41" class="fnanchor">41</a></p>



<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LXXII" id="CHAPTER_LXXII">CHAPTER LXXII.</a><br />

<small>ON THE PROGRESS OF THE HUMAN MIND FROM THE ELEVENTH CENTURY TO
THE PRESENT TIME</small>.</h2>


<p>I think I have satisfactorily vindicated the Catholic Church from the
reproaches cast upon her by her enemies, for her conduct during the eleventh
and twelfth centuries in reference to the development of the human mind. Let
us now take a rapid survey of the march of intellect up to our own times, and
see what titles Protestantism can produce to the gratitude of the friends of progress
in human knowledge.</p>

<p>If I mistake not, the following are the phases through which the human
mind has passed, since the revival of learning in the eleventh century. First
came the epoch of subtilties, with its heaps of crude erudition; then the age of
criticism, with appropriate attempts at grave controversies on the meaning of
records and monuments; and finally came the reflecting age, and the inauguration
of the philosophical period. The eleventh and succeeding centuries, to
the sixteenth, were characterized by a fondness for dialectics and erudite
trifles; criticism and controversy formed the distinctive characteristics of the
sixteenth, and part of the seventeenth centuries; the philosophical spirit began
to prevail towards the middle of the seventeenth, and continued to our own
time. Now of what advantage was Protestantism to learning? None; Protestantism
found learning already accumulated&mdash;this I can easily prove&mdash;Erasmus
and Louis Vives shone in the time of Luther.</p>

<p>Did Protestantism promote the study of criticism? Yes; just as an epidemic
that decimates nations aids the progress of the medicinal art. But we must
not suppose that the taste for this kind of literary labor would not have been
disseminated without the aid of the pseudo-Reformation. As monuments came<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_413" id="Page_413">[Pg 413]</a></span>
to light, as a knowledge of languages became more general, as the public
acquired clearer and more correct notions of history, people would naturally
set themselves to discriminate between the apocryphal and the authentic. The
necessary documents were at hand, and were studied unremittingly; for this
was the favorite taste of the epoch. Under such circumstances, how is it possible
there should have existed no desire to examine to what author, and to
what age, such documents severally belonged; to investigate how far ignorance
or dishonesty had falsified them, had taken from, or added to them? On this
subject, I need only relate what took place relative to the famous decretals of
Isidore Mercator. These decretals had been received, without opposition,
during the centuries anterior to the fifteenth, owing to the want of antiquarian
and critical research; but the moment that knowledge and facts began to accumulate,
the edifice of imposture gave way. As early as the fifteenth century,
Cardinal Cusa challenged the authenticity of certain decretals that had been
supposed to be anterior to Pope Siricius; and the reflections of the learned
Cardinal led the way to other attacks of a similar kind. A serious discussion
arose, in which Protestants naturally took part; but it would unquestionably
have been engaged in all the same, if Catholic writers had been left entirely
to themselves. When the learned came to read the codes of Theodosius and
Justinian, the works of antiquity, and collections of ecclesiastical records, they
could not possibly fail to observe that the spurious decretals contained sentences
and fragments belonging to an era posterior to the time to which they
were referred; and when once such doubts had arisen, error was sure to be
promptly exposed.</p>

<p>We may say of controversy, what we have just said of criticism. There
would have been no want of controversy, even if the unity of the faith had
never been violated. In support of this assertion, the recollection of what
occurred amongst the different schools of Catholics is quite conclusive. These
schools were engaged in controversy amongst themselves, in the presence even
of the common opponent: and we may rest assured that, if their attention had
not been partially diverted by that enemy, their polemical discussions would
have been maintained only with the greater energy and warmth. Protestants
have no more the advantage over Catholics, as regards controversy than as
regards criticism. However true it be that some of our theologians did not
see the necessity of opposing the enemy with arms superior to those taken from
the arsenal of Aristotelian philosophy, it is quite certain that a great number
of them took up a sufficiently lofty position, and were thoroughly impressed
with the importance of the crisis, and urged the introduction of very great
modifications into the course of theological studies. Bellarmin, Melchior Cano,
Petau, and many others, were no way inferior to the most skilful Protestants,
whatever may have been the boasted scientific merits of the defenders of error.</p>

<p>The knowledge of the learned languages must have contributed in an extraordinary
degree to the progress of critical and controversial learning. Now I
do not see that Catholics were behind others in the knowledge of Latin, Greek,
and Hebrew. Anthony de Nebrija, Erasmus, Louis Vives, Lawrence Villa,
Leonardus Aretinus, Cardinal Bembo, Sadolet, Poggio, Melchior Cano, and
many others, too numerous to mention; were they, I ask, trained in Protestantism?
Did not the Popes, moreover, take the lead in this literary movement?
Who patronized the learned with greater liberality? Who supplied them with
more abundant resources? Who incurred greater expenses in the purchase of
the best manuscripts? Nor let it be forgotten, that such was the taste for pure
Latinity, that some among the learned objected to read the Vulgate, for fear
of acquiring inelegant phrases.</p>

<p>As regards Greek, we need only bear in mind the causes that led to its diffusion
in Europe, to be convinced that the progress made in the knowledge of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_414" id="Page_414">[Pg 414]</a></span>
this language owes nothing whatever to the pseudo-Reformation. It is well
known that, after the taking of Constantinople by the Turks, the literary
remains of that unfortunate nation were brought to the coasts of Italy. In
Italy the study of Greek was first seriously commenced; from Italy it spread
to France, and to the other European states. Half a century before the
appearance of Protestantism, this language was taught in Paris by the Italian
Gregory de Tiferno. At the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth
centuries, Germany itself could boast of the celebrated John Reuchlin,
who taught Greek with great applause, first at Orleans and Poictiers, and afterwards
at Ingolstadt. Reuchlin, being on one occasion at Rome, so felicitously
explained, and read with so pure an accent, a passage from Thucydides, in the
presence of Argyropilus, that the latter, filled with admiration, exclaimed:
"<i lang="la">Gracia nostra exilio transvolavit Alpes</i>; our exiled Greece has crossed the
Alps."</p>

<p>Respecting Hebrew, I will transcribe a passage from the Abbé Goujet:
"Protestants," says he, "would fain have it thought that they effected the
revival of this language in Europe; but they are forced to acknowledge, that
whatever they know of Hebrew they owe to the Catholics, who were their
teachers, and the sources whence, even to this day, is obtained all that is most
valuable in Oriental literature. John Reuchlin, who lived the greater part of
his time in the fifteenth century, was unquestionably a Catholic, and one of the
most skilful Hebrew scholars, and was also the first Christian who reduced the
teaching of that language to a system. John Weissel of Groningen had taught
him the elements of this language, and had himself pupils in whom he had
awakened a love for this study. In like manner, it was by the exertions of
Picus de Mirandula, who was a strict Catholic, that a taste for the study of
Hebrew was revived in the West. At the time of the Council of Trent, most
of the heretics who then knew that language had learned it in the bosom of the
Church they had forsaken; and their vain subtilties respecting the meaning of
the sacred text excited the faithful to still greater assiduity in the study of a
language so well calculated to insure their own triumph and the defeat of their
opponents. In devoting themselves to this branch of study, moreover, they
were only following out the intentions of Pope Clement V., who, as early as
the beginning of the fourteenth century, had ordained that Greek, and Hebrew,
and even Arabic and Chaldean, should be publicly taught, for the benefit of
foreigners, at Rome, at Paris, at Oxford, at Bologna, and at Salamanca. The
design of this Pope, who so well knew the advantages resulting from well-conducted
studies, was, to augment the learning of the Church by the study of
languages, and to raise up doctors capable of defending her against every form
of error. By means of these languages, and more especially of Hebrew, he
intended to renew the study of the sacred books, that the latter, when read in
the original, might appear more worthy of the Holy Spirit who inspired them,
and by their combined grandeur and simplicity, when better known, awaken
greater reverence for them; and that, without derogating from the respect due
to the Latin version, it might be felt that an intimate acquaintance with the
originals was peculiarly serviceable in confirming the faith of believers, and
confuting heretics." (L'Abbé Goujet, <cite>Discours sur le renouvellement des
Etudes, et principalement des Etudes ecclésiastiques depuis le quatorzième siècle</cite>.)</p>

<p>One of the causes which contributed the most to the development of the
human mind was the creation of great centres of instruction, collecting the
most illustrious talents and learning, and diffusing rays of light in all directions.
I know not how men could forget that this idea was not due to the pretended
Reformation, seeing that most of the universities of Europe were established
long before the birth of Luther. That of Oxford was established in 895;
Cambridge in 1280; that of Prague, in Bohemia, in 1358; that of Louvain, in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_415" id="Page_415">[Pg 415]</a></span>
Belgium, in 1425; that of Vienna, in Austria, in 1365; that of Ingolstadt, in
Germany, in 1372; that of Leipsic in 1408; that of Basle, in Switzerland, in
1469; that of Salamanca in 1200; that of Alcala in 1517. It would be superfluous
to notice the antiquity of the universities of Paris, of Bologna, of Ferrara,
and of a great many others, which attained the highest renown long before
the advent of Protestantism. The Popes, it is well known, took an active part
in the establishment of universities, granting them privileges, and bestowing
upon them the highest honors and distinctions. How can any one, then, venture
to assert, that Rome has opposed the progress of learning and the sciences,
in order to keep the people in darkness and ignorance? As if Divine Providence
had intended to confound these future calumniators of His Church,
Protestantism made its appearance precisely at the time when, under the
auspices of a renowned Pope, the progress in the science, in literature and the
arts was most active. Posterity, judging of our disputes with impartiality,
will undoubtedly pass a severe sentence upon those pretended philosophers,
who are constantly endeavoring to prove from history, that Catholicity has
impeded the progress of the human mind, and that scientific progress has been
all owing to the cry of liberty raised in central Germany. Yes; sensible men
in future ages, like those of our own times, will form a correct judgment upon
this subject, when they reflect that Luther began to propagate his errors <em>in the
age of Leo X</em>.</p>

<p>Certainly, the court of Rome could not at that time be reproached with
obscurantism. Rome was at the head of all progress, which she urged onwards
with the most active zeal, the most ardent enthusiasm; so much so, indeed,
that if she were censurable at all&mdash;if there were in her conduct any thing of
which history should disapprove&mdash;it was rather that her march was too quick
than too slow. Had another St. Bernard addressed Leo X., he would assuredly
not have blamed him for abusing his authority to impede the march of the
human intellect and the progress of learning. "The Reformation," says M.
de Chateaubriand, "deeply imbued with the spirit of its founder&mdash;a coarse
and jealous monk&mdash;declared itself the enemy of the arts. By prohibiting the
exercise of the imaginative faculties, it clipped the wings of genius, and made
her plod on foot. It raised an outcry against certain alms destined for the
erection of the basilica of St. Peter for the use of the Christian world. Would
the Greeks have refused the assistance solicited from their piety for the building
of a temple to Minerva? Had the Reformation been completely successful
from the beginning, it would have established, for a time at least, another
species of barbarism: viewing as superstition the pomp of divine worship; as
idolatry the <i lang="fr">chefs-d'œuvre</i> of sculpture, of architecture, and of painting, its tendency
was to annihilate lofty eloquence and sublime poetry&mdash;to degrade taste,
by repudiating its models&mdash;to introduce a dry, cold, and captious formality into
the operations of the mind&mdash;to substitute in society affectation and materialism
in lieu of ingenuousness and intellectuality, and to make machinery take the
place of manual and mental operations. These are truths confirmed by everyday
experience.</p>

<p>"Amongst the various branches of the reformed religion, their approximation
to the beautiful and sublime is always found to be proportioned to the
amount of Catholic truth they have retained. In England, where an ecclesiastical
hierarchy has been upheld, literature has had its classic era. Lutheranism
preserves some sparks of imagination, which Calvinism aims at utterly
extinguishing; and so on, till we come to Quakerism, which would reduce
social life to unpolished manners and the practice of trades. Shakspeare, in
all probability, was a Catholic; Milton has evidently imitated some parts of
the poems of St. Avitus and Masenius; Klopstock has borrowed very largely
from the faith of Rome. In our own days, in Germany, the high imaginative<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_416" id="Page_416">[Pg 416]</a></span>
powers have been put forth only when the spirit of Protestantism had begun
to decline. It was in treating Catholic subjects that the genius of Goethe and
Schiller was manifested; Rousseau and Madame de Staël are, indeed, illustrious
exceptions to this rule; but were they Protestants after the model of
the first disciples of Calvin? At this very day, painters, architects, and sculptors,
of all the conflicting creeds, go to seek inspiration at Rome, where they
find universal toleration. Europe, nay, the whole world, is covered with monuments
of the Catholic religion. To it we are indebted for that Gothic architecture,
which rivals in its details, and eclipses in its magnificence, the monuments
of Greece. It is now three centuries since Protestantism arose,&mdash;it is
powerful in England, in Germany, in America,&mdash;it is professed by millions of
men,&mdash;and what has it erected? It can show only the ruins it has made; on
which perhaps, it has planted gardens or built factories. Rebelling against the
authority of tradition, the experience of centuries, and the venerable wisdom
of ages, Protestantism let go its hold on the past, and planted a society without
roots. Acknowledging for their founder a German monk of the sixteenth
century, the reformers renounced the wonderful genealogy that unites Catholics,
through a succession of great and holy men, with Jesus Christ Himself,
and, through Him, with the patriarchs and the earliest of mankind. The Protestant
era, from the first hours of its existence, refused all relationship with
the era of that Leo who protected the civilized world against Attila, and also
with the era of that other Leo, at whose coming barbarism vanished, and
society, now no longer in need of defence, put on the ornaments of civilization."
(<cite>Etud. Histor.</cite>, François I.)</p>

<p>It is much to be regretted that the author of such noble sentiments, who so
accurately describes the effects of Protestantism on literature and the arts,
should have said, that "the Reformation was, properly speaking, philosophic
truth, under the guise of Christianity, attacking religious truth." (<cite>Etud.
Histor.</cite>, Preface.) What is the meaning of these words? We shall best understand
them from the illustrious author's own explanation. "Religious
truth," says he, "is the knowledge of one God manifested in a form of worship.
Philosophic truth is the threefold knowledge of things intellectual, moral, and
natural." (<cite>Etud. Histor.</cite>, Exposition.) It is difficult to imagine how any
one who admits the truth of the Catholic religion, and, as a necessary consequence,
the falsehood of Protestantism, can define the latter to be, philosophic
truth at war with religious truth. In the natural, as well as in the supernatural,
order of things, in philosophy as in religion, all truths come from
God, all end in Him. There cannot, therefore, be any antagonism between
truths of one order and truths of another order; between religious and true
philosophy, between nature and grace, no antagonism is possible. Truth is
that which is; for truth resides in beings themselves; we should rather say,
it consists of beings themselves such as they exist, such as they are in their
substance; and hence it is quite incorrect to say that philosophic truth has
ever stood in antagonism to religious truth.</p>

<p>According to the same author "Philosophic truth is neither more nor less
than the independence of the human mind; its tendency being to make discoveries,
and lead to perfection in the three sciences that come within its sphere,
viz. the intellectual, the moral, and the natural. But philosophic truth," he
continues, "looking forwards to the future, has stood in opposition to religious
truth, which adheres to the past, owing to the immovable nature of the eternal
principle upon which it is founded." (<cite>Etud. Histor.</cite>, Exposition.) With all
the respect due to the immortal author of the <cite>Génie du Christianisme</cite> and of
the <cite>Martyrs</cite>, I must take the liberty to observe, that we find here a lamentable
confusion of ideas. The philosophic truth of which M. de Chateaubriand here
treats, must be either science itself, considered as an aggregate of truths, or a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_417" id="Page_417">[Pg 417]</a></span>
general knowledge, in which truth and error are commingled; or, in fine, the
whole body of men of learning, considered as constituting a very influential
class in society. In the first case, it is impossible for philosophic truth to be
in antagonism to religious truth,&mdash;that is, to Catholicity; in the second case,
the alleged opposition is nothing extraordinary, for error being in this case
mixed up with truth, will on some points be found to be opposed to Catholic
faith; and, finally, as regards the third hypothesis, it is unfortunately too true,
that many men, distinguished by their talents and erudition, have been opposed
to Catholicity; but, on the other hand, as great a number of men equally
eminent have triumphantly maintained the truth of Catholicity; hence it would
be extremely illogical to affirm that philosophic truth, even in this sense, is opposed
to religious truth.</p>

<p>It is not my wish to give an unfavorable interpretation to the words of the
illustrious writer; I rather incline to think, that, in his mind, philosophic truth
is nothing but a spirit of independence considered in a general, vague, and undefined
sense, and not as applied to any object in particular. This is the only
way to reconcile assertions so different; for it is quite clear, that, after he had
so severely condemned the Protestant Reformation, the writer could not proceed
to admit that this same Reformation carried with it philosophic truth,
properly so called, wherein it became opposed to Catholic doctrines. But, in
this case, the language of the illustrious author is unquestionably wanting in
precision; this, however, need not surprise us, as, upon reflection, we shall find
that, in treating historico-philosophical subjects, precision is not to be expected
from writers whose genius has been wont to soar into the highest regions on
the wings of a sublime poetry.</p>

<p>It was not either in Germany or in England, but in Catholic France, that
the philosophical movement advanced with the greatest freedom and daring.
Descartes, the founder of a new era in philosophy, that superseded the Aristotelian,
and gave a fresh impulse to the study of logic, of physics, and metaphysics,
was a Frenchman and a Catholic. The greater part of his most distinguished
followers were also in communion with the Roman Church. Philosophy,
then, in the highest sense of the word, owes nothing to Protestantism.
Before Leibnitz, Germany could scarcely reckon a single philosopher of any note;
and the English schools that attained to any thing like celebrity arose after
Descartes' time. We shall find, upon reflection, that France was the centre of
the philosophical movement from the end of the sixteenth century; and at
that period all the Protestant countries were so backward in this kind of study,
that the active progress of philosophy amongst the Catholics was scarcely noticed
by them. In like manner, it was in the bosom of the Catholic Church
that the taste arose for profound meditations on the secrets of the heart, and
on the relations of the human mind to God and nature, and that sublime abstraction
which concentrates man's faculties, sets him free from the body, and
elevates him to those exalted regions that appear destined to be visited exclusively
by celestial spirits. Is not mysticism, in its purest, most refined,
and most elevated form, found in our Catholic writers of the golden age? Since
that time, what has been published that may not be met with in the works of
St. Teresa, in those of St. John of the Cross, in the venerable Avila, in Louis
de Grenada, and in Louis de Léon?</p>

<p>And Pascal, that man of thought, one of the most vigorous geniuses of the
seventeenth century, who was unhappily deceived for some time by a hypocritical
and canting sect, was he a Protestant? Was it not he who laid the basis
of that philosophico-religious school, whose investigations, directed at one time
to the deepest questions of religion, at another to those of nature, or to the
mysteries of the human heart, have surrounded truth with a flood of light?
Do not the apologists of Christianity, whether Protestants or Catholics, when<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_418" id="Page_418">[Pg 418]</a></span>
engaged in combating indifference or incredulity, avail themselves by preference
of his <cite>Pensées</cite>? Authors who have written on the philosophy of history
have perhaps surpassed all others in their eagerness to vilify the Church as the
enemy of enlightenment, whilst they represent Protestantism as the great bulwark
of the rights of the mind. Now, gratitude alone should have induced
them to proceed more circumspectly; they should not forget that the real
founder of the philosophy of history was a Catholic, and that the first and
best work ever written on this subject came from the pen of a Catholic Bishop.
It was Bossuet, in his immortal <cite>Discours sur l'Histoire Universelle</cite>, who first
taught our modern thinkers to take a lofty survey of the human race; to embrace
at one view all the events that have marked the course of ages, contemplating
them in all their vastness and intimate connection, with all their phases,
effects, and causes, and to draw from them salutary lessons for the instruction
both of princes and people. Now, Bossuet was a Catholic, and, moreover, one
of the most trenchant adversaries of the Protestant Reformation. His fame
is heightened too by another work, in which he completely overthrows the doctrines
of the innovators, by proving their continual variations, and demonstrating
that theirs must be the way of error, seeing that variation is incompatible
with truth. We may ask the abettors of Protestantism, if the Eagle of Meaux
feels in his flight the fetters of the Catholic religion, when, glancing at the
origin and destiny of mankind, at the fall of our first parents and its consequences,
on the revolutions of the East and West, he traces with such wonderful
sublimity the designs of Divine Providence?</p>

<p>As regards the literary movement, I might almost consider myself relieved
from all necessity of combating the reproaches cast upon Catholicity by its
enemies. What, in fact, was the literature of all the Protestant countries
together, at the time when Italy produced those orators and poets, who, in succeeding
ages, have been universally received as models? Various descriptions
of literature were already quite common in Catholic countries, that were not
even known in England or Germany; and when, at a later period, an attempt
was made to fill up the hiatus, no better means could be found for the purpose
than to take for models the Spanish writers, who had been subject <em>to Catholic
obscurantism and the fires of the Inquisition</em>.</p>

<p>Neither the mind, the heart, nor the imagination of man owes any thing to
Protestantism. Before the Reformation these were all in graceful and vigorous
progress; after the Reformation, this progress continued in the bosom of the
Catholic Church as successfully as before. Catholicity displays a bright array
of illustrious men crowned with the glories they have won amidst the unanimous
plaudits of all civilized nations. Whatever has been said of the tendency
of our religion to enslave and hoodwink the mind, is but calumny. No; that
which is born of light, cannot produce darkness; that which is the work of
truth itself, need not fly from the sun's rays to conceal itself in the bowels of
the earth. The daughter of heaven may walk in the brightness of day, may
dare discussion, may gather around her all the brightest intellects; well assured
that the more closely and attentively they see and contemplate her, the more
pure, the more beauteous and enrapturing will she appear.</p>

<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_419" id="Page_419">[Pg 419]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LXXIII" id="CHAPTER_LXXIII">CHAPTER LXXIII.</a><br />

<small>SUMMARY.&mdash;DECLARATION OF THE AUTHOR</small>.</h2>


<p>Having reached the end of my difficult enterprise, let me be allowed to take
a retrospective view of the vast space over which I have but just passed, like
the traveller who rests after his labor. The fear of seeing religious schism
introduced into my country; the sight of the efforts which were made to inculcate
Protestant errors amongst us; the perusal of certain writings, wherein it
was stated that the pretended Reformation had been favorable to the progress
of nations,&mdash;such were the motives which inspired me with the idea of undertaking
this work. My object was, to show that neither individuals nor society
owe any thing to Protestantism, either in a religious, social, political, or literary
point of view. I undertook to examine what history tells us, and what
philosophy teaches us, on this point. I was not ignorant of the immense extent
of the questions which I had to enter upon; I was far from flattering myself
that I was able to clear them up in a becoming manner; nevertheless I set forth
upon my journey, with that courage which is inspired by the love of truth, and
the confidence that one is defending its cause.</p>

<p>When considering the birth of Protestantism, I have endeavored to take as
lofty a view as possible. I have rendered to men that justice which is due to
them; I have attributed a large portion of the evil to the wretched condition
of mankind, to the weakness of our minds, and to that inheritance of perverseness
and ignorance which has been transmitted to us by the fall of our first
parent. Luther, Calvin, and Zuinglius have disappeared from my eyes; placed
in the immense picture of events, they have been viewed by me as small
imperceptible figures, whose individuality was far from deserving the importance
which was given to them at other periods. Honest in my convictions,
and unreserved in my words, I have acknowledged with candor, but with sorrow,
that there existed certain abuses, and that these abuses were taken as
pretexts when it was wished to break the unity of the faith. I have allowed
that a portion of the blame shall also fall upon men; but I have also pointed
out, that the more you here lay stress upon the weakness and wickedness of
man, the more do you illustrate the providence of Him who has promised to
be with His Church till the consummation of ages.</p>

<p>By the aid of reasoning and irrefragable experience, I have proved that the
fundamental dogmas of Protestantism show little knowledge of the human
mind, and were a fruitful source of errors and catastrophes. Then, turning
my attention to the development of European civilization, I have made a continued
comparison between Protestantism and Catholicity; and I believe that
I may assert, that I have not hazarded any proposition of importance without
having supported it by the evidence of historical facts. I have found it necessary
to take a survey of all ages, dating from the commencement of Christianity,
and to observe the different phases under which civilization has
appeared; without this, it would have been impossible to give a complete vindication
of the Catholic religion.</p>

<p>The reader may have observed that the prevailing idea of the work is this:
"Before Protestantism European civilization had reached all the development
which was possible for it; Protestantism perverted the course of civilization,
and produced immense evils in modern society; the progress which has been
made since Protestantism, has been made not by it, but in spite of it." I have
only consulted history, and I have taken extreme care not to pervert it; I have
borne in mind this passage of holy writ: "Has God, then, need of thy falsehood?"
The documents to which I refer are there; they are to be found in all
libraries, ready to answer; read them, and judge for yourselves.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_420" id="Page_420">[Pg 420]</a></span></p>

<p>I am not aware, in the multitude of questions which have presented themselves
to me, and which it has been indispensable for me to examine, that I
have resolved any in a manner not in conformity with the dogmas of the religion
which I was desirous of defending. I am not aware that, in any passage
of my book, I have laid down erroneous propositions, or expressed myself in
ill-sounding terms. Before publishing my work, I submitted it to the examination
of ecclesiastical authority; and without hesitation, I complied with the
slightest hint on its part, purifying, correcting, and modifying what had been
pointed out as worthy of purification, correction, or modification. Notwithstanding
that, I submit my whole work to the judgment of the Catholic,
Apostolic, and Roman Church; as soon as the Sovereign Pontiff, the Vicar
of Jesus Christ upon earth, shall pronounce sentence against any one of my
opinions, I will hasten to declare that I consider that opinion erroneous, and
cease to profess it.</p>

<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_421" id="Page_421">[Pg 421]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="NOTES" id="NOTES">NOTES.</a></h2>

<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_1"></a>Note</span> 1, p. 26.</p>

<p>The <cite>History of the Variations</cite> is one of those
works which exhaust their subject, and which
do not admit of reply or addition. If this immortal
<i lang="fr">chef-d'œuvre</i> be read with attention, the
cause of Protestantism, with respect to faith, is
forever decided: there is no middle way left
between Catholicity and infidelity. Gibbon
read it in his youth, and he became a Catholic,
abandoning the Protestant religion in which
he had been brought up. When, at a later
period, he left the Catholic Church, he did not
become a Protestant, but an unbeliever. My
readers will perhaps like to learn from the
mouth of this famous writer what he thought
of the work of Bossuet, and the effect which
was produced on him by its perusal. These
are his words: "In the <cite>History of the Variations</cite>,
an attack equally vigorous and well-directed,"
says he, "Bossuet shows, by a happy
mixture of reasoning and narration, the errors,
mistakes, uncertainties, and contradictions of
our first reformers, whose variations, as he
learnedly maintains, bear the marks of error;
<em>while the uninterrupted unity of the Catholic
Church is a sign and testimony of infallible
truth</em>. I read, approved, and believed." (Gibbon's
<cite>Memoirs</cite>.)</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_2"></a>Note</span> 2, p. 27.</p>

<p>It has been wished to represent Luther to us
as a man of lofty ideas, of noble and generous
feelings, and as a defender of the rights of the
human race. Yet he himself has left us in his
writings the most striking testimony of the
violence of his character, of his disgusting
rudeness, and his savage intolerance. Henry
VIII., king of England, undertook to refute
the book of Luther called <cite>De Captivitate Babylonica</cite>;
and behold the latter, irritated by such
boldness, writes to the king, and calls him
<em>sacrilegious, mad, senseless, the grossest of all
pigs and of all asses</em>. It is evident that Luther
paid but little regard to royalty; he did the
same with respect to literary merit. Erasmus,
who was perhaps the most learned man of his
age, or who at least surpassed all others in the
variety of his knowledge, in the refinement and
<i lang="fr">éclat</i> of his mind, was not better treated by the
furious innovator, in spite of all the indulgence
for which the latter was indebted to him. As
soon as Luther saw that Erasmus did not think
proper to be enrolled in the new sect, he attacked
him with so much violence, that the
latter complained of it, saying, "<em>that in his
old age he was compelled to contend against a
savage beast, a furious wild boar</em>." Luther
did not confine himself to mere words; he
proceeded to acts. It was at his instigation
that Carlostad was exiled from the states of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_421b" id="Page_421b">[Pg 421b]</a></span>
the Duke of Saxony, and was reduced to such
misery, that he was compelled to carry wood,
and do other similar things, to gain his livelihood.
In his many disputes with the Zwinglians,
Luther did not belie his character; he
called them <em>damned</em>, <em>fools</em>, <em>blasphemers</em>. As
he lavished such epithets on his dissenting
companions, we cannot be astonished that he
called the doctors of Louvain <em>beasts</em>, <em>pigs</em>, <em>Pagans</em>,
<em>Epicureans</em>, <em>Atheists</em>; and that he makes
use of other expressions which decency will
not allow us to cite; and that, launching forth
against the Pope, he says, "<em>He is a mad wolf,
against whom every one ought to take arms, without
waiting even for the order of the magistrates;
in this matter there can be no room left for repentance,
except for not having been able to bury
the sword in his breast</em>;" adding, "that all
those who followed the Pope ought to be pursued
like bandit-chiefs, were they kings or
emperors." Such was the spirit of tolerance
which animated Luther. And let it not be
imagined that this intolerance was confined to
him; it extended to all the party of the innovators,
and its effects were cruelly felt. We
have an unexceptionable witness of this truth
in Melancthon, the beloved disciple of Luther,
and one of the most distinguished men that
Protestantism has had. "I find myself under
such oppression," wrote Melancthon to his
friend Camerarius, "that I seem to be in the
cave of the Cyclops; it is almost impossible
for me to explain to you my troubles; and
every moment I feel myself tempted to take
flight." "These are," he says, in another
letter, "ignorant men, who know neither piety
nor discipline; behold what they are who command,
and you will understand that I am like
Daniel in the lions' den." How, then, can it
be maintained that such an enterprise was
guided by a generous idea, and that it was
really attempted to free the human mind?
The intolerance of Calvin, sufficiently shown
by the single fact mentioned in the text, is
manifested in his works at every page, by the
manner in which he treats his adversaries.
<em>Wicked men</em>, <em>rogues</em>, <em>drunkards</em>, <em>fools</em>, <em>madmen</em>,
<em>furies</em>, <em>beasts</em>, <em>bulls</em>, <em>pigs</em>, <em>asses</em>, <em>dogs</em>, and
<em>vile slaves of Satan</em>. Such are the polite terms
which abound in the writings of the famous
reformer. And how many wretched things
of the same kind could I not relate, if I did
not fear to disgust my readers!</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_3"></a>Note</span> 3, p. 27.</p>

<p>The Diet of Spires had made a decree concerning
the change of religion and worship;
fourteen towns of the empire refused to submit
to it, and presented a Protest; hence men began
to call the dissenters <em>Protestants</em>. As
this name is a condemnation of the separated
churches, they have several times attempted<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_422" id="Page_422">[Pg 422]</a></span>
to assume others, but always in vain; the
names which they took were false, and false
names do not last. What was their meaning
when they called themselves <em>Evangelicals</em>?
That they adhered to the Gospel alone? In
that case they ought rather to call themselves
<em>Biblicals</em>; for it was not to the Gospel that
they professed to adhere, but to the Bible.
They are also sometimes called <em>Reformers</em>;
and many people have been accustomed to call
<em>Protestantism, reformation</em>; but it is enough to
pronounce this word, to feel how inappropriate
it is; <em>religious revolution</em> would be much more
proper.</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_4"></a>Note</span> 4, p. 27.</p>

<p>Count de Maistre, in his work <cite>Du Pape</cite>, has
developed this question of names in an inimitable
manner. Among his numerous observations,
there is one very just one: it is, that
the Catholic Church alone has a positive and
proper name, which she gives to herself, and
which is given to her by the whole world. The
separated Churches have invented many, but
without the power of appropriating them.&mdash;"Each
one was free to take what name he
pleased," says M. de Maistre; "<em>Lais</em>, in person,
might be able to write upon her door, <em>Hôtel
d'Artémise</em>. The great point is, to compel
others to give us a particular name, which is
not so easy as to take it of our own authority."</p>

<p>Moreover, it must not be imagined that
Count de Maistre was the inventor of this
argument; a long time before him St. Jerome
and St. Augustin had used it. "If you," says
St. Jerome, "hear them called Marcionites,
Valentinians, Montanists, know that they are
not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue
of Antichrist.&mdash;Si audieris nuncupari Marcionitas,
Valentinianos, Montanenses, scito, non
Ecclesiam Christi, sed Antichristi esse synagogam."
(Hieron. lib. <cite>Adversus Luciferianos</cite>.)
"I am retained in the Church," says St. Augustin,
"by her very name of Catholic; for it
was not without a cause that she alone, amid
so many heresies, obtained that name. All the
heretics desire to be called Catholics; yet if a
stranger asks them which is the church of the
Catholics, none of them venture to point out
their church or house.&mdash;Tenet me in Ecclesia
ipsum Catholicæ nomen, quod non sine causa
inter tam multas hæreses, sic ipsa sola obtinuit,
ut cum omnes hæretici se Catholicos dici
velint, quærenti tamen peregrino alicui, ubi ad
Catholicam conveniatur, nullus hæreticorum,
vel basilicam suam vel domum audeat ostendere."
(St. Augustin.) What St. Augustin
observed of his time is again realized with
respect to the Protestants. I appeal to the
testimony of those who have visited the countries
where different communions exist. An
illustrious Spaniard of the seventeenth century,
who had lived a long time in Germany, tells
us, "They all wish to be called Catholic and
Apostolical; but notwithstanding this pretension,
they are called Lutherans, or Calvinists.&mdash;Singuli
volunt Catholici et Apostolici, sed
volunt, et ab aliis non hoc prætenso illis nomine,
sed Luterani potius aut Calviniani nominantur."
(Caramuel.) "I have dwelt in the
towns of heretics," continues the same writer,
"and I have seen with my eyes and heard with
my ears a thing on which the heterodox should<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_422b" id="Page_422b">[Pg 422b]</a></span>
reflect: <em>it is, that with the exception of the Protestant
preacher, and a few others, who desire
to know more of the thing than is necessary, all
the crowd of heretics gave the name of Catholics
to the Romans</em>.&mdash;Habitavi in hæreticorum civitatibus;
et hoc propriis oculis vidi, propriis
audivi auribus, quod deberet ab hæterodoxis
ponderari, <i lang="la">præter prædicantem, et pauculos qui
plus sapiunt quam oportet sapere, totum hæreticorum
vulgus Catholicos vocat Romanos</i>." Such
is the force of truth. The ideologists know
well that these phenomena have deep causes,
and that these arguments are something more
than subtilties.</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_5"></a>Note</span> 5, p. 38.</p>

<p>So much has been said of abuses, the influence
which they may have had on the
disasters which the Church suffered during the
last centuries has been so much exaggerated,
and at the same time so much care has been
taken, by hypocritical praise, to exalt the purity
of manners and strictness of discipline in the
primitive Church, that some people have at
last imagined a line of division between ancient
and modern times. These persons see in the
early times only truth and sanctity; they
attribute to the others only corruption and
falsehood; as if, in the early ages of the
Church, all the faithful were angels&mdash;as if the
Church, at all times, had not errors to correct
and passions to control. With history in our
hands, it would be easy to reduce these exaggerated
ideas to their just value, to which
Erasmus himself, certainly little disposed to
exculpate his contemporaries, does justice. He
clearly shows us, in a parallel between his
own times and those of the early ages of the
Church, how puerile and ill-founded was the
desire, then so widely diffused, of exalting
antiquity at the expense of the present time.
We find a fragment of this parallel in the
works of Marchetti, among his observations
on Fleury's history.</p>

<p>It would not be less curious to pass in review
the regulations made by the Church to check
all kinds of abuses. The collections of councils
would furnish us with so many materials thereupon,
that many volumes would not suffice to
make them known; or rather, these collections
themselves, with alarming bulk, from one end
to the other, are nothing but an evident proof
of these two truths: 1st, that there have been
at all times many abuses to be corrected, an
effect, in some measure necessary, of the weakness
and corruption of human nature; 2dly,
that at all periods the Church has labored to
correct these abuses, so that it may be affirmed
without hesitation, that you cannot point out
one without immediately finding a canonical
regulation by its side to check or punish it.
These observations clearly show that Protestantism
was not caused by abuses, but that it
was a great calamity, as it were, rendered
unavoidable by the fickleness of the human
mind, and the condition in which society was
placed. In the same sense Jesus Christ has
said, <em>that it was necessary that there should be
scandal</em>; not that any one in particular is
forced to give it, but because such is the corruption
of the human heart, that the natural
course of things must necessarily bring it.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_423" id="Page_423">[Pg 423]</a></span></p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_6"></a>Note</span> 6, p. 42.</p>

<p>This concert and unity, which are found in
Catholicity, are things which ought to fill every
sensible man with admiration and astonishment,
whatever his religious ideas may be.
If we do not suppose that <em>the finger of God is
here</em>, how can we explain or understand the
continuance of the centre of unity in the see
of Rome? So much has been said of the
supremacy of the Pope, that it is very difficult
to add any thing new; but perhaps our readers
will not be displeased to see a passage of St.
Francis de Sales, where the various remarkable
titles given to the Sovereign Pontiff and to his
see, by the Church in ancient times, are collected.
This work of the holy Bishop is worthy
of being introduced, not only because it interests
the curiosity, but also because it furnishes
matter for grave reflection, which we
leave to the reader.</p>


<p class="centert">TITLES OF THE POPE.</p>


<p class="hang">Most Holy Bishop of the Catholic Church&mdash;Council
of Soissons, of 300 Bishops.</p>

<p class="hang">Most Holy and Blessed Patriarch&mdash;Ibid., t. vii.,
Council.</p>

<p class="hang">Most Blessed Lord&mdash;St. Augustine, Ep. 95.</p>

<p class="hang">Universal Patriarch&mdash;St. Leo, P., Ep. 62.</p>

<p class="hang">Chief of the Church in the World&mdash;Innoc. ad P. P.
Concil. Milevit.</p>

<p class="hang">The Bishop elevated to the Apostolic eminence&mdash;St.
Cyprian, Ep. 3, 12.</p>

<p class="hang">Father of Fathers&mdash;Council of Chalcedon, Sess. iii.</p>

<p class="hang">Sovereign Pontiff of Bishops&mdash;Id., in præf.</p>

<p class="hang">Sovereign Priest&mdash;Council of Chalcedon, Sess. xvi.</p>

<p class="hang">Prince of Priests&mdash;Stephen, Bishop of Carthage.</p>

<p class="hang">Prefect of the House of God and Guardian of the
Lord's Vineyard&mdash;Council of Carthage, Ep. to
Damasus.</p>

<p class="hang">Vicar of Jesus Christ, Confirmer of the Faith of
Christians&mdash;St. Jerome, præf. in Evang. ad Damasum.</p>

<p class="hang">High-Priest&mdash;Valentinian, and all antiquity with
him.</p>

<p class="hang">The Sovereign Pontiff&mdash;Council of Chalcedon, in
Epist. ad Theodos. Imper.</p>

<p class="hang">The Prince of Bishops&mdash;Ibid.</p>

<p class="hang">The Heir of the Apostles&mdash;St. Bern., lib. de Consid.</p>

<p class="hang">Abraham by the Patriarchate&mdash;St. Ambrose, in 1
Tim. iii.</p>

<p class="hang">Melchisedech by ordination&mdash;Council of Chalcedon,
Epist. ad Leonem.</p>

<p class="hang">Moses by authority&mdash;St. Bernard, Epist. 190.</p>

<p class="hang">Samuel by jurisdiction&mdash;Id. ib., et in lib. de Consider.</p>

<p class="hang">Peter by power&mdash;Ibid.</p>

<p class="hang">Christ by unction&mdash;Ibid.</p>

<p class="hang">The Shepherd of the Fold of Jesus Christ&mdash;Id. lib
ii. de Consider.</p>

<p class="hang">Key-Bearer of the House of God&mdash;Id. ibid. c. viii.</p>

<p class="hang">The Shepherd of all Shepherds&mdash;Ibid.</p>

<p class="hang">The Pontiff called to the plentitude of power&mdash;Ibid.</p>

<p class="hang">St. Peter was the Mouth of Jesus Christ&mdash;St. Chrysost.,
Hom. ii., in Div. Serm.</p>

<p class="hang">The Mouth and Head of the Apostleship&mdash;Orig.,
Hom. lv. in Matth.</p>

<p class="hang">The Cathedra and Principal Church&mdash;St. Cypr., Ep.
lv. ad Cornel.</p>

<p class="hang">The Source of Sacerdotal Unity&mdash;Id., Epist. iii. 2.</p>

<p class="hang">The Bond of Unity&mdash;Id. ibid. iv. 2.</p>

<p class="hang">The Church where resides the chief power (<i lang="la">potentior
principalitas</i>)&mdash;Id. ibid. iii. 8.</p>

<p class="hang">The Church the Root and Mother of all the others&mdash;St.
Anaclet. Papa, Epist. ad omnes Episc. et
Fideles.</p>

<p class="hang">The See on which our Lord has built the Universal
Church&mdash;St. Damasus, Epist. ad Univ. Episcop.</p>

<p class="hang">The Cardinal Point and Head of all the Churches&mdash;St.
Marcellinus, R. Epist. ad Episc. Antioch.</p>

<p class="hang">The Refuge of Bishops&mdash;Conc. Alex., Epist. ad
Felic. P.</p>

<p class="hang">The Supreme Apostolic See&mdash;St. Athanasius.</p>

<p class="hang">The Presiding Church&mdash;Emperor Justin., in lib. viii.,
Cod. de Sum. Trinit.</p>

<p class="hang"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_423b" id="Page_423b">[Pg 423b]</a></span></p>

<p class="hang">The Supreme See which cannot be judged by any
other&mdash;St. Leo, in Nat. SS. Apost.</p>

<p class="hang">The Church set over and preferred to all the others&mdash;Victor
d'Utiq., in lib. de Perfect.</p>

<p class="hang">The first of all the Sees&mdash;St. Prosper, in lib. de Ingrat.</p>

<p class="hang">The Apostolic Fountain&mdash;St. Ignatius, Epist. ad
Rom. in Subscript.</p>

<p class="hang">The most secure Citadel of all Catholic Communion&mdash;Council
of Rome under St. Gelasius.</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_7"></a>Note</span> 7, p. 45.</p>

<p>I have said that the most distinguished Protestants
have felt the void which is found in
all sects separated from the Catholic Church.
I am about to give proofs of this assertion,
which perhaps some persons may consider hazardous.
Luther, writing to Zwinglius, said,
"If the world lasts for a long time, it will be
again necessary, on account of the different
interpretations which are now given to the
Scriptures, to receive the decrees of Councils,
and take refuge in them, in order to preserve
the unity of the faith.&mdash;Si diutius steterit
mundus, iterum erit necessarium, propter diversas
Scripturæ interpretationes quæ nunc
sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem, ut conciliorum
decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus."</p>

<p>Melancthon, deploring the fatal results of
the want of spiritual jurisdiction, said, "There
will result from it a liberty useless to the
world;" and in another place he utters these
remarkable words: "There are required in the
Church inspectors, to maintain order, to observe
attentively those who are called to the
ecclesiastical ministry, to watch over the doctrine
of priests, and pronounce ecclesiastical
judgments; so that if bishops did not exist,
it would be necessary to create them. The
<em>monarchy of the Pope would be of great utility
to preserve among such various nations uniformity
of doctrine</em>."</p>

<p>Let us hear Calvin: "God has placed the
seat of his worship in the centre of the earth,
and has placed there only one Pontiff, whom
all may regard, the better to preserve unity.&mdash;Cultus
sui sedem in medio terræ collocavit, illi
<i lang="la">unum</i> Antisticem præfecit, quem omnes respicerent,
quo melius in unitate continerentur."&mdash;(Calvin,
<cite>Inst.</cite> 6, § 11.)</p>

<p>"I have also," says Beza, "been long and
greatly tormented by the same thoughts which
you describe to me. I see our people wander
at the mercy of every wind of doctrine, and
after having been raised up, fall sometimes on
one side, and sometimes on the other. What
they think of religion to-day you may know;
what they will think of it to-morrow you cannot
affirm. <em>On what point of religion are the
Churches which have declared war against the
Pope agreed? Examine all, from beginning to
end, you will hardly find one thing affirmed by
the one which the other does not directly cry out
against as impiety.</em>&mdash;Exercuerunt me diu et
multum illæ ipsæ quas describis cogitationes.
Video nostros palantes omni doctrinæ vento,
et in altum sublatos, modo ad hanc, modo ad
illam partem deferri. Horum, quæ sit hodie
de religione sententia scire fortasse possis; sed
quæ cras de eadem futura sit opinio, neque tu
certo affirmare queas. In quo tandem religionis
capite congruunt inter se Ecclesiæ, quæ
Romano Pontifici bellum indixerunt? A capite
ad calcem si percurras omnia, nihil prope<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_424" id="Page_424">[Pg 424a]</a></span>modum
reperias ab uno affirmari, quod alter
statim non impium esse clamitet." (Th. Bez.
<cite>Epist. ad Andream Dudit</cite>.)</p>

<p>Grotius, one of the most learned of Protestants,
also felt the weakness of the foundation
on which the separated sects repose. Many
people have believed that he died a Catholic.
The Protestants accused him of having the
intention of embracing the Roman faith; and
the Catholics, who had relations with him at
Paris, thought the same thing. It is said that
the celebrated Petau, the friend of Grotius, at
the news of his death, said mass for him; an
anecdote the truth of which I do not guarantee.
It is certain that Grotius, in his work
entitled <cite>De Antichristo</cite>, does not think, with
other Protestants, that the Pope is Antichrist.
It is certain that, in his work entitled <cite>Votum
pro Pace Ecclesiæ</cite>, he says, without circumlocution,
"that without the supremacy of the
Pope, it is impossible to put an end to disputes;"
and he alleges the example of the
Protestants: "as it happens," says he, "among
the Protestants." It is certain that, in his
posthumous work, <cite>Rivetiani Apologetici Discussio</cite>,
he openly lays down the fundamental
principle of Catholicity, namely, that "the
dogmas of faith should be decided by tradition
and the authority of the Church, and not by
the holy Scriptures only."</p>

<p>The conversion of the celebrated Protestant
Papin, which made so much noise, is another
proof of what we are endeavoring to show.
Papin reflected on the fundamental principle
of Protestantism, and on the contradiction
which exists between this principle and the
intolerance of Protestants, who, relying only
on private judgment, yet have recourse to
authority for self-preservation. He reasoned
as follows: "If the principle of authority,
which they attempt to adopt, is innocent and
legitimate, it condemns their origin, wherein
they refused to submit to the authority of the
Catholic Church; but if the principle of private
judgment, which they embraced in the
beginning, was right and just, this is enough
to condemn the principle of authority invented
by them for the purpose of avoiding its excesses;
for this principle opens and smooths
the way to the greatest disorders of impiety."</p>

<p>Puffendorf, who will certainly not be accused
of coldness when attacking Catholicity, could
not help paying his tribute also to the truth,
when, in a confession for which all Catholics
ought to thank him, he says, "The suppression
of the authority of the Pope has sowed
endless germs of discord in the world: as
there is no longer any sovereign authority to
terminate the disputes which arise on all sides,
we have seen the Protestants split among themselves,
and tear their bowels with their own
hands." (Puffendorf, <cite>de Monarch. Pont. Roman</cite>.)</p>

<p>Leibnitz, that great man, who, according to
the expression of Fontenelle, advanced all
sciences, also acknowledged the weakness of
Protestantism, and the organizing power which
belongs to the Catholic Church. We know
that, far from participating in the anger of
Protestants against the Pope, he regarded the
religious supremacy of Rome with the most
lively sympathy. He openly avows the superiority
of the Catholic over the Protestant mis<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_424b" id="Page_424b">[Pg 424b]</a></span>sions;
the religious communities themselves,
the objects of so much aversion to so many
people, were to him highly respectable. These
anticipations with respect to the religious ideas
of this great man have been more and more
confirmed by one of his posthumous works,
published for the first time at Paris in 1819.
<cite>The Exposition of the Doctrine of Leibnitz on
Religion, followed by Thoughts extracted from
the writings of the same Author, by M. Emery,
formerly General Superior of St. Sulpice</cite>, contains
the posthumous work of Leibnitz, whereof
the title, in the original manuscript, is,
<cite>Theological System</cite>. The commencement of
this work, remarkable for its seriousness and
simplicity, is certainly worthy of the great
soul of this distinguished thinker. It is this:
"After having long and profoundly studied
religious controversies, after having implored
the divine assistance, and laid aside, as far as
it is possible for man, all spirit of party, I
have considered myself as a neophyte come
from the new world, and one who had not yet
embraced an opinion; behold, therefore, the
conclusions at which I have arrived, and what
appeared to me, out of all that I have examined,
worthy to be received by all unprejudiced
men, as what is most conformable to the holy
Scriptures and respectable antiquity; I will
even say, to right reason and the most certain
historical facts."</p>

<p>Leibnitz afterwards lays down the existence
of God, the Incarnation, the Trinity, and the
other dogmas of Christianity; he adopts with
candor, and defends with much learning, the
doctrine of the Catholic Church on tradition,
the sacraments, the sacrifice of the Mass, the
respect paid to relics and holy images, the
Church hierarchy, and the supremacy of the
Pope. He adds, "In all cases which do not
admit the delay of the convocation of a general
Council, or which do not deserve to be
considered therein, it must be admitted that
the first of the Bishops, or the Sovereign
Pontiff, has the same power as the whole
Church."</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_8"></a>Note</span> 8, p. 49.</p>

<p>Some persons may suppose that what we
have said with respect to the emptiness of
human knowledge and the weakness of our
intellect, has been said only for the purpose of
making the necessity of a rule in matters of
faith more sensibly felt. It is not so. It
would be easy for me to insert here a long list
of texts, drawn from the writings of the most
illustrious men of ancient and modern times,
who have insisted upon this very point. I will
only quote here an excellent passage from an
illustrious Spaniard, one of the greatest men
of the sixteenth century, Louis Vives. "<i lang="la">Jam
mens ipsa, suprema animi et celsissima pars,
videbit quantopere sit tum natura sua tarda ac
præpedita, tum tenebris peccati cæca, et a doctrina,
usu, ac solertia imperita et rudis, ut ne
ea quidem quæ videt, quæque manibus contrectat,
cujusmodi sint, aut quid fiant assequatur, nedum
ut in abdito illa naturæ, arcana possit penetrare;
sapienterque ab Aristotele illa est posita sententia:
Mentem nostram ad manifestissima naturæ
non aliter habere se, quam noctuæ oculum ad
lumen solis.</i> Ea omnia, quæ universum homi<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_425" id="Page_425">[Pg 425a]</a></span>num
genus novit, quota sunt pars eorum quæ
ignoramus? Nec solum id in universitate artium
est verum, sed in singulis earum, in
quarum nulla tantum est humanum ingenium
progressum, ut ad medium pervenerit, etiam in
infimis illis ac villissimis; ut nihil existimetur
verius esse dictum ab Academicis quam Scire
nihil." (Ludovic. Vives, <cite>de Concordia et Discordia</cite>,
lib. iv. c. iii.) So thought this great
man, who, to vast erudition in sacred and profane
things, added profound meditation on the
human intellect itself; who followed the progress
of the sciences with an observant eye,
and undertook to regenerate them, as his writings
prove. I regret that I cannot copy his
words at length, as well those in the passage
which I have just cited, as those of his immortal
work on the causes of the decline of
the arts and sciences, and on the manner of
teaching them. If any one complain that I
have told some truths as to the weakness of
our minds, and fear lest this should impede the
progress of knowledge by checking its flights,
I will remind him that the best way of promoting
the progress of our minds is, to give them
a knowledge of themselves. On this point,
the profound sentence of Seneca may be quoted:
"I know that many persons would have
attained to wisdom, if they had not presumed
that they already possessed it." "Puto multos
ad sapientiam protuisse pervenire, nisi se jam
crederent pervenisse."</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_9"></a>Note</span> 9, p. 53.</p>

<p>Dense clouds surround the intellect as soon
as it approaches the first principles of the
sciences. I have said that even the mathematics,
the clearness and certainty of which
have become proverbial, are not exempted from
this universal rule. The infinitesimal calculation,
which, in the present state of science,
may be said to play the leading part, nevertheless
depends on a few ideas which, up to
this time, have not been well explained by any
one&mdash;ideas with respect to <em>limits</em>. I do not
wish to throw any doubt on the certainty of
this calculation: I only wish to show, that, if
it were attempted to examine the ideas which
are as it were the elements of it, before the
tribunal of metaphysical philosophy, the consequence
would be, that shades would be cast
upon their certainty. Without going further
than the elementary part of science, we might
discover some points which would not bear a
continued metaphysical and ideological analysis
without injury: a thing which it would be
very easy to prove by example, if the nature
of this work allowed it. We may recommend
to the reader on this subject, the valuable
letter addressed by the Spanish Jesuit, Eximeno,
a distinguished philosopher and mathematician,
to his friend, Juan Andres; he will
there find some appropriate observations made
by a man who certainly will not be rejected on
the ground of incompetency. It is in Latin,
and is called <cite>Epistola ad clarissimum virum
Joannem Andresium</cite>.</p>

<p>As to the other sciences, it is not necessary
to say much to prove that their first principles
are surrounded with darkness; and it may be
said that the brilliant reveries of the most
illustrious men have had no other source than
this very obscurity. Led away by the feeling<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_425b" id="Page_425b">[Pg 425b]</a></span>
of their own strength, these men pursued truth
even to the abyss; there, to use the expression
of an illustrious contemporary poet, <em>the torch
was extinguished in their hands</em>; lost in an
obscure labyrinth, they were then abandoned
to the mercy of their fancies and inspirations;
it was thus that reality gave place to the beautiful
dreams of their genius.</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_10"></a>Note</span> 10, p. 54.</p>

<p>Nothing is better for understanding and explaining
the innate weakness of the human
mind, than to survey the history of heresies;
a history which we owe to the Church, to the
extreme care which she has taken to define and
classify errors. From Simon Magus, who called
himself the legislator of the Jews, the renovator
of the world, and the paraclete, while
paying a worship of latria to his mistress
Helena, under the name of Minerva, down to
Hermann, preaching the massacre of all the
priests and all the magistrates of the world,
and affirming that he was the real son of God;
a vast picture, very unpleasant to behold, I
acknowledge, if it were only on account of the
extravagances with which it abounds, presents
itself to the observer, and suggests to him
very grave and profound reflections on the
real character of the human mind; there it is
easy to see the wisdom of Catholicity, in attempting,
in certain cases, to subject this inconstant
spirit to rule.</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_11"></a>Note</span> 11, p. 57.</p>

<p>If any persons find difficulty in persuading
themselves that illusion and fanaticism are, as
it were, in their proper element among Protestants,
behold the irresistible testimony of
facts in aid of our assertion. This subject
would furnish large volumes; but I must be
content with a rapid glance. I begin with
Luther. Is it possible to carry raving further
than to pretend to have been taught by the
devil, to boast of it, and to found new doctrines
on so powerful an authority? Yet this
was the raving of Luther himself, the founder
of Protestantism, who has left us in his works
the evidence of his interview with Satan.&mdash;Whether
the apparition was real, or produced
by the dreams of a night agitated by fever, it
is impossible to carry fanaticism further than
to boast of having had such a master. Luther
tells us himself that he had many colloquies
with the devil; but what is above all worthy
of attention is, the vision in which, as he
relates in the most serious manner, Satan, by
his arguments, compelled him to proscribe
private masses. He gives us a lively description
of this adventure. He wakes in the middle
of the night; Satan appears to him.&mdash;Luther
is seized with horror; he sweats, he
trembles; his heart beats in a fearful manner.
Nevertheless the discussion begins, and the
devil, like a good disputant, presses him so
hard with his arguments, that he leaves him
without reply. Luther is conquered; which
ought not to astonish us, since he tells us that
the logic of the devil was accompanied by a
voice so alarming, that the blood froze in his
veins. "I then understood," says this wretched
being, "how it often happens that people
die <em>at the break of day</em>; it is because the devil<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_426" id="Page_426">[Pg 426a]</a></span>
is able to kill or suffocate men; and without
going so far as that, when he disputes with
them, he places them in such embarrassment,
that he can thus occasion their death. I have
often experienced this myself." This passage
is certainly curious.</p>

<p>The phantom which appeared to Zwinglius,
the founder of Protestantism in Switzerland,
affords us another example of extravagance no
less absurd. This heresiarch wished to deny
the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist;
he pretended that what exists under
the consecrated species is only a sign. As the
authority of the sacred text, which clearly expresses
the contrary, embarrassed him, behold,
suddenly, at the moment when he imagined
that he was disputing with the secretary of the
town, a white or black phantom, so he tells us
himself, appeared to him, and showed him a
means. This pleasant anecdote we have from
Zwinglius himself.</p>

<p>Who does not regret to see such a man as
Melancthon also given up to the prejudices and
manias of the most ridiculous superstition,
stupidly credulous with respect to dreams, extraordinary
phenomena, and astrological prognostics?
Read his letters, which are filled
with such pitiful things. At the time when
the diet of Augsburg was held, Melancthon
regarded as favourable presages for the new
gospel an inundation of the Tiber, the birth at
Rome of a monstrous mule with a crane's foot,
and that of a calf with two heads in the territory
of Augsburg,&mdash;events which to him were
the undoubted announcements of a change in
the universe, and particularly of the approaching
ruin of Rome by the power of schism. He
himself makes the horoscope of his daughter,
and he trembles for her because Mars presents
an alarming aspect; he is not the less alarmed
at the tail of a comet appearing within the
limits of the north. The astrologers had predicted
that in autumn the stars would be more
favorable to ecclesiastical disputes; this prognostic
sufficed to console him for the slowness
of the conferences of Augsburg on the subject
of religion: we see, moreover, that his friends&mdash;that
is, the leaders of the party&mdash;allowed
themselves to be ruled by the same powerful
reasons. As if he had not troubles enough,
it is predicted that Melancthon will be shipwrecked
in the Baltic; he avoids sailing on
those fatal waters. Certain Franciscans had
prophesied that the power of the Pope was
about to decline, and then to fall for ever; also
that, in the year 1600, the Turks were to become
masters of Italy and Germany; Melancthon
boasts of having the original prophecy in
his possession; moreover, the earthquakes
which occur confirm him in his belief.</p>

<p>The human mind had but just set itself up
as the only judge of faith, when the atrocities
of the most furious fanaticism already inundated
Germany with blood. Mathias Harlem,
the Anabaptist, at the head of a ferocious troop,
orders the churches to be sacked, the sacred
ornaments to be broken in pieces, and all
books, except the Bible, to be burnt, as impious
or useless. Established at Munster, which
he calls Mont Sion, he causes all the gold,
silver, and precious stones possessed by the
inhabitants to be brought to him, and places
them in a common treasury, and names deacons<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_426b" id="Page_426b">[Pg 426b]</a></span>
to distribute them. All his disciples are compelled
to eat in common, to live in perfect
equality, and to prepare for the war which they
would have to undertake, <em>quitting Mount Sion</em>,
as he himself said, <em>to subject all the nations of
the earth to his power</em>. He at length dies in a
rash attempt, wherein, like another Gideon,
he undertook nothing less than to exterminate
the army of the impious with a handful of
men. Mathias immediately found an heir to
his fanaticism in Becold, perhaps better known
under the name of John of Leyden. This
fanatic, a tailor by trade, ran naked through
the streets of Munster, crying out, "<em>Behold, the
king of Sion comes</em>." He returned to his house,
shut himself up there for three days; and
when the people came to inquire for him, he
pretended that he could not speak; like another
Zachary, he made signs that he wanted writing
materials, and wrote that it had been revealed
to him by God, that the people should
be governed by judges, in imitation of the
people of Israel. He named twelve judges,
choosing the men who were the most attached
to himself; and until the authority of the new
magistrates had been acknowledged, he took
the precaution not to allow himself to be seen
by any body. Already was the authority of
the new prophet secured in a certain manner;
but not content with the real command, he
desired to surround himself with pomp and
majesty; he proposed nothing less than to
have himself proclaimed king. Now the blindness
of the sectarian fanatics was so great,
that it was not difficult for him to complete his
mad enterprise; it was enough for him to play
off a gross farce. A goldsmith who had an
understanding with the aspirant to royalty,
and was also initiated in the art of prophecy,
presented himself before the judges of Israel,
and spoke to them thus: "Behold, this is the
will of the Lord God, the Eternal: as in other
times I established Saul over Israel, and after
him David, who was only a simple shepherd,
so I now establish my prophet Becold king of
Sion." The judges would not resolve on abdication;
but Becold assured them that he also
had had the same vision, that he had concealed
it from humility, but that God having spoken
by another prophet, it was necessary for him
to resign himself to mount the throne, and
<em>accomplish the orders of the Most High</em>. The
judges persisted in wishing to call the people
together; they assembled in the market-place;
there a <em>prophet</em>, on the part of God, presented
to Becold a drawn sword, as a sign of the
<em>power of justice, which was conferred on him
over all the earth, to extend to the four quarters
of the world the empire of Sion</em>; he was proclaimed
king with the most boisterous joy, and
solemnly crowned on the 24th of June, 1534.
As he had espoused the wife of his predecessor,
he raised her to the royal dignity; but
while reserving to her the exclusive privilege
of being queen, he continued to have seventeen
wives, in conformity with the <em>holy</em> liberty
which he had proclaimed in this matter. The
orgies, assassinations, atrocities, and ravings
of all kinds which followed cannot be related;
it may be affirmed that the sixteen months of
the reign of this madman were only a series
of crimes. The Catholics cried out against
such horrible excesses. The Protestants cried<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_427" id="Page_427">[Pg 427a]</a></span>
out also; but who was to blame? Was it not
they who, after having proclaimed resistance
to the authority of the Church, had thrown
the Bible into the midst of these wretched
men, at the risk of their heads being turned
by the ravings of individual interpretation,
and of precipitating them into projects as
criminal as they were senseless? The Anabaptists
were well aware of this; and they
were exceedingly indignant with Luther, who
condemned them in his writings; and indeed,
what right had he, who had established the
principle, to desire to check its consequences?
If Luther found in the Bible that the Pope
was Antichrist, if he arrogated to himself, of
his own authority, the mission of destroying
the reign of the Pope, by exhorting all the
world to conspire against him, why could not
the Anabaptists say, in their turn, <em>that they had
intercourse with God, and had received the order
to exterminate all the wicked, and to establish
a new kingdom, in which were to be seen only
wise, pious, and innocent men, having become
the masters of all things</em>.</p>

<p>Hermann preaching the massacre of all the
priests and all the magistrates of the world;
David George proclaiming that his doctrine
alone was perfect, that that of the <em>Old and New
Testaments was imperfect, and that he was the
true Son of God</em>; Nicholas rejecting faith and
worship as useless, treading under foot the
fundamental precepts of morality, and teaching
<em>that it was good to continue in sin, that grace
might abound</em>; Hacket pretending that the
spirit of the Messiah had descended upon him,
and sending two of his disciples to cry out in
the streets of London, "<em>Behold Christ coming
here with a vase in his hand!</em>" Hacket himself
crying out, at the sight of the gibbet, and
in the agony of punishment, "Jehovah! Jehovah!
do you not see that the heavens open,
and that Jesus Christ comes to deliver me?"
are not all these deplorable spectacles, and a
hundred others that I might mention, proofs
sufficiently evident that the Protestant system
nourishes and inflames a fearful fanaticism?
Venner, Fox, William Simpson, J. Naylor,
Count Zinzendorf, Wesley, Baron Swedenborg,
and other similar names, are sufficient to remind
us of an assemblage of sects so extravagant,
and a series of crimes such as would fill
volumes, which would afford us the most ridiculous
and the most odious pictures, the greatest
miseries and the most deplorable errors of the
human mind. I have not invented or exaggerated.
Open history, consult authors&mdash;I do
not mean Catholics, but Protestants, or whatever
they may be&mdash;and you will every where
find a multitude of witnesses who depose to
the truth of these facts; notorious facts, which
have taken place in the light of day, in great
capitals, and in times bordering on our own;
and let it not be supposed that this abundant
source of illusion and fanaticism has been
exhausted in the course of ages; it does not
seem that it is yet near being dried up, and
Europe appears condemned to hear the recital
of visions, such as those of Baron Swedenborg
in the inn in London; and we shall still see
passports for heaven with three seals given out,
like those of Johanna Southcote.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_427b" id="Page_427b">[Pg 427b]</a></span></p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_12"></a>Note</span> 12, p. 60.</p>

<p>Nothing is more palpable than the difference
which exists on this point between Protestants
and Catholics. On both sides there are persons
who consider themselves to be favored with
heavenly visions; but these visions render
Protestants proud, turbulent, and raving mad,
while among Catholics they increase the spirit
of humility, peace, and love. Even in that very
sixteenth century, in which the fanaticism of
the Protestants agitated and stained Europe
with blood, there lived in Spain a woman who,
in the judgment of unbelievers and Protestants,
is certainly one of those who have been
the most deeply infected with illusion and
fanaticism; but has the supposed fanaticism of
this woman ever caused the spilling of a drop
of blood, or the shedding of a tear? Were
her visions, like those of Protestants, orders
from heaven for the extermination of men?
After the desolate and horrible picture which
I have given in the preceding note, perhaps
the reader will be glad to let his eyes rest
upon a spectacle as peaceful as it is beautiful.
It is St. Theresa writing her own life out of
pure obedience, and relating to us her visions
with angelic candor and ineffable sweetness.
"The Lord (she says) willed that I should once
have this vision: I saw near to me, on the left
hand, an angel in a corporeal form; this is
what I do not usually see, except by a prodigy;
although angels often present themselves to
me without my seeing them, as I have said in
the preceding vision. In this the Lord willed
that I should see him in the following manner:
he was not tall, but small and very beautiful,
his face all in a flame, and he seemed to be one
of the angels very high in the hierarchy, who
apparently are all on fire. Without doubt, he
was one of those who are called seraphim.&mdash;These
angels do not tell me their names; but
I clearly see that there is so great a difference
among the angels, between some and others,
that I do not know how to express it. I saw
in his hands a long dart of gold, which appeared
to me to have some fire at the end of
the point. It seemed to me that the angel
buried this dart from time to time in my heart,
and made it penetrate to my bowels, and that
when withdrawing it, he carried them away,
leaving me all inflamed with a great love of
God." (<cite>Vie de St. Thérèse</cite>, c. xxix. no. 11.)
Another example: "At this moment I see on
my head a dove very different from those of
earth; for this one had no feathers, but wings
as it were of the shell of mother of pearl,
which shone brightly. It was larger than a
dove; it seemed to me that I heard the noise
of its wings. It moved them almost for the
time of an Ave Maria. The soul was already
in such a condition that, herself swooning
away, she also lost sight of this divine dove.
The mind grew tranquil with the presence of
such a guest, although it seemed to me that so
wonderful a favor ought to fill it with perturbation
and alarm; but as the soul began to
enjoy it, fear departed, repose came with enjoyment,
and the mind remained in ecstacy."
(<cite>Vie</cite>, c. xxviii. no. 7.) It would be difficult
to find any thing more beautiful, expressed in
more lively colors, and with a more amiable
simplicity. It will not be out of place to copy<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_428" id="Page_428">[Pg 428a]</a></span>
here two other passages of a different kind,
which, while they enforce what we wish to
show, may contribute to awaken the taste of
our nation for a certain class of Spanish
writers, who are every day falling into oblivion
with us, while foreigners seek for them
with eagerness, and publish handsome editions
of them. "I was once at office with all the
rest; my soul was suddenly fixed in attention,
and it seemed to me to be entirely as a clear
mirror without reverse or side, neither high
nor low, but shining every where. In the
midst of it, Christ our Saviour presented himself
to me, as I am accustomed to see Him.
He appeared to me to be at once in all parts
of my soul. I saw Him as in a clear mirror,
and this mirror also (I cannot say how) was
entirely imprinted on our Lord himself, by a
communication which I cannot describe&mdash;a
communication full of love. I know that this
vision has been of great advantage to me every
time that I recollect it, principally when I
have just received communion. I was given
to understand that when a soul is in a state of
mortal sin, this mirror is covered with great
darkness, and is extremely obscure, so that our
Lord cannot appear or be seen therein, although
He is always present as giving being; as to
heretics, it is as if the mirror were broken,
which is much worse than if it were obscured.
There is a great difference between seeing this
and telling it; it is difficult to make such a
thing understood. I repeat, that this has been
very profitable to me, and also very afflicting,
on account of the view of the various offences
by which I have obscured my soul, and have
been deprived of seeing my Lord." (<cite>Vie</cite>, c.
xi. no. 4.)</p>

<p>In another place she explains a manner of
seeing things in God; she represents the idea
by an image so brilliant and sublime, that we
appear to be reading Malebranche, when developing
his famous system.</p>

<p>"We say that the Divinity is like a bright
diamond, infinitely larger than the world; or
rather like a mirror, as I have said of the soul
in another vision; except that here it is in a
manner so sublime, that I know not how to
exalt it sufficiently. All that we do is seen in
this diamond, which contains all in itself; for
there is nothing which is not comprised in so
great a magnitude. It was alarming to me to
see in so short a time so many things assembled
in this bright diamond; and I am profoundly
afflicted every time that I think that things so
shocking as my sins appeared to me in this
most pure brightness." (<cite>Vie</cite>, c. xl. no. 7.)</p>

<p>Let us now suppose, with Protestants, that
all these visions were only pure illusions: at
least it is evident that they do not pervert ideas,
corrupt morals, or disturb public order; and
assuredly, had they served only to inspire these
beautiful pages, we should not know how to
regret the illusion. This is a confirmation of
what I have said of the salutary effects which
the Catholic principle produces in souls, by
preventing them from being blinded by pride,
or throwing themselves into dangerous courses.
This principle confines them to a sphere where
it is impossible for them to injure any one; but
it does not deprive them of any of their force
or energy to do good, supposing that the inspiration
is real. Although it would have been<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_428b" id="Page_428b">[Pg 428b]</a></span>
easy for me to cite a thousand examples, I was
compelled, for the sake of brevity, to confine
myself to one, when selecting St. Theresa as
one of those who are the most distinguished in
this respect, and because she was contemporary
with the great aberrations of Protestantism. In
fine, as she was a daughter of Spain, I seized
the opportunity of recalling her to the memories
of Spaniards, who begin too much to forget
her.</p>

<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_13"></a>Note</span> 13, p. 64.</p>

<p>Some of the leaders of the Reformation have
left suspicions that they taught with insincerity,
that they did not themselves believe what they
preached, and that they had no other object
than to deceive their proselytes. As I am unwilling
to have it imputed to me that I have
made this accusation rashly, I will adduce
some proofs in support of my assertion. Let
us hear Luther himself. "Often," he says,
"do I think within myself that I scarcely
know where I am, and whether I teach the
truth or not (Sæpe sic mecum cogito, propemodum
nescio, quo loco sim, et utrum veritatem
doceam, necne)." (Luther, <cite>Col. Isleb. de
Christo</cite>.) And it is the same man who said:
"It is certain that I have received my dogmas
from heaven. I will not allow you to judge of
my doctrine, neither you nor even the angels
of heaven (Certum est dogmata mea habere
me de cœlo. Non sinam vel vos vel ipsos
angelos de cœlo de mea doctrina judicare)."
(Luther, <cite>contra Reg. Ang.</cite>) John Matthei, the
author of many writings on the life of Luther,
and who is not scanty in eulogies on the
heresiarch, has preserved a very curious anecdote
touching the convictions of Luther. It
is this: "A preacher called John Musa related
to me that he one day complained to
Luther that he could not prevail on himself to
believe what he taught to others: '<em>Blessed be
God</em> (said Luther) <em>that the same thing happens
to others as to myself: I believed till now that
<span class="smcap">THAT</span> was a thing which happened only to me</em>.'"
(Johann. Matthesius, <cite>conc.</cite> 12.)</p>

<p>The doctrines of infidelity were not long delayed;
but would it be believed that they are
found expressed in various parts of Luther's
own works? "It is likely," says he, speaking
of the dead, "that, except a few, they all sleep
deprived of feeling." "I think that the dead
are buried in so ineffable and wonderful a sleep,
that they feel or see less than those who sleep
an ordinary sleep." "The souls of the dead
enter neither into purgatory nor into hell."
"The human soul sleeps; all its senses buried."
"There is no suffering in the abode of the
dead." ("Verisimile est, exceptis paucis, omnes
dormire insensibiles." "Ego puto mortuos
sic ineffabili et miro somno sopitos, ut minus
sentiant aut videant, quam hi qui alias dormiunt."
"Animæ mortuorum non ingrediuntur
in purgatorium nec infernum." "Anima humana
dormit, omnibus sensibus sepultis."
"Mortuorum locus cruciatus nullos habet.")
(Tom. ii. <cite>Epist. Lat. Isleb.</cite> fol. 44; t. vi. <cite>Lat.
Wittenberg</cite>, in cap. ii., cap. xxiii., c. xxv., c.
xlii. et xlix. <cite>Genes.</cite> et t. iv. <cite>Lat. Wittenberg</cite>,
fol. 109.) Persons were not wanting ready
to receive such doctrines; and this teaching
caused such ravages, that the Lutheran Brent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_429" id="Page_429">[Pg 429a]</a></span>zen,
disciple and successor of Luther, hesitates
not to say: "<em>Although no one among us publicly
professes that the soul perishes with the body,
and that there is no resurrection of the dead,
nevertheless the impure and wholly profane lives
which they for the most part lead, show very
clearly that they do not believe that there is
another life. Some even allow words of this
kind to escape them, not only in the intoxication
of libations, but even when fasting, in their familiar
intercourse.</em> (Et si inter nos nulla sit
publica professio quod anima simul cum corpore
intereat, et quod non sit mortuorum
resurrectio, tamen impurissima et profanissima
illa vita, quam maxima pars hominum sectatur,
perspicue indicat quod non sentiat vitam post
hanc. Nonnullis etiam tales voces, tam ebriis
inter pocula, quam sobriis in familiaribus colloquiis.)"
(Brentius, <cite>Hom.</cite> 35, in cap. 20, Luc.)
There were in this same sixteenth century
some men who cared not to give their names
to this or that sect, but who professed infidelity
and scepticism without disguise. We know
that the famous Gruet paid with his head for
his boldness in this way; and it was not the
Catholics who cut it off, but the Calvinists,
who were offended that this unhappy man had
taken the liberty to paint the character and
conduct of Calvin in their true colors. Gruet
had also committed the crime of posting up
placards at Geneva, in which he charged the
pretended reformers with inconsistency, on
account of the tyranny which they attempted
to exercise over consciences, after having
shaken off the yoke of authority on their own
account. This took place soon after the birth of
Protestantism, as the sentence on Gruet was
executed in 1549.</p>

<p>Montaigne, who has been pointed out as one
of the first sceptics who acquired reputation in
Europe, carries the thing so far, that he does
not even admit the natural law. "<em>They are
not serious</em> (he says) <em>when, to give some certainty
to laws, they say that there are any laws fixed,
perpetual, and immutable, which they call natural,
which are impressed on the human race by
the condition of their peculiar essence</em>." (Montaigne,
<cite>Ess.</cite> l. ii. c. 12.)</p>

<p>We have already seen what Luther thought
of death, or at least the expression which
escaped him on this subject; and we cannot
be astonished after that, that Montaigne wished
to die like a real unbeliever, and that he says,
speaking of the terrible passage: "<em>I plunge
my head, insensibly sunk in death, without considering
or observing it, as in a silent and obscure
depth, which swallows me up at once,
stifles me in a moment with powerful sleep full
of insipidity and indolence.</em>" (Montaigne, l.
iii. c. 9.) But this man, who wished that death
should find him planting his cabbages, and
without thinking of it (<i lang="fr">Je veux que la mort me
trouve plantant mes choux, mais sans me soucier
d'elle</i>), was not of the same opinion in his last
moments. When he was near breathing his
last, he wished that the holy sacrifice of the
Mass should be celebrated in his apartment,
and he expired while making an effort to raise
himself on his bed, in the act of adoring the
sacred Host. We see that he had profited in
his heart by some of his ideas with respect to
the Christian religion. "It is pride," he had
said, "that leads man out of the common path,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_429b" id="Page_429b">[Pg 429b]</a></span>
and urges him to embrace novelties, loving
rather to be the chief of a wandering and undisciplined
band, than to be a disciple of the
school of truth." In another place, at once
condemning all the dissenting sects, he had
said, "In religious matters it is necessary to
adhere to those who are the established judges
of doctrine, and who have legitimate authority,
not to the most learned and the cleverest."</p>

<p>From all that I have just said, it is clear
that if I accuse Protestantism of having been
one of the principal causes of infidelity in
Europe, I do not accuse it without reason.
I repeat here, that it is by no means my intention
to overlook the efforts of some Protestants
to oppose infidelity; I do not assail <em>persons</em>,
but <em>things</em>, and I honor merit wherever I find
it. In fine, I will add, that if at the end of
the seventeenth century a considerable number
of Protestants displayed a tendency towards
Catholicity, we must seek the reason for it in
the progress which they saw infidelity making,&mdash;a
progress which it was impossible to check,
at least without holding fast to the anchor of
authority which the Catholic Church offered to
the whole world. I cannot, without exceeding
the limits which I have marked out for myself,
give a circumstantial detail of the correspondence
between Molanus and the Bishop of
Tyna, of Leibnitz and Bossuet. Readers who
desire to become thoroughly acquainted with
that affair, may examine it partly in the works
of Bossuet himself, and partly in the interesting
work of M. de Beausset, prefixed to some
editions of Bossuet.</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_14"></a>Note</span> 14, p. 86.</p>

<p>In order to form an idea of the state of
knowledge at the time of the appearance of
Christianity, and become convinced that there
was nothing to be expected from the human
mind abandoned to its own strength, it is
enough to recall to mind the monstrous sects
which every where abounded in the first ages
of the Church, the doctrines whereof formed
the most shapeless, extravagant, and immoral
compound that it is possible to conceive. The
names of Cerinthus, Menander, Ebion, Saturninus,
Basilides, Nicolas, Carpocrates, Valentinus,
Marcion, Montanus, and so many others,
remind us of the sects in which delirium was
connected with immorality. When we throw
a glance over these philosophico-religious sects,
we see that they were capable neither of conceiving
a philosophical system with any degree
of concert, nor of imagining a collection of
doctrines and practices to which the name of
religion can be applied. These men overturned,
mixed, and confounded all; Judaism, Christianity,
and the recollections of the ancient
schools, were all amalgamated in their deluded
heads; what they never forgot was, to give a
loose rein to all kinds of corruption and obscenity.</p>

<p>In the spectacle of these ages, a wide field
is opened to the conjectures of true philosophy.
What would have become of human knowledge,
if Christianity had not come to enlighten
the world with her celestial doctrines; if that
divine religion, confounding the foolish pride
of man, had not come to show him how vain
and senseless were his thoughts, and how far<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_430" id="Page_430">[Pg 430a]</a></span>
he was removed from the path of truth? It
is remarkable that these same men, whose
aberrations make us shudder, gave themselves
the name of Gnostics, on account of the
superior knowledge with which they supposed
themselves to be endowed. We see that man
is at all times the same.</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_15"></a>Note</span> 15, p. 115.</p>

<p>I have thought that it would not be useless
to transcribe here, word for word, the canons
which I have mentioned in the text. My
readers may thereby acquire for themselves a
complete knowledge of what is found there;
and there will be no room left to suppose that
the real sense of the regulations has been
perverted in the extracts which I have given.</p>


<p class="center">CANONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS,</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>Which show the solicitude of the Church to
improve the lot of slaves, and the various
means she has used to accomplish the abolition
of slavery:</i></p>


<p class="center"><a id="SI"></a>§ I.</p>

<p class="hangt"><i>A penance is imposed on the mistress who
maltreats her slave</i> (<i>ancillam</i>).</p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Eliberitanum, anno 305.)</p>

<p>"Si qua domina furore zeli accensa flagris
verberaverit ancillam suam, ita ut in tertium
diem animam cum cruciatu effundat; eo quod
incertum sit, voluntate an casu occiderit; si
voluntate, post septem annos, si casu, post
quinquennii tempora, acta legitima pœnitentia,
ad communionem placuit admitti. Quod si
infra tempora constituta fuerit infirmata, accipiat
communionem." (Canon 5.)</p>

<p>It must be observed, that the word 'ancillam'
means a slave properly so called, and
not any kind of servant. This appears, indeed,
from the words <i lang="la">flagris verberaverit</i>, which express
a chastisement reserved for slaves.</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>They excommunicate the master who, of his own
authority, beats his slave to death.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Epaoense, anno 517.)</p>

<p>"Si quis servum proprium sine conscientia
judicis occiderit, excommunicatione biennii
effusionem sanguinis expiabit." (Canon 34.)</p>

<p>This same regulation is repeated in the 15th
canon of the 17th Council of Toledo, held in
694; even the words of the Council of Epaon
are there copied with very slight change.</p>




<p class="hangt">(Ibid.) <i>The slave guilty of an atrocious crime
was to escape corporeal punishments by taking
refuge in a church.</i></p>

<p>"Servus reatu atrociore culpabilis si ad ecclesiam
confugerit, a corporabilibus tantum
suppliciis excusetur. De capillis vero, vel
quocumque opere, placuit, a dominis juramenta
non exigi." (Canon 39.)</p>




<p class="hangt"><i>Very remarkable precautions to prevent masters
from maltreating the slaves who had taken
refuge in churches.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Aurelianense quintum, anno 549.)</p>

<p>"De servis vero, qui pro qualibet culpa ad
ecclesiæ septa confugerint, id statuimus observandum,
ut, sicut in antiquis constitutioni<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_430b" id="Page_430b">[Pg 430b]</a></span>bus
tenetur scriptum, pro concessa culpa datis
a domino sacramentis, quisquis ille fuerit, expediatur
de venia jam securus. Enim vero si
immemor fidei dominus trascendisse convincitur
quod juravit, ut is qui veniam acceperat,
probetur postmodum pro ea culpa qualicumque
supplicio cruciatus, dominus ille qui immemor
fuit datæ fidei, sit ab omnium communione
suspensus. Iterum si servus de promissione
veniæ datis sacramentis a domino jam securus
exire noluerit, ne sub tali contumacia requirens
locum fugæ, domino fortasse dispereat, egredi
nolentem a domino eum liceat occupari, ut
nullam, quasi pro retentatione servi, quibuslibet
modis molestiam aut calumniam patiatur
ecclesia: fidem tamen dominus, quam pro concessa
venia dedit, nulla temeritate transcendat.
Quod si aut gentilis dominus fuerit, aut alterius
sectæ, qui a conventu ecclesiæ probatur extraneus,
is qui servum repetit, personas requirat
bonæ fidei Christianas, ut ipsi in persona
domini servo præbeant sacramenta: quia ipsi
possunt servare quod sacrum est, qui pro transgressione
ecclesiasticum metuunt disciplinam."
(Canon 22.)</p>

<p>It is difficult to carry solicitude for the lot
of slaves further. This document is very
curious.</p>



<p class="hangt"><i>They forbid bishops to mutilate their slaves:
they order that the duty of chastising them
should be left to the judge of the town, who,
nevertheless, could not cut off their hair, a
punishment which was considered too ignominious.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Emeritense, anno 666.)</p>

<p>"Si regalis pietas pro salute omnium suarum
legum dignata est ponere decreta, cur religio
sancta per sancti concilii ordinem non habeat
instituta, quæ omnino debent esse cavenda?
Ideoque placuit huic sancto concilio, ut omnis
potestas episcopalis modum suæ ponat iræ;
nec pro quolibet excessu cuilibet ex familia,
ecclesiæ aliquod corporis membrorum sua
ordinatione præsumat extirpare aut auferre.
Quod si talis emerserit culpa, advocato judice
civitatis, ad examen ejus deducatur quod factum
fuisse asseritur. Et quia omnino justum
est, ut pontifex sævissimam non impendat vindictam;
quidquid coram judice verius patuerit,
per disciplinæ severitatem absque turpi decalvatione
maneat emendatum." (Canon 15.)</p>



<p class="hangt"><i>Priests are forbidden to have their slaves
mutilated.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Toletanum undecimum, anno 675.)</p>

<p>"His a quibus domini sacramenta tractanda
sunt, judicium sanguinis agitare non licet: et
ideo magnopere talium excessibus prohibendum
est, ne indiscretæ præsumptionis motibus agitati,
aut quod morte plectendum est, sententia
propria judicare præsumant, aut truncationes
quaslibet membrorum quibuslibet personis aut
per se inferant, aut inferendas præcipiant.
Quod si quisquam horum immemor præceptorum,
aut ecclesiæ suæ familiis, aut in quibuslibet
personis tale quid fecerit, et concessi ordinis
honore privatus, et loco suo, perpetuo damnationis
teneatur religatus ergastulo: cui tamen
communio exeunti ex hac vita non neganda
est, propter domini misericordiam, <i lang="la">qui non vult
peccatoris mortem, sed ut convertatur et vivat</i>."
(Canon 6.)</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_431" id="Page_431">[Pg 431a]</a></span></p>

<p>It should be remarked, that the word <i lang="la">familia</i>,
employed in the two last canons which
we have just cited, should be understood of
slaves. The real meaning of this word is
clearly shown us by the 74th canon of the 4th
Council of Toledo.</p>

<p>"De <em>familiis</em> ecclesiæ constituere presbyteros
et diaconos per parochias liceat ..... ea
tamen ratione ut <em>antea manumissi libertatem
status sui percipiant</em>."</p>

<p>We see this word employed in the same
sense by Pope St. Gregory. (Epist. xliv. l. 4.)</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>A penance is imposed on the master who kills
his slave of his own authority.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Wormatiense, anno 868.)</p>

<p>"Si quis servum proprium sine conscientia
judicum qui tale quid commiserit, quod morte
sit dignum, occiderit, excommunicatione vel
pœnitentia biennii, reatum sanguinis emendabit."
(Canon 38.)</p>

<p>"Si qua femina furore zeli accensa, flagris
verberaverit ancillam suam, ita ut intra tertium
diem animam suam cum cruciatu effundat,
eo quod incertum sit voluntate, an casu occiderit;
si voluntate, septem annos, si casu, per
quinque annorum tempora legitimam peragat
pœnitentiam." (Canon 39.)</p>



<p class="hangt"><i>They check the violence of those who, to revenge
themselves for the asylum granted to slaves,
take possession of the goods of the Church.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Arausicanum primum, anno 441.)</p>

<p>"Si quis autem mancipia clericorum pro
suis mancipiis ad ecclesiam fugientibus crediderit
occupanda, per omnes ecclesias districtissima
damnatione feriatur." (Canon 6.)</p>


<p class="center"><a id="SII"></a>§ II.</p>


<p class="hangt">(Ibid.) <i>They check all attempts made against
the liberty of slaves enfranchised by the
Church, or who have been recommended to her
by will.</i></p>

<p>"In ecclesia manumissos, vel per testamentum
ecclesiæ commendatos, si quis in servitutem,
vel obsequium, vel ad colonariam conditionem
imprimere tentaverit, animadversione ecclesiastica
coerceatur." (Canon 7.)</p>




<p class="hangt"><i>They secure the liberty of those who have received
the benefit of manumission in the
Churches. The latter are enjoined to take
upon themselves the defence of the enfranchised.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium quintum Aurelianense, anno 549.)</p>

<p>"Et quia plurimorum suggestione comperimus,
eos qui in ecclesiis juxta patrioticam
consuetudinem a servitiis fuerunt absoluti, pro
libito quorumcumque iterum ad servitium revocari,
impium esse tractavimus, ut quod in ecclesia
Dei consideratione a vinculo servitutis
absolvitur, irritum habeatur. Ideo pietatis
causa communi concilio placuit observandum,
ut quæcumque mancipia ab ingenuis dominis
servitute laxantur, in ea libertate maneant,
quam tunc a dominis perceperunt. Hujusmodi
quoque libertas si a quocumque pulsata
fuerit, cum justitia ab ecclesiis defendatur,
præter eas culpas, pro quibus leges collatas
servis revocare jusserunt libertates." (Canon
7.)</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_431b" id="Page_431b">[Pg 431b]</a></span></p>



<p class="hangt"><i>The Church is charged with the defence of the
enfranchised, whether they have been emancipated
within her enclosure, whether they have
been so by letter or testament, or have gained
their liberty by prescription. They restrain
the arbitrariness of the judges towards these
unfortunate persons. It is decided that the
Bishops shall take cognizance of these causes.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Matisconense secundum, anno 585.)</p>

<p>"Quæ dum postea universo cœtui secundum
consuetudinem recitata innotescerent, Prætextatus
et Pappulus viri beatissimi dixerunt:
Decernat itaque, et de miseris libertis vestræ
auctoritatis vigor insignis, qui ideo plus a judicibus
affliguntur, quia sacris sunt commendati
ecclesiis: ut si quas quispiam dixerit contra
eos actiones habere, non audeat eos magistratus
contradere; sed in episcopi tantum judicio,
in cujus præsentia litem contestans, quæ sunt
justitiæ ac veritatis audiat. Indignum est
enim, ut hi qui in sacrosancta ecclesia jure
noscuntur legitimo manumissi, aut per epistolam,
aut per testamentum, aut per longinquitatem
temporis libertatis jure fruuntur, a quolibet
injustissime inquietentur. Universa sacerdotalis
Congregatio dixit: Justum est, ut
contra calumniatorum omnium versutias defendantur,
qui patrocinium immortalis ecclesiæ
concupiscunt. Et quicumque a nobis de libertis
latum decretum, superbiæ ausu prævaricare
tentaverit, irreparabili damnationis suæ sententia
feriatur. Sed si placuerit episcopo
ordinarium judicem, aut quemlibet alium sæcularem,
in audientiam eorum accersiri, cum
libuerit fiat, et nullus alius audeat causas
pertractare libertorum nisi episcopus cujus
interest, aut is cui idem audiendum tradiderit."
(Canon 7.)</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>The defence of the freed is confided to the priests.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Parisiense quintum, anno 614.)</p>

<p>"Liberti quorumcumque ingenuorum a sacerdotibus
defensentur, nec ad publicum ulterius
revocentur. Quod si quis ausu temerario eos
imprimere voluerit, aut ad publicum revocare,
et admonitus per pontificem ad audientiam
venire neglexerit, aut emendare quod perpetravit
distulerit, communione privetur." (Canon
5.)</p>



<p class="hangt"><i>The enfranchised recommended to the Churches
shall be protected by the Bishops.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Toletanum tertium, anno 589.)</p>

<p>"De libertis autem id Dei præcipiunt sacerdotes,
ut si qui ab episcopis facti sunt secundum
modum quo canones antiqui dant licentiam, sint
liberi; et tantum a patrocinio ecclesiæ tam ipsi
quam ab eis progeniti non recedant. Ab aliis
quoque libertati traditi, et ecclesiis commendati,
patrocinio episcopali tegantur, a principe
hoc episcopus postulet." (Canon 6.)</p>




<p class="hangt"><i>The Church undertakes to defend the liberty
and the property acquired by industry of the
enfranchised who have been recommended to
her.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Toletanum quartum, anno 633.)</p>

<p>"Liberti qui a quibuscumque manumissi sunt,
atque ecclesiæ patrocinio commendati existunt,
sicut regulæ antiquorum patrum constituerunt,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_432" id="Page_432">[Pg 432a]</a></span>
sacerdotali defensione a cujuslibet insolentia
protegantur; sive in statu libertatis eorum, seu
in peculio quod habere noscuntur." (Cap. 72.)</p>



<p class="hangt"><i>The Church will defend the enfranchised: a regulation
which does not distinguish whether
they have been recommended to her or not.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Agathense, anno 506.)</p>

<p>"Libertos legitime a dominis suis factos ecclesia,
si necessitas exegerit, tueatur; quod si
quis ante audientiam, aut pervadere, aut expoliare
præsumpserit, ab ecclesia repellatur."
(Canon 29.)</p>


<p class="center"><a id="SIII"></a>§ III.</p>

<p class="hangt"><i>The Church shall regard the ransom of captives
as her first care; she shall give their interests
the preference over her own, however bad may
be the state of her affairs.</i></p>

<p>"Sicut omnino grave est, frustra ecclesiastica
ministeria venundare, sic iterum culpa est, imminente
hujusmodi necessitate, res maxime desolatæ
Ecclesiæ captivis suis præponere, et in
eorum redemptione cessare." (Caus. xii. q. 2,
canon 16.)</p>



<p class="hangt"><i>Remarkable words of St. Ambrose touching the
ransom of captives. To perform this pious
duty, the holy Bishop breaks up and sells the
sacred vessels.</i></p>

<p class="center">(S. Ambrosius de Off. lib. ii. cap. 15.)</p>

<p>(§ 70.) "Summa etiam liberalitas captos redimere,
eripere ex hostium manibus, subtrahere
neci homines, et maxime feminas turpidini, reddere
parentibus liberos, parentes liberis, cives
patriæ, restituere. Nota sunt hæc nimis Illyriæ
vastitate et Thraciæ: quanti ubique
venales erant captivi orbe....</p>

<p>Ibid. (§ 71.) "Præcipua est igitur liberalitas,
redimere captivos et maxime ab hoste barbaro,
qui nihil deferat humanitatis ad misericordiam,
nisi quod avaritia reservaverit ad redemptionem."</p>

<p>Ib. l. ii. c. 2 (§ 13.) "<em>Ut nos aliquando in
invidiam incidimus, quod confregerimus vasa
mystica, ut captivos redimeremus</em>, quod Arianis
displicere potuerat, nec tam factum displiceret,
quam ut esset quod in nobis reprehenderetur."</p>

<p>These noble and charitable sentiments were
not those of St. Ambrose only; his words are
but the expression of the feelings of the whole
Church. Without referring to numberless proofs
which I might adduce here, and before I pass
to the canons which I mean to insert, I will
copy some passages from a touching letter of
St. Cyprian, which contains the motives which
animated the Church in her pious enterprise,
and gives a lively description of her zeal and
charity in these admirable efforts.</p>

<p>"Cyprianus Januario, Maximo, Proculo,
Victori, Modiano, Nemesiano, Nampulo, et
Honorato, fratribus salutem. Cum maximo
animi nostri gemitu et non sine lacrymis legimus
litteras vestras, fratres carissimi, quas
ad nos pro dilectionis vestræ sollicitudine de
fratrum nostrorum et sororum captivitate fecistis.
Quis enim non doleat in ejusmodi
casibus, aut quis non dolorem fratris sui
suum proprium computet cum loquatur apostolus
Paulus et dicat: <em>Si patitur unum mem<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_432b" id="Page_432b">[Pg 432b]</a></span>brum,
compatiuntur et cætera membra: si lætatur
membrum unum, collætantur et cætera
membra.</em> (1 ad Cor. xii. 26.) Et alio loco: <em>Quis
infirmatur, inquit, et non ego infirmor?</em> (2 ad
Cor. xi. 29.) Quare nunc et nobis captivitas
fratrum nostra captivitas computanda est, et
periclitantium dolor pro nostro dolore numerandus
est, cum sit scilicet adunationis nostræ
corpus unum, et non tantum dilectio sed et
religio instigare nos debeat et confortare ad
fratrum membra redimenda. Nam cum denuo
apostolus Paulus dicat: <em>Nescitis quia templum
Dei estis, et Spiritus Dei habitat in vobis?</em> (1
ad Cor. iii. 16), etiamsi charitas nos minus
adigeret ad opem fratribus ferendam, considerandum
tamen hoc in loco fuit, Dei templum
esse quæ capta sunt, nec pati nos longa cessatione
et neglecto dolore debere, ut diu Dei
templa captiva sint; sed quibus possumus viribus
elaborare et velociter gerere ut Christum
judicem et Dominum et Deum nostrum promereamur
obsequiis nostris. Nam cum dicat
Paulus apostolus, <em>Quotquot in Christo baptizati
estis, Christum induistis</em> (ad Gal. iii. 27,) in
captivis fratribus nostrus contemplandus est
Christus et redimendus de periculo captivitatis,
qui nos de diaboli faucibus exuit, nunc ipse qui
manet et habitat in nobis de barbarorum manibus
exuatur, et redimatur nummaria quantitate
qui nos cruce redemit et sanguine.</p>

<hr class="tb" />

<p>Quantus vero communis omnibus nobis mœror
atque cruciatus est de periculo virginum quæ
illic tenentur? pro quibus non tantum libertatis,
sed et pudoris jactura plangenda est, nec
tam vincula barbarorum quam lenonum et lupanarium
stupra defienda sunt, ne membra
Christo dicata et in æternum continentiæ honorum
pudica virtute devota, insultantium libidine
et contagione fœdentur? Quæ omnia istic secundum
litteras vestras fraternitas nostra cogitans
et dolenter examinans, prompte omnes
et libenter ac largiter subsidia nummaria fratribus
contulerunt.</p>

<hr class="tb" />

<p>Misimus autem sestertia centum millia nummorum,
quæ istic in ecclesia cui de Domini
indulgentia præsumus, cleri et plebis apud nos
consistentis collatione, collecta sunt, quæ vos
illic pro vestra diligentia dispensabitis.</p>

<hr class="tb" />

<p>Si tamen ad explorandam nostri anima charitatem,
et examinandi nostri pectoris fidem tale
aliquid acciderit, nolite cunctari nuntiare hæc
nobis litteris vestris, pro certo habentes ecclesiam
nostram et fraternitatem istic universam,
ne hæc ultra fiant precibus orare, si facta
fuerint, libenter et largiter subsidia præstare."
(Epist. 60.)</p>

<p>Thus the zeal for the redemption of captives,
a zeal which was exerted with so much ardor
in later ages, had appeared in the earliest times
of the Church; this zeal was founded on grand
and sublime motives, which render this work
in some measure divine, and secure to those
who devote themselves to it an unfading crown.
Important information on this subject will be
found also in the works of St. Gregory. (V.
lib. iii. ep. 16; lib. iv. ep. 17; lib. vi. ep. 35;
lib. vii. ep. 26, 28, and 38; lib. ix. ep. 17.)</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_433" id="Page_433">[Pg 433a]</a></span></p>



<p class="hangt"><i>The property of the Church employed for the
redemption of captives.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Matisconense secundum, anno 585.)</p>

<p>"Unde statuimus ac decernimus, ut mos
antiquus a fidelibus reparetur; et decimas
ecclesiasticis famulantibus ceremoniis populus
omnis inferat, quas sacerdotes aut in pauperum
usum <em>aut in captivorum redemptionem prærogantes</em>,
suis orationibus pacem populo ac salutem
impetrent: si quis autem contumax nostris
statutis saluberrimis fuerit, a membris ecclesiæ
omni tempore separetur." (Canon 5.)</p>




<p class="hangt"><i>It is allowed to break up the sacred vessels, in
order to devote the price of them to the redemption
of captives.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Rhemense, anno 625 vel 630.)</p>

<p>"Si quis episcopus, excepto si evenerit ardua
necessitas pro redemptione captivorum ministeria
sancta frangere pro qualicumque conditione
presumpserit, ab officio cessabit ecclesiæ."
(Canon 22.)</p>

<p>The following canon informs us that the
Bishops gave letters of recommendation to the
captives; they are desired to state therein the
date and price of the ransom; they are requested
also to mention there the wants of those
who are thus restored to liberty.</p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Lugdunense tertium, anno 583.)</p>

<p>"Id etiam de epistolis placuit captivorum,
ut ita sint sancti pontifices cauti, ut in servitio
pontificibus consistentibus qui eorum manu vel
subscriptione agnoscat epistolæ aut quælibet
insinuationum litteræ dari debeant, quatenus
de subscriptionibus nulla ratione possit Deo
propitio dubitari: et epistola commendationis
pro necessitate cujuslibet promulgata dies datarum
et pretia constituta, vel necessitates
captivorum quos cum epistolis dirigunt, ibidem
inserantur." (Canon 2.)</p>




<p class="hangt"><i>Excess into which some ecclesiastics allowed
themselves to fall, by an indiscreet zeal in
favor of captives.</i></p>

<p class="hang">(Synodus S. Patricii, Auxilii et Isernini Episcoporum
in Hibernia celebrata, circa annum Christi 450 vel
456.)</p>

<p>"Si quis clericorum voluerit juvare captivo
cum suo pretio illi subveniat, nam si per furtum
illum inviolaverit, blasphemantur multi clerici
per unum latronem, qui sic fecerit excommunionis
sit." (Canon 32.)</p>

<p>The church employed her property in the
ransom of captives; and when the latter had
afterwards acquired the means of repaying the
sums advanced for them, she refused all reimbursement
and graciously gave up the price of
the ransom.</p>

<p class="center">(Ex epistolis S. Gregorii.)</p>

<p>"Sacrorum canonum statuta et legalis permittit
auctoritates, lici res ecclesiasticas in
redemptionem captivorum impendi. Et ideo,
quia edocti a vobis sumus, ante annos fere 18,
virum reverendissimum quemdam Fabium,
Episcopum Ecclesiæ Firmanæ, libras 11 argenti
de eadem ecclesia pro redemptione
vestra, ac patris vestri Passivi, fratris et co-episcopi
nostri, tunc vero clerici, necnon matris
vestræ, hostibus impendisse, atque ex hoc
quamdam formidinem vos habere, ne hoc quod<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_433b" id="Page_433b">[Pg 433b]</a></span>
datum est, a vobis quolibet tempore repetatur,
hujus præcepti auctoritate suspicionem vestram
prævidimus auferendam; constituentes,
nullam vos exinde, hæredesque vestros quolibet
tempore repetitionis molestiam sustinere, nec
a quoquam vobis aliquam objici quæstionem."
(L. 7, ep. 14, et hab. Cuas. 12, q. 2, c. 15.)</p>



<p class="hangt"><i>The property of the Church served to ransom
captives.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Vernense secundum, anno 844.)</p>

<p>"Ecclesiæ facultates quas reges et reliqui
christiani Deo voverunt, ad alimentum servorum
Dei et pauperum, ad exceptionem hospitum,
<em>redemptionis captivorum</em>, atque templorum
Dei instaurationem, nunc in usu sæcularium
detinentur. Hinc multi servi Dei penuriam
cibi et potus ac vestimentorum patiuntur,
pauperes consuetam eleemosynam non accipiunt,
negliguntur hospites, <em>fraudantur captivi</em>,
et fama omnium merito laceratur." (Canon 12.)</p>

<p>Let us observe in this canon the use which
the Church made of her property; after having
supported the clergy, and maintained divine
worship, she devoted it to succor the poor,
travellers or pilgrims, and to redeem captives.
I make this observation here, because the
opportunity offers; not because this canon is
the only proof of the excellent use which the
Church made of her property. Indeed, a great
number of others might be cited, beginning
with the canons called Apostolical. It is necessary
also to remark the expression which is
sometimes made use of to stigmatize the wickedness
of the spoilers of the Church, or of those
who administer her property badly; they are
called <i lang="la">pauperum necatores</i>, 'murderers of the
poor;' to make it well understood that one of
the principal objects of this property is the
support of the necessitous.</p>


<p class="center"><a id="SIV"></a>§ IV.</p>

<p class="hangt"><i>Those who attempt to take away the liberty of
persons are excommunicated.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Lugdunense secundum, anno 566.)</p>

<p>"Et qui peccatis facientibus multi in perniciem
animæ suæ ita conati sunt, aut conantur
assurgere, ut animas longa temporis quiete sine
ulla status sui competitione viventes, nunc
improba proditione atque traditione, aut captivaverint
aut captivare conentur, si juxta
præceptum domini regis emendare distulerint,
quousque hos quos obduxerunt, in loco in quo
longum tempus quiete vixerint, restaurare debeant,
ecclesiæ communione priventur." (Canon
3.)</p>

<p>We see in this canon that private individuals,
by too frequent attempts, employed violence
to reduce free persons to slavery. At
this time, on account of the irruptions of the
barbarians, the state of Europe was such, that
public authority, weak in the extreme, did
not, properly speaking, exist. This is the reason
why it is so noble to see the Church struggling
every where to support public order, to
defend liberty, and excommunicating those
who attacked that liberty, in contempt of the
commands of the king.</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>The same abuse repressed.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Rhemense, anno 625 vel 630.)</p>

<p>"Si quis ingenuum aut liberum ad servitium<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_434" id="Page_434">[Pg 434a]</a></span>
inclinare voluerit, aut fortasse jam fecit, et
commonitus ab episcopo se de inquietudine
ejus revocare neglexerit, aut emendare noluerit,
tamquam calumniæ reum placuit sequestrari."
(Canon 17.)</p>




<p class="hangt"><i>It is declared that he who leads away a Christian
to sell him, is guilty of homicide.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Confluentinum, anno 922.)</p>

<p>"Item interrogatum est, quid de eo faciendum
sit qui christianum hominem seduxerit,
et sic vendiderit: responsumque est ab omnibus,
homicidii reatum, ipsum hominem sibi
contrahere." (Canon 7.)</p>




<p class="hangt"><i>The traffic in men, practised at that time in
England, is proscribed; it is forbidden to
sell men like ignoble animals.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Londinense, anno 1102.)</p>

<p>"Ne quis illud <em>nefarium negotium</em> quo hactenus
in Anglia solebant homines sicut bruta
animalia venundari, deinceps ullatenus facere
præsumat."</p>

<p>We see, from the canon which I have just
cited, to what point the Church had attained
in all that affects true civilization. We are in
the nineteenth century, and it is considered
that a great step has been gained in modern
civilization by the consent of the great European
nations to sign treaties to suppress the
slave-trade; now the canon which we have
just cited tells us, that at the beginning of the
twelfth century, and in that very town of
London, where the famous Convention was
lately held, the traffic in men was forbidden,
and stigmatized as it deserves. <i lang="la">Nefarium
negotium</i>&mdash;detestable trade&mdash;it is called by
the Council: <em>infamous traffic</em>, it is called
by modern civilization, the unconscious heir
of the thoughts and even the words of those
men who are treated by it as barbarians,
of those Bishops, whom calumny has more or
less represented as a band of conspirators
against the liberty and happiness of the human
race.</p>




<p class="hangt"><i>It is ordered that persons who have been sold or
pledged, shall immediately recover their liberty
by restoring the price received; it is ordained
that more shall not be required of them than
they shall have received for their liberty.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Synodus incerti loci, circa annum 616.)</p>

<p>"De ingenuis qui se pro pecunia aut alia
revendiderint, vel oppignoraverint, placuit ut
quandoquidem pretium, quantum pro ipsis
datum est, invenire potuerunt, absque dilatione
ad statum suæ conditionis reddito pretio reformentur,
nec amplius quam pro eis datum
est requiratur. Et interim, si vir ex ipsis, uxorem
ingenuam habuerit, aut mulier ingenuum
habuerit maritum, filii qui ex ipsis nati fuerint,
in ingenuitate permaneant." (Canon 14.)</p>

<p>The text of this Council, held, according to
some, at Boneuil, well deserves to have some
remarks made on it. The beneficial regulation
which allowed a man who had been sold to
regain his liberty by paying the sum received,
checked an evil which was deeply rooted in
the customs of Gaul at that time, for we find
it at a very early period. We know, indeed,
from Cæsar, whose testimony we have cited in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_434b" id="Page_434b">[Pg 434b]</a></span>
the text, that many men of that country sold
their liberty to relieve themselves from difficulties.
Let us also remark the regulation
contained in the same canon with respect to
the children of the person who was sold;
whether it be the father or mother, the canon
prescribes, in both cases, that the children
shall be free; and it here departs from the
well known rule of civil law: <i lang="la">partus sequitur
ventrem</i>.</p>


<p class="center"><a id="SV"></a>§ V.</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>It is forbidden to give up to the Jews the slaves
who have taken refuge in the churches; it matters
little whether they have chosen that asylum
because their masters obliged them to things
contrary to the Christian faith, or because
they have been maltreated by them after having
been once withdrawn from the sacred asylum
under the promise of pardon.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Aurelianense tertium, anno 538.)</p>

<p>"De mancipiis Christianis, quæ in Judæorum
servitio detinentur, si eis quod Christiana religio
vetat, a dominis imponitur, aut si eos quos
de ecclesia excusatos tollent, pro culpa quæ
remissa est, affligere aut cædere fortasse præsumpserint,
et ad ecclesiam iterato confugerint,
nullatenus a sacerdote reddantur, nisi
pretium offeratur ac detur, quod mancipia ipsa
valere pronuntiaverit justa taxatio." (Canon
13.)</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>The precept given in the preceding canon is renewed;
a precept contained in the canon which
we have just cited.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Aurelianense quartum, anno 541.)</p>

<p>"Cum prioribus canonibus jam fuerit definitum
ut de mancipiis Christianis, quæ apud
Judæos sunt, si ad ecclesiam confugerint, et
redimi se postulaverint, etiam ad quoscumque
Christianos refugerint, et servire Judæis noluerint,
taxato et oblato a fidelibus justo pretio,
ab eorum dominio liberentur, ideo statuimus, ut
tam justa constitutio ab omnibus catholicis
conservetur." (Canon 30.)</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>The Jew who perverts a Christian slave is punished
with the loss of all his slaves.</i> (Ibid.)</p>

<p>"Hoc etiam decernimus observandum, ut
quicumque Judæus proselytum, qui advena dicitur,
Judæum facere præsumpserit, aut Christianum
factum ad Judaicam superstitionem adducere;
vel si Judæus Christianam ancillam
suam sibi crediderit sociandam; vel si de parentibus
Christianis natum, Judæum sub promissione
fecerit libertatis, mancipiorum amissione
mulctetur." (Canon 31.)</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>Jews are forbidden to have Christian slaves
henceforth; as to those who are in their power,
all Christians are allowed to ransom them by
paying their Jewish masters twelve solidi.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Matisconense primum, anno 581.)</p>

<p>"Et liceat quid de Christianis qui aut de
captivitatis incursu, aut fraudibus Judæorum
servitio implicantur, debeat observari, non
solum canonicis statutis, sed et legum beneficio
pridem fuerit constitutum; tamen quia nunc
item quo rumdam querela exorta est, quosdam
Judæos, per civitates aut municipia consistentes,
in tantam insolentiam et proterviam pro<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_435" id="Page_435">[Pg 435a]</a></span>rupisse,
ut nec reclamantes Christianos liceat
vel pretio de eorum servitute absolvi: idcirco
præsenti concilio, Deo auctore, sancimus, ut
nullus Christianus Judæos deinceps debeat deservire;
sed datis pro quolibet bono mancipio
12 solidis, ipsum mancipium quicumque Christianus,
seu ad ingenuitatem, seu ad servitium,
licentiam habeat redimendi; quia nefas est, ut
quos Christus Dominus sanguinis sui effusione
redemit, persecutorum vinculis maneant irretiti.
Quod si acquiescere his quæ statuimus
quicumque Judæus noluerit, quamdiu ad pecuniam
constitutam venire distulerit, liceat mancipio
ipsi cum Christianis ubicumque voluerit
habitare. Illud etiam specialiter sancientes,
quod si quis Judæus Christianum mancipium
ad errorem Judaicum convictus fuerit suasisse,
ut ipse mancipio careat, et legandi damnatione
plectatur." (Canon 16.)</p>


<p>The preceding canon is almost equivalent to
a decree for the entire emancipation of Christian
slaves; for if, on the one hand, Jews were
forbidden to acquire new Christian slaves, and,
on the other, those who were in their possession
could be redeemed by the first Christian
who came, it is clear that the charity of the
faithful thus finding a door open to it, the
number of Christian slaves who groaned in the
power of the Jews must have diminished in an
extraordinary manner. It is not said that
these canonical regulations of the Church from
the first moment obtained all the result which
was intended; but, as she was the only power
that remained standing at that time, and the
only one that exercised influence on the nations,
it cannot be doubted that her regulations
were infinitely advantageous to those in whose
favor they were established.</p>

<p class="hangt"><i>Jews are forbidden to acquire Christian slaves.
If a Jew perverts to Judaism, or circumcises
a Christian slave, the latter becomes free without
having any thing to pay to his master.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Toletanum tertium, anno 589.)</p>

<p>"Suggerente concilio, id gloriossimus dominus
noster canonibus inserendum præcipit, ut
Judæis non liceat Christianas habere uxores,
<em>neque mancipia comparare in usus proprios</em>....</p>

<p>"Si qui vero Christiani ab eis Judaico ritu
sunt maculati, vel etiam circumcisi, non reddito
pretio ad libertatem et religionem redeant
Christianam." (Canon 14.)</p>

<p>This canon is remarkable, both because it
protects the conscience of the slave, and imposes
on masters a punishment favorable to
liberty. This manner of checking the arbitrary
power of those who violated the consciences
of their slaves, is found, during the
following century, in a curious example contained
in the collection of the laws of Ina,
queen of the West Saxons. It is this:</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>If a master makes his slave work on Sunday,
the slave becomes free.</i></p>

<p>(Leges Ynæ reginæ Saxonum Occiduorum, anno 692.)</p>

<p>"Si servus operetur die dominica per præceptum
domini sui, sit liber." (Leg. iii.)</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_435b" id="Page_435b">[Pg 435b]</a></span></p>

<p>Another curious example:</p>

<p class="hangt"><i>If a master gives meat to a slave on a fasting-day,
the slave becomes free.</i></p>


<p class="hang">(Concilium Berghamstedæ anno 5<sup>o</sup> Withredi regis
Cantii, id est Christi 697: sub Bertualdo Cantuariensi
archiepiscopo celebratum. Hæc sunt judicia
Withredi regis Cantuariorum.)</p>

<p>"Si quis servo suo carnem in jejunio dediderit
comedendam, servus liber exeat." (Canon
15.)</p>


<p class="hang"><i>It is definitively forbidden for Jews to have
Christian slaves; all contravention of this
order shall deprive the Jews of all their
slaves, who shall obtain their liberty from the
prince.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Toletanum quartum, anno 633.)</p>

<p>"Ex decreto gloriosissimi principis hoc sanctum
elegit concilium, ut Judæis non liceat
Christianos servos habere, nec Christiana mancipia
emere, nec cujusquam consequi largitate:
nefas est enim ut membra Christi serviant Antichristi
ministris. Quod si deinceps servos
Christianos, vel ancillas Judæi habere præsumpserint,
sublati ab eorum dominatu libertatem
a principe consequantur." (Canon 66.)</p>


<p class="hang"><i>It is forbidden to sell Christian slaves to Jews
or Gentiles; if such sales have been made,
they shall be annulled.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Rhemense, anno 625.)</p>

<p>"Ut Christiani Judæis vel Gentilibus non
vendantur; et si quis Christianorum necessitate
cogente mancipia sua Christiana elegerit
venundanda, non aliis nisi tantum Christianis
expendat. Nam si paganis aut Judæis vendiderit,
communione privetur, et emptio careat
firmitate." (Canon 11.)</p>

<p>No precaution was too great in those unhappy
times. It might appear at first that such
regulations were an effect of the intolerance
of the Church with respect to the Jews and
Pagans; and yet, in reality, they were a barrier
against the barbarism which invaded all;
they were a guarantee of the most sacred
rights of man; so much the more necessary,
as all the others, it may be said, had disappeared.
Read the document which we are
about to transcribe; you will there see that
barbarism was carried so far, that slaves were
sold to the Pagans to be sacrificed.</p>


<p class="center">(Gregorius Papa III. ep. ad Bonifacium Archiepiscopum,
anno 731.)</p>

<p>"Hoc quoque inter alia crimina agi in partibus
illis dixisti, quod quidam ex fidelibus ad
<em>immolandum</em> paganis sua venundent mancipia.
Quod ut magnopere corrigere debeas, frater,
commonemus, nec sinas fieri ultra; scelus est
enim et impietas. Eis ergo qui hæc perpetraverunt,
similem homicidæ indices pœnitentiam."</p>

<p>These excesses must have occupied the active
attention of the Church, as we see the
Council of Liptines, held in 743, again insist
on this point, and forbid Christian slaves to be
given up to the Gentiles.</p>

<p>"Et ut mancipia Christiana paganis non
tradantur." (Canon 7.)</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_436" id="Page_436">[Pg 436a]</a></span></p>


<p class="hangt"><i>It is forbidden to sell a Christian slave out of
the territory comprised within the kingdom of
Clovis.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Cabilonense, anno 650.)</p>

<p>"Pietatis est maximæ et religionis intuitus,
ut captivitatis vinculum omnino a Christianis
redimatur. Unde sancta Synodus noscitur censuisse,
ut nullus mancipium extra fines vel terminos,
qui ad regnum domini Clodovei regis
pertinent, debeat venundare, ne quod absit,
per tale commercium, aut captivitatis vinculo,
vel quod pejus est, Judaica servitute mancipia
Christiana teneantur implicita." (Canon 9.)</p>

<p>This canon, which forbids the selling of Christian
slaves out of the kingdom of Clovis, for
fear that they should fall into the power of the
Pagans and Jews, and the other of the Council
of Rheims, cited above, which contains a similar
regulation, are worthy of remark, under
two aspects; they show, 1st, the high respect
which we ought to have for the soul of man,
even of him who is a slave, since it is forbidden
to sell him where his conscience might be in
danger: a respect which it was very important
to maintain, both in order to eradicate the erroneous
maxims of antiquity on this point,
and because it was the first step towards emancipation.
2d. By limiting the power of sale,
there was introduced into that kind of property
a law which distinguished it from others, and
placed it in a different and more elevated category.
This was a great step made towards
declaring open war against this property itself,
and abolishing it by legitimate means.</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>Clerics who sold their slaves to Jews are severely
reproved: they are threatened with alarming
punishments.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium decimum Toletanum, anno 656.)</p>

<p>"Septimæ collationis immane satis et infandum
operationis studium nunc sanctum nostrum
adiit concilium; quod plerique ex sacerdotibus
et levitis, qui pro sacris ministeriis, et pietatis
studio, gubernationisque augmento sanctæ ecclesiæ
deputati sunt officio, malunt imitari turbam
malorum, potius quam sanctorum patrum
insistere mandatis: ut ipsi etiam qui redimere
debuerunt, venditiones facere intendant, quos
Christi sanguine præsciunt esse redemptos; ita
duntaxat, ut eorum dominio qui sunt empti in
ritu Judaismo convertantur oppressi, et fit execrabile
commercium, ubi nitente Deo justum
est sanctum adesse conventum; quia majorum
canones vetuerunt ut nullus Judæorum conjugia
vel servitia habere præsumat de Christianorum
cœtu."</p>

<p>Here the Council eloquently reprimands the
guilty; it continues:</p>

<p>"Si quis enim post hanc definitionem talia
agere tentaverit, noverit se extra ecclesiam
fieri, et præsenti, et futuro judicio cum Juda
simili pœna percelli, dum modo Dominum
denuo proditionis pretio malunt ad iracundiam
provocare." (Canon 7.)</p>


<p class="center"><a id="SVI"></a>§ VI.</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>Pope St. Gregory the First gives freedom to
two slaves of the Church of Rome. Remarkable
passage, in which this holy pope explains the
motives which induced the Christians to enfranchise
their slaves.</i></p>

<p>"Cum Redemptor noster totius conditor creaturæ
ad hoc propitiatus humanam voluerit car<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_436b" id="Page_436b">[Pg 436b]</a></span>nem
assumere, ut divinitatis suæ gratia, diruto
quo tenebamur captivi vinculo servitutis, pristinæ
nos restitueret libertati; salubriter agiter,
si homines quos ab initio natura creavit liberos
et protulit, et jus gentium jugo substituit servitutis,
in ea natura in qua nati fuerant, manumittentis
beneficio, libertati reddantur. Atque
ideo pietatis intuitu, et hujus rei consideratione
permoti, vos Montanam atque Thomam famulos
sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ, cui Deo adjutore
deservimus, liberos ex hac die civesque
Romanos efficimus, omneque vestrum vobis
relaxamus servitutis peculium." (S. Greg. l.
v. ep. 12.)</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>Bishops are directed to respect the liberty of
those who have been enfranchised by their
predecessors. Mention is made of the power
given to Bishops to free their slaves who deserve
well, and the sum is fixed which they may give
them to aid them in living.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Agathense, anno 506.)</p>

<p>"Sane si quos de servis ecclesiæ benemeritos
sibi episcopus libertate donaverit, collatam
libertatem a successoribus placuit custodiri,
cum hoc quod eis manumissor in libertate contulerit,
quod tamen jubemus viginti solidorum
numerum, et modum in terrula, vineola, vel
hospitiolo tenere. Quod amplius datum fuerit,
post manumissoris mortem ecclesia revocabit."
(Canon 7.)</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>What has been mortgaged or alienated from the
property of the Church by a Bishop who has
left nothing of his own, must be restored; but
enfranchised slaves are excepted from this
rule: they shall preserve their liberty.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Aurelianense quartum, anno 541.)</p>

<p>"Ut episcopus qui de facultate propria ecclesiæ
nihil relinquit, de ecclesiæ facultate si quid
aliter quam canones eloquunter obligaverit,
vendiderit, aut distraxerit, ad ecclesiam revocetur.
Sane si de servis ecclesiæ libertos fecerit
numero competenti, in ingenuitate permaneant,
ita ut ab officio ecclesiæ non recedant." (Canon
9.)</p>

<p>An English Council ordains that, at the death
of each Bishop, all his English slaves shall be
freed. The solemnization of the obsequies is
regulated; to terminate the funeral ceremonies,
each Bishop and abbot shall enfranchise three
slaves, by giving them each three solidi.</p>

<p class="center">(Synodus Cellichytensis, anno 816.)</p>

<p>"Decimo jubetur, et hoc firmiter statuimus
asservandum, tam in nostris diebus, quamque
etiam futuris temporibus, omnibus successoribus
nostris qui post nos illis sedibus ordinentur
quibus ordinati sumus: ut quandocumque aliquis
ex numero episcoporum migraverit de
sæculo, hoc pro anima illius præcipimus, ex
substantia uniuscumque rei decimam partem
dividere, ac distribuere pauperibus in eleemosynam,
sive in pecoribus, et armentis, seu
de ovibus et porcis, vel etiam in cellariis,
<em>nec non omnem hominem Anglicum liberare, qui
in diebus suis sit servituti subjectus</em>, ut per illud
sui proprii laboris fructum retributionis percipere
mereatur, et indulgentiam peccatorum.
Nec ullatenus ab aliqua persona huic capitulo
contradicatur, sed magis, prout condecet, a
successoribus augeatur, et ejus memoria semper
in posterum per universas ecclesias nostræ<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_437" id="Page_437">[Pg 437a]</a></span>
ditioni subjectas cum Dei laudibus habeatur et
honoretur. Prorsus orationes et eleemosynas
quæ inter nos specialiter condictam habemus,
id est, ut statim per singulas parochias in
singulis quibusque ecclesiis, pulsato signo, omnis
famulorum Dei cœtus ad basilicam conveniant,
ibique pariter <span class="smcap">XXX</span> psalmos pro defuncti
animæ decantent. Et postea unusquisque antistes
et abbas sexcentos psalmos, et centum viginti
missas celebrare faciat, <em>et tres homines
liberet et eorum cuilibet tres solidos distribuat</em>."
(Canon 10.)</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>A curious document, which shows the generous
resolution made by the Council of Armagh
in Ireland, to give liberty to all the English
slaves.</i></p>


<p class="hang">(Concilium Ardamachiense in Hibernia celebratum,
anno 1171: ex Giraldo Cambrensi, cap. xxviii.
Hiberniæ expugnatæ.)</p>

<p>"His completis convocato apud Ardamachiam
totius Hiberniæ clero, et super advenarum
in insulam adventu tractato diutius et
deliberato, tandem communis omnium in hoc
sententia resedit: propter peccata scilicet populi
sui, eoque præcipue quod Anglos olim, tam
a mercatoribus, quam prædonibus atque piratis,
emere passim, et in servitutem redigere consueverant,
divinæ censura vindictæ hoc eis
incommodum accidisse, ut et ipsi quoque ab
eadem gente in servitutem vice reciproca jam
redigantur. Anglorum namque populus adhuc
integro eorum regno, communi gentis vitio,
liberos suos venales exponere, et priusquam
inopiam ullam aut inediam sustinerent, filios
proprios et cognatos in Hiberniam vendere
consueverant. Unde et probabiliter credi potest,
sicut venditores olim, ita et emptores, tam
enormi delicto juga servitutis jam meruisse.
Decretum est itaque in prædicto concilio, et
cum universitatis consensu publice statutum,
ut Angli ubique per insulam, servitutis vinculo
mancipati, in pristinam revocentur libertatem."</p>

<p>It is thus that religious ideas influence and
soften the ferocious manners of nations. When
a public calamity occurs, they immediately find
its cause in the divine anger, justly excited by
the traffic which the Irish carried on by buying
English slaves of merchants, robbers, and
pirates. It is not less curious to learn, that at
that time the English were barbarous enough
to sell their children and relations, like the
Africans of our days. This frightful custom
must have been pretty general, as we read in
the passage quoted, that it was the common
vice of those nations: <i lang="la">communi gentis vitio</i>.
This makes us better understand the necessity
of a regulation inserted above, that of the
Council of London, held in 1102, which proscribes
this infamous traffic in men.</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>It is forbidden to change the slaves of the Church
for other slaves, unless the exchange procured
their liberty.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Ex concilio apud Sylvanectum, anno 864.)</p>

<p>"Mancipia ecclesiastica, nisi ad libertatem
non convenit commutari; videlicet ut mancipia,
quæ pro ecclesiastico homine dabuntur, in ecclesiæ
servitute permaneant, et ecclesiasticus
homo, qui commutatur, fruatur perpetua libertate.
Quod enim semel Deo consecratum est,
ad humanos usus transferri non decet." (V.
Decret. Greg. IX., l. iii. tit. 19, cap. 3.)</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_437b" id="Page_437b">[Pg 437b]</a></span></p>

<p class="hangt"><i>A Canon containing the same regulation as the
preceding; and whence, moreover, it appears,
that the faithful, for the salvation of their
souls, were accustomed to offer their slaves to
God and the Saints.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Ex eodem, anno 864.)</p>

<p>"Injustum videtur et impium, ut mancipia,
quæ fideles Deo et sanctis ejus pro remedio
animæ suæ consecrarunt, cujuscumque muneris
mancipio, vel commutationis commercio iterum
in servitutem secularium redigantur, cum canonica
auctoritas servos tantummodo permittat
distrahi fugitives. Et ideo ecclesiarum rectores
summopere caveant, ne eleemosyna unius, alterius
peccatum fiat. Et est absurdum, ut ab
ecclesiastica dignitate servus discedens, humanæ
sit obnoxius servituti." (Ibid. cap. 4.)</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>Freedom shall be granted to slaves who wish to
embrace the monastic state, yet without neglecting
useful precautions to ascertain the
reality of their vocation.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Romanum sub S. Gregorio I., anno 597.)</p>

<p>"Multos de ecclesiastica seu sæculari familia,
novimus ad omnipotentis Dei servitium festinare,
ut ab humana servitute liberi in divino
servitio valeant familiarius in monasteriis conversari,
quos si passim dimittimus, omnibus
fugiendi ecclesiastici juris dominium occasionem
præbemus: si vero festinantes ad omnipotentis
Dei servitium, incaute retinemus, illi
invenimur negare quædam qui dedit omnia.
Unde necesse est, ut quisquis ex juris ecclesiastici
vel sæcularis militiæ servitute ad Dei
servitium converti desiderat, probetur prius in
laico habitu constitutus: et si mores ejus atque
conversatio bona desiderio ejus testimonium
ferunt, absque retractatione servire in monasterio
omnipotenti Domino permittatur, ut ab
humano servitio liber recedat, qui in divino
obsequio districtiorem appetit servitutem." (S.
Greg. epist. 44. lib. iv).</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>The abuse of ordaining slaves without the consent
of their masters had spread; this abuse
is checked.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Ex epistolis Gelasii Papæ.)</p>

<p>"Ex antiquis regulis et novella synodali explanatione
comprehensum est, personas obnoxias
servituti, cingulo cœlestis militiæ non
præcingi. Sed nescio utrum ignorantia an
voluntate rapiamini, <em>ita ut ex hac causa nullus
pene Episcoporum videatur extorris</em>. Ita enim
nos frequens et plurimorum querela nos circumstrepit,
ut ex hac parte nihil penitus putetur
constitutum." (Distin. 54. c. 9.)</p>

<p>"<em>Frequens equidem, et assidua nos querela,
circumstrepit</em> de his pontificibus, qui nec antiquas
regulas nec decreta nostra noviter directa
cogitantes, obnoxias possessionibus obligatasque
personas, venientes ad clericalis officii
cingulum non recusant." (Ibid. c. 10.)</p>

<p>"Actores siquidem filiæ nostræ illustris et
magnificæ feminæ, Maximæ, petitorii nobis
insinuatione conquesti sunt, Sylvestrum atque
Candidum, originarios suos, contra constitutiones,
quæ supradictæ sunt, et contradictione
præeunte a Lucerino Pontifice diaconos ordinatos."
(Ibid c. 11.)</p>

<p>"<em>Generalis etiam querelæ vitanda præsumptio
est, qua propemodum causantur universi</em>,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_438" id="Page_438">[Pg 438a]</a></span>
passim servos et originarios, dominorum jura,
possessionumque fugientes, sub religiosæ conversationis
obtentu, vel ad monasteria sese
conferre, vel ad ecclesiasticum famulatum, conniventibus
quippe præsulibus, indifferenter
admitti. Quæ modis omnibus est amovenda
pernicies, ne per Christiani nominis institutum
aut aliena pervadi, aut publica videatur disciplina
subverti." (Ibid. c. 12.)</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>The parish priests are allowed to choose some
clerics from the slaves of the Church.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Emeritense, anno 666.)</p>

<p>"Quidquid unanimiter digne disponitur in
sancta Dei ecclesia, necessarium est ut a parochitanis
presbyteris custoditum maneat. Sunt
enim nonnulli, qui ecclesiarum suarum res ad
plenitudinem habent, et sollicitudo illis nulla
est habendi clericos, cum quibus omnipotenti
Deo laudum debita persolvant officia. Proinde
instituit hæc sancta synodus, ut omnes parochitani
presbyteri, juxta ut in rebus sibi a Deo
creditis sentiunt habere virtutem, de ecclesiæ
suæ familia clericos sibi faciant; quos per
bonam voluntatem ita nutriant, ut et officium
sanctum digne paragant, et ad servitium suum
aptos eos habeant. Hi etiam victum et vestitum
dispensatione presbyteri merebuntur, et
domino et presbytero suo, atque utilitati ecclesiæ
fideles esse debent. Quod si inutiles apparuerint
ut culpa patuerit, correptione disciplinæ
feriantur; si quis presbyterorum hanc sententiam
minime custodierit, et non adimpleverit,
ab episcopo suo corrigatur: ut plenissime custodiat,
quod digne jubetur." (Canon 18.)</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>It is prescribed to the Bishops to confer liberty
on the slaves of the Church before they admit
them into the clerical body.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium Toletanum nonum, anno 655.)</p>

<p>"Qui ex familiis ecclesiæ servituri devocantur
in clerum ab episcopis suis, necesse est, ut
libertatis percipiant donum: et si honestæ vitæ
claruerint meritis, tunc demum majoribus fungantur
officiis." (Canon 11.)</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>It is allowed to ordain the slaves of the Church,
liberty having been previously conferred on
them.</i></p>

<p class="center">(Concilium quartem Toletanum, anno 633.)</p>

<p>"De familiis ecclesiæ constituere presbyteros
ut diaconos per parochias liceat; quos tamen
vitæ rectitudo et probitas morum commendat:
ea tamen ratione, <em>ut antea manumissi libertatem
status sui percipiant</em>, et denuo ad ecclesiasticos
honores succedant; irreligiosum est enim
obligatos existere servituti, qui sacri ordinis
suscipiunt dignitatem."</p>


<p class="center"><a id="SVII"></a>§ VII.</p>

<p>We have shown in the text by what means,
with what wisdom and perseverance Christianity
abolished slavery in the ancient world;
Christian and Catholic Europe was free at the
time when Protestantism appeared. Let us
now see what Catholicity has done in modern
times, with respect to slaves in other parts of
the world. We can present to our readers in
one document, which is the evidence of the
ideas and feelings of the Sovereign Pontiff
Gregory XVI., an interesting history of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_438b" id="Page_438b">[Pg 438b]</a></span>
solicitude of the Roman See in favor of the
slaves of the whole universe. I mean the
apostolical letters published at Rome, November
3, 1839, against the slave-trade; and I
recommend the perusal of them. It will be
there seen, in the most authentic and decisive
manner, that the Catholic Church, on this important
subject of slavery, has always showed,
and shows still, the most lively spirit of charity,
without in the least offending against justice,
or for a moment departing from the path of
prudence.</p>


<p class="hangt">"<i>Gregorius P. P.</i> XVI. <i>ad futuram rei memoriam</i>.</p>

<p>"Raised to the supreme degree of the apostolical
dignity, and filling, although without
any merit on our part, the place of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, who, by the excess of
His charity, has deigned to become man, and
die for the redemption of the world; we consider
that it belongs to our pastoral solicitude
to exert all our efforts to prevent Christians
from engaging in the trade in blacks or any
other men, whoever they may be.</p>

<p>"As soon as the light of the Gospel began
to spread, the unfortunate men who fell into
the hard fate of slavery during the numerous
wars of that period, felt their condition improved;
for the apostles, inspired by the Spirit
of God, on the one hand, taught slaves to obey
their earthly masters, as Jesus Christ Himself,
and to be resigned from the bottom of their
heart to the will of God; but, on the other,
they commanded masters to behave well to
their slaves, to grant them what was just and
equitable, and not to treat them with anger,
knowing that the Lord of both is in heaven,
and that with Him there is no distinction of
persons.</p>

<p>"The law of the Gospel having very soon
universally and fundamentally ordained sincere
charity towards all, and the Lord Jesus having
declared that He would regard as done or refused
to Himself all the acts of beneficence
and mercy done or refused to the poor and
little ones&mdash;it naturally followed that Christians
not only regarded their slaves as brethren,
above all when they were become Christians,
but that they were more inclined to give liberty
to those who rendered themselves worthy of
it. This usually took place particularly on
the solemn feasts of Easter, as St. Gregory of
Nyssa relates. There were even found some
who, inflamed with more ardent charity, <em>embraced
slavery for the redemption of their
brethren</em>; and an apostolic man, our predecessor,
Pope Gregory I., of sacred memory, attests
that he had known a great many who performed
this work of mercy. Wherefore the darkness
of Pagan superstition being entirely dissipated
in the progress of time, and the
manners of the most barbarous nations being
softened,&mdash;thanks to the benefit of faith working
by charity,&mdash;things advanced so far, that
for many centuries there have been no slaves
among the greater part of Christian nations.
Yet (we say it with profound sorrow) men have
been since found, even among Christians, who,
shamefully blinded by the desire of sordid
gain, have not hesitated to reduce into slavery,
in distant countries, Indians, Negroes, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_439" id="Page_439">[Pg 439a]</a></span>
other unfortunate races; or to assist in this
scandalous crime, by instituting and organizing
a traffic in these unfortunate beings, who had
been loaded with chains by others. A great
number of the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors
of glorious memory, have not forgotten to
stigmatize, throughout the extent of their
jurisdiction, the conduct of these men as injurious
to their salvation, and disgraceful to
the Christian name; for they clearly saw that
it was one of the causes which tended most
powerfully to make infidel nations continue in
their hatred to the true religion.</p>

<p>"This was the object of the apostolical letters
of Paul III., of the 29th of May, 1537, addressed
to the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo,
under the ring of the fisherman, and other
letters, much more copious, of Urban VIII.,
of the 22d April, 1639, addressed to the collector
of the rights of the Apostolic Chamber
in Portugal,&mdash;letters, in which the most severe
censures are cast upon those who venture to
reduce the inhabitants of the East or West
Indies into slavery, buy, sell, give, or exchange
them, separate them from their wives and
children, strip them of their property, take or
send them into strange places, or deprive them
of their liberty in any way; to retain them in
slavery; or aid, counsel, succor, or favor those
who do these things under any color or pretence
whatever; or preach or teach that this
is lawful, and, in fine, co-operate therewith in
any way whatever. Benedict XIV. has since
confirmed and renewed these pontifical ordinances
before mentioned by new apostolical
letters to the Bishops of Brazil and some other
countries, dated the 20th December, 1741, by
means of which he calls forth the solicitude of
the Bishops for the same purpose. A long
time before, another of our more ancient predecessors,
Pius II., whose pontificate saw the
empire of the Portuguese extended in Guinea
and in the country of the blacks, addressed
letters, dated the 7th of October, 1482, to the
Bishop of Ruvo, who was ready to depart for
those countries: in these letters he did not
confine himself to giving to this prelate the
means requisite for exercising the sacred ministry
in those countries with the greatest fruit,
but he took occasion very severely to blame
the conduct of those who reduced the neophytes
into slavery. In fine, in our days, Pius
VII., animated by the same spirit of charity
and religion as his predecessors, zealously interposed
his good offices with men of authority
for the entire abolition of the slave-trade
among Christians.</p>

<p>"These ordinances, and this solicitude of our
predecessors, have availed not a little, with the
aid of God, in defending the Indians, and other
nations who have just been mentioned, against
the barbarity of conquest, and the cupidity of
Christian merchants; but the Holy See is far
from being able to boast of the complete success
of its efforts and zeal, for, if the slave-trade
has been partially abolished, it is still
carried on by a great many Christians. Wherefore,
desiring to remove such a disgrace from
all Christian countries, after having maturely
considered the matter with many of our venerable
brethren, the Cardinals of the Holy
Roman Church, assembled in Council, following
the example of our predecessors, by virtue of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_439b" id="Page_439b">[Pg 439b]</a></span>
the apostolic office, we warn and admonish in
the Lord all Christians, of whatever condition
they may be, and enjoin upon them that, for
the future, no one shall venture unjustly to
oppress the Indians, Negroes, or other men,
whoever they may be; to strip them of their
property or reduce them into servitude: or
give aid or support to those who commit such
excesses, or carry on that infamous traffic, by
which the blacks, as if they were not men, but
mere impure animals, reduced like them into
servitude, without any distinction, contrary to
the laws of justice and humanity, are bought,
sold, and devoted to endure the hardest labors;
and on account of which dissensions are excited
and almost continual wars are fomented
among nations by the allurements of gain offered
to those who first carry away the Negroes.</p>

<p>"Wherefore, by virtue of the apostolical
authority, we condemn all these things aforesaid,
as absolutely unworthy of the Christian
name; and, by the same authority, we absolutely
prohibit and interdict all ecclesiastics
and laymen from venturing to maintain that
this traffic in blacks is permitted, under any
pretext or color whatsoever; or to preach or
teach in public or in private, in any way whatever,
anything, contrary to these apostolic
letters. And in order that these letters may
come to the knowledge of all, and that no one
may pretend ignorance, we ordain and decree
that they be published and posted up, according
to custom, by one of our officers, on the
doors of the basilica of the Prince of the Apostles,
of the Apostolic Chancery, of the Palace
of Justice, of Monte Citorio, and at the Campo
di Fiori. Given at Rome, at St. Mary Major's,
under the seal of the fisherman, the 3d of November,
1839, the ninth year of our Pontificate.</p>

<p class="right">
<span class="smcap">Louis, Cardinal Lambruschini.</span>"<br />
</p>

<p>I again particularly invite attention to the
document which I have just inserted&mdash;to these
letters which magnificently crown the united
efforts of the Church for the abolition of slavery.
As the abolition of the slave-trade&mdash;the object
of a treaty recently made between the great
powers&mdash;is at this moment one of the affairs
which occupy the chief attention of Europe, it
is proper to pause a few moments, to reflect on
the contents of the apostolic letters of the
Sovereign Pontiff Gregory XVI. Let us observe,
in the first place, that in the year 1482,
Pope Pius II. addressed apostolical letters to
the Bishop of Ruvo, about to depart for the
newly discovered countries&mdash;letters, in which
he did not exclusively confine himself to giving
the prelate the powers necessary to exercise
his holy ministry with the greatest fruit in
those countries, but in which he takes occasion
to censure very severely the conduct of Christians
who reduced the neophytes into slavery.
Exactly at the end of the fifteenth century, at
the time when it may be said that the Church
gathering the last fruit of her long labors, at
length saw Europe emerge from the chaos in
which the irruption of the barbarians had
plunged her; at the time when the social and
political institutions were developed with daily
increasing ardor, and began to form a regular
and coherent body; at this moment the Church
resumes her secular contest with another barbarism
which reappeared in distant countries;
she opposes the abuse of the superiority of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_440" id="Page_440">[Pg 440a]</a></span>
strength and intelligence, which the conquerors
possessed over the conquered nations.</p>

<p>This fact alone proves that, for the true
liberty and well-being of nations, for the just
pre-eminence of right over might, and for the
triumph of justice over force, the intelligence
and refinement of nations are not enough&mdash;religion
also is required. In ancient times, we
see nations cultivated to the highest point
commit unheard of atrocities; and in modern
times, Europeans, so proud of their knowledge
and advancement, introduce slavery among
the unfortunate nations who have fallen under
their dominion. Now, who was the first to
raise a voice against such injustice&mdash;against
such horrible barbarity? It was not policy,
which perhaps rejoiced to see its conquests
consolidated by slavery; it was not commerce
which found in this infamous traffic an easy
means of making shameful but abundant
profits; it was not philosophy, which, fully
explaining the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle,
would perhaps have seen without concern the
resuscitation of the degrading theory of <em>races
born for slavery</em>; but it was the Catholic religion,
expressing herself by the mouth of the
Vicar of Jesus Christ.</p>

<p>It is certainly a consolatory spectacle for
Catholics to see a Roman Pontiff, four centuries
ago, condemn what Europe, with all her civilization
and refinement, condemns only at the
present day. Still, Europe only does so with
difficulty; and all those who take part in this
tardy condemnation are not exempt from the
suspicion of being actuated by motives of
interest. No doubt the Roman Pontiff did not
effect all the good he intended; but doctrines
do not remain sterile when they emanate from
a high quarter, whence, diffusing themselves to
great distances, they descend on persons who
receive them with veneration, if it were only
on account of him who teaches them. The
conquering nations were then Christians, and
sincere ones; it is therefore indubitable, that
the admonitions of the Pope, transmitted by
the mouths of Bishops and other priests, must
have had very salutary effects. If, in cases
like this, where we see a measure taken against
an evil, the evil nevertheless resists and continues,
we imagine, by a grievous mistake, that
the measure has been vain, and that its author
has produced no effect. It is one thing to extirpate,
and another to diminish an evil; and
it cannot be doubted that, if the Bulls of the
Popes had not all the effect intended, they
must nevertheless have served to diminish the
evil, by improving the lot of nations fallen
under the yoke. The evil prevented and
avoided is not seen; the preservative has hindered
its existence: but the existing evil is
palpable&mdash;it affects us, it excites our regret,
and we often forget the gratitude due to the
hand which has preserved us from greater
evils. How often is it thus with respect to religion!
She cures many things, but she prevents
still more. If she takes possession of the
heart of man, it is in order to destroy there
even the very roots of a thousand evils.</p>

<p>Let us imagine the Europeans of the fifteenth
century invading the East and West Indies,
without any check, guided only by the inspirations
of cupidity, and by the caprices of arbitrary
power, full of the pride of conquerors,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_440b" id="Page_440b">[Pg 440b]</a></span>
and of the contempt with which the Indians
must have inspired them, on account of the
inferiority of their knowledge, and of their
backwardness in civilization and refinement:
what must have happened? If, in spite of the
incessant cries of religion, in spite of the influence
which she had on laws and manners,
the conquered nations have had so much to
suffer, would not the evil have been carried to
an intolerable extent, without those powerful
causes which incessantly combated, prevented
or diminished it? The conquered would have
been reduced into slavery <i lang="fr">en masse</i>; they would
have been condemned <i lang="fr">en masse</i> to perpetual
degradation; they would have been deprived
even of the hope of one day entering on the
career of civilization.</p>

<p>If the conduct of Europeans at that time
with respect to men of other races&mdash;if the conduct
of some nations of our own days is to be
deplored, it cannot be said at least that the
Catholic religion has not opposed such excesses
with all her strength; it cannot be said that
the Head of the Church has ever allowed these
evils to pass without raising his voice to recall
to mind the rights of men, to stigmatize injustice,
to excite abhorrence of cruelty, and energetically
to plead the cause of humanity, without
distinction of races, climates, or colors.</p>

<p>Whence does Europe derive this lofty idea
and this generous feeling, which urge her to
declare herself so strongly against the traffic in
men, and to demand the complete abolition of
slavery in the colonies? When posterity shall
call to mind these glorious facts; when it shall
adopt them as marking a new era in the annals
of civilization; when, studying and analyzing
the causes which have conducted European
legislation and manners to so high a pitch, and,
passing over temporary and unimportant motives,
insignificant circumstances, and secondary
agents, it shall seek for the vital principle
which impelled European civilization towards
so glorious an end, it will find that this principle
was Christianity; and if, desiring to fathom
the question more and more, it should inquire
whether this was Christianity, under a vague
and general form&mdash;Christianity without authority&mdash;Christianity
without Catholicity&mdash;the
answer of history will be this: Catholicity,
exclusively prevailing in Europe, abolished
slavery among the European races; she introduced
the principle of the abolition of slavery
into European civilization, by showing practically,
and in opposition to the opinion of antiquity,
that slavery was not necessary for
society; and she made it understood, that the
sacred work of enfranchisement was the foundation
of all great and life-giving civilization.
She has therefore inoculated European civilization
with the principle of the abolition of
slavery; it is owing to her that, wherever this
civilization has come into contact with slavery,
it has been profoundly disturbed&mdash;an evident
proof that there were at the bottom two opposite
elements, two contending principles, which
were compelled to struggle incessantly, until
the more powerful, noble, and fruitful prevailing,
and reducing the other under the yoke, in
the end annihilated it. I will say more: by
searching whether facts really confirm this
influence of Catholicity, not only in all that
concerns the civilization of Europe, but also in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_441" id="Page_441">[Pg 441a]</a></span>
the countries which Europeans have conquered
two centuries ago, in the East and West, we
shall meet with Catholic Bishops and priests
working without intermission in improving the
lot of colonial slaves; we shall call to mind
what is due to the Catholic missions; we shall
read and understand the apostolical letters of
Pius II., issued in 1482, and mentioned above;
those of Paul III., in 1537; those of Urban
VIII., in 1639; those of Benedict XIV., in
1741; and those of Gregory XVI., in 1839.</p>

<p>In these letters there is taught and defined
all that has been or can be said on this point
in favor of humanity. We shall there find
blamed, condemned, and punished, all that
European civilization has at length resolved
to condemn and punish; and when calling to
mind also that it was Pius VII., who, at the
beginning of this century, <em>zealously interposed
his good offices with men in power for the complete
abolition of slavery among Christians</em>, we
shall not be able to avoid acknowledging and
confessing that Catholicity has had the principal
share in this great work. It is she indeed
who has laid down the principle on which the
work rests, who has established the precedents
which guide it, who has constantly proclaimed
the principles which have suggested it and has
constantly condemned those who have opposed
it; it is she, in fine, who at all times has declared
open war against cruelty and cupidity,&mdash;the
support and perpetual motives for injustice
and inhumanity. Let us hear the testimony
of a celebrated Protestant author, Robertson,
the historian of America: "From the
time that ecclesiastics were sent as instructors
into America, they perceived that the rigor
with which their countrymen treated the natives
rendered their ministry altogether fruitless.
The missionaries, in conformity with the
mild spirit of that religion which they were employed
to publish, soon remonstrated against
the maxims of the planters with respect to the
Americans, and condemned the <i lang="es">repartimientos</i>,
or distributions, by which they were given up
as slaves to their conquerors, as no less contrary
to natural justice and the precepts of
Christianity, than to sound policy. The Dominicans,
to whom the instruction of the Americans
was originally committed, were the most vehement
in attacking the <i lang="es">repartimientos</i>. In the
year 1511, Motesino, one of their most eminent
preachers, inveighed against this practice in the
great church at St. Domingo, with all the impetuosity
of his natural eloquence. Don Diego
Columbus, the principal officers of the colony,
and all the laymen who had been his hearers,
complained of the monk to his superiors; but
they, instead of condemning, applauded his
doctrine, as equally pious and seasonable. The
Franciscans, influenced by the spirit of opposition
and rivalship which subsists between the
two orders, discovered some inclination to take
part with the laity, and to espouse the defence
of the <i lang="es">repartimientos</i>. But as they could not
with decency give their approbation to a system
of oppression so repugnant to the spirit of
religion, they endeavored to palliate what they
could not justify, and alleged in excuse for the
conduct of their countrymen, that it was impossible
to carry on any improvement in the
colony, unless the Spaniards possessed such
dominion over the natives, that they could<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_441b" id="Page_441b">[Pg 441b]</a></span>
compel them to labor. The Dominicans, regardless
of such political and interested considerations,
would not relax in any degree the
rigor of their sentiments, and even refused to
absolve, or admit to the sacrament, such of
their countrymen as continued to hold the natives
in servitude. Both parties applied to the
king for his decision in a matter of such importance.
Ferdinand empowered a committee
of his Privy Council, assisted by some of the
most eminent civilians and divines in Spain,
to hear the deputies sent from Hispaniola in
support of their respective opinions. After a
long discussion, the speculative point in controversy
was determined in favor of the Dominicans;
the Indians were declared to be a
free people, entitled to all the natural rights
of man; but notwithstanding this decision,
the <i lang="es">repartimientos</i> were continued upon their
ancient footing. As this determination admitted
the principle upon which the Dominicans
founded their opinion, they renewed their efforts
to obtain relief for the Indians with additional
boldness and zeal. At length, in order
to quiet the colony, which was alarmed by their
remonstrances and censures, Ferdinand issued
a decree of his Privy Council (1513), declaring
that after mature consideration of the apostolic
Bull, and other titles by which the Crown of
Castile claimed a right to its possessions, in the
new world, the servitude of the Indians was
warranted both by the laws of God and man;
that unless they were subjected to the dominion
of the Spaniards, and compelled to reside under
their inspection, it would be impossible to reclaim
them from idolatry, or to instruct them
in the Christian faith; that no further scruple
ought to be entertained concerning the lawfulness
of the <i lang="es">repartimientos</i>, as the King and
Council were willing to take the charge of that
upon their own consciences; and that therefore
the Dominicans, and monks of other religious
orders, should abstain for the future from those
invectives which, from an excess of charitable
but ill-informed zeal, they had uttered against
the practice. That his intention of adhering
to this decree might be fully understood, Ferdinand
conferred new grants of Indians upon
several of his courtiers. But in order that he
might not seem altogether inattentive to the
rights of humanity, he published an edict in
which he endeavored to provide for the mild
treatment of the Indians under the yoke to
which he subjected them; he regulated the
nature of the work which they should be required
to perform; he prescribed the mode in
which they should be clothed and fed, and gave
directions with respect to their instruction in
the principles of Christianity. But the Dominicans,
who, from their experience of what
had passed, judged concerning the future, soon
perceived the inefficacy of those provisions,
and foretold that, as long as it was the interest
of individuals to treat the Indians with rigor,
no public regulations would render their servitude
mild or tolerable. They considered it as
vain to waste their own time and strength in
attempting to communicate the sublime truths
to men whose spirits were broken, and their
faculties impaired by oppression. Some of
them, in despair, requested the permission of
their superiors to remove to the continent, and
pursue the object of their mission among such<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_442" id="Page_442">[Pg 442a]</a></span>
of the natives as were not hitherto corrupted
by the example of the Spaniards, or alienated
by their cruelty from the Christian faith. Such
as remained in Hispaniola continued to remonstrate,
with decent firmness, against the servitude
of the Indians.</p>

<p>"The violent operations of Albuquerque, the
new distributor of the Indians, revived the zeal
of the Dominicans against the <i lang="es">repartimientos</i>,
and called forth an advocate for that oppressed
people who possessed all the courage, the talents,
and the activity requisite in supporting
such a desperate cause. This was Bartholomew
de las Casas, a native of Seville, and one of
the clergymen sent out with Columbus in his
second voyage to Hispaniola, in order to settle
in that Island. He early adopted the opinion
prevalent among ecclesiastics with respect to
the unlawfulness of reducing the natives to
servitude; and that he might demonstrate the
sincerity of his conviction, he relinquished all
the Indians who had fallen to his share in the
division of the inhabitants among their conquerors,
declaring that he should ever bewail
his own misfortune and guilt, in having exercised
for a moment this impious dominion over
his fellow-creatures. From that time he became
the avowed patron of the Indians; and
by his bold interpositions in their behalf, as
well as by the respect due to his abilities and
character, he had often the merit of setting
some bounds to the excesses of his countrymen."
(<cite>History of America</cite>, book 3.)</p>

<p>It would be too long to relate here the energetic
efforts of De las Casas in favor of the
colonies of the new world; all know them&mdash;all
must know that, filled with zeal for the
liberty of the Indians, he conceived and undertook
an attempt at civilization analogous to
that which was realized later, to the immortal
honor of the Catholic clergy, in Paraguay.
If the efforts of De las Casas had not all the
success that might naturally have been expected,
we find the cause of this in the thousand
passions with which history makes us
acquainted, and perhaps also in the impetuosity
of this man, whose sublime zeal was not always
accompanied by the consummate prudence
which the Church displays.</p>

<p>However this may be, Catholicity has completely
accomplished her mission of peace and
love; without injustice or catastrophe, she has
broken the chains under which a large portion
of the human race groaned; and if it had been
given her to prevail for some time in Asia and
Africa, she would have achieved their destruction
in the four quarters of the globe, by
banishing the degradations and the abominations
introduced and established in those countries
by Mahometanism and idolatry. It is
melancholy, no doubt, that Christianity has
not yet exercised over these latter countries all
the influence which would have been necessary
to ameliorate the social and political condition
of those nations, by changing their ideas and
manners. But if we seek for the causes of
this lamentable delay, we certainly shall not
find them in the conduct of Catholicity. This
is not the place to point out these causes;
nevertheless, while reserving the analysis and
complete examination of this matter for another
part of the work, I will make the remark <i lang="fr">en
passant</i>, that Protestantism may justly crimi<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_442b" id="Page_442b">[Pg 442b]</a></span>nate
itself for the obstacles which, during three
centuries, it has opposed to the universality
and efficacy of the Christian influence on infidel
nations. These few words will suffice here;
we shall return to this important subject later.</p>


<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_16"></a>Note</span> 16, p. 131.</p>

<p>We can scarcely believe how far the ideas
of the ancients went astray with regard to the
respect which is due to man. Can it be believed
that they went so far, as to regard the lives of
all who could not be useful to society as of no
value? and yet nothing is more certain. We
might lament that this or that city had adopted
a barbarous law; that a ferocious custom was
introduced among a people by the effect of particular
circumstances; yet as long as philosophy
protested against such attempts, human
reason would have been unstained, and could
not have been accused without injustice of
taking part in infamous attempts at abortion
or infanticide. But when we find crime defended
and taught by the most important philosophers
of antiquity; when we see it triumph
in the minds of the most illustrious men, who,
with fearful calmness and serenity, prescribe
the atrocities which we have named, we are
confounded, and our blood runs cold; we would
fain shut our eyes, not to see so much infamy
thrown upon philosophy and human reason.
Let us hear Plato in his <cite>Republic</cite>, in that book
in which he undertook to collect all the theories
in his opinion the most distinguished and
the best adapted to lead human society towards
its <i lang="fr">beau ideal</i>. This is his scandalous language:
"Oportet profecto secundum ea quæ supra
concessimus, optimos viros mulieribus optimis
ut plurimum congredi: deterrimos autem contra,
deterrimis. Et illorem quidem prolem
nutrire, horum minime, si armentum excellentissimum
sit futurum. Et hæc omnia dum
agantur, ab omnibus præterquam a principibus
ignorari, si modo armentum custodum debeat
seditione carere." "Prope admodum;" "Very
good," replies another speaker. (<cite>Plat. Rep.</cite> l. v.)</p>

<p>Behold, then, the human race reduced to the
condition of mere brutes; in truth, the philosopher
had reason to use the word flock
(<i lang="la">armentum</i>)! There is this difference, however,
that magistrates imbued with such feelings
must have been more harsh towards their
subjects than a shepherd towards his flock. If
the shepherd finds among the lambs which
have just been born a weak and lame one, he
does not kill it or allow it to die of hunger; he
carries it to the sheep who ought to nourish it,
he caresses it to stop its cries.</p>

<p>But perhaps the expressions which we have
just quoted escaped the philosopher in a moment
of inadvertence; perhaps the idea which
they reveal was only one of those sinister inspirations
which glide into the mind of a man,
and pass away without leaving any more impression
than is made by a reptile moving
through the grass. We wish it were so, for
the fame of Plato; but unhappily he returns
to it so often, and insists on the point with so
systematic a coldness, that no means of justifying
him are left. "With respect," he says
lower down, "to the children of citizens of
inferior rank, and even those of other citizens,
if they are born deformed, the magistrates<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_443" id="Page_443">[Pg 443a]</a></span>
shall hide them, as is proper, in some secure
place, which it shall be forbidden to reveal."
"Yes," replies one of the interlocutors; "if
we desire to preserve the race of warriors in
its purity."</p>

<p>Plato also lays down various rules with
respect to the relations of the two sexes; he
speaks of the case in which the man and woman
shall have reached an advanced age:
"Quando igitur jam mulieres et viri ætatem
generationi aptam egressi fuerint, licere viris
dicemus, cuicumque voluerint, præterquam
filiæ atque matri et filiarum natis matrisve
majoribus: licere et mulieribus cuilibet, præterquam
filio atque patri, ac superioribus et
inferioribus eorumdem. Cum vero hæc omnia
mandaverimus, interdicemus fœtum talem (si
contigeret) edi et in lucem produci. Si quid
autem matrem parere coegerit, ita exponere
præcipiemus, quasi ei nulla nutritio sit."</p>

<p>Plato seems to have been very well pleased
with his doctrine; for, in the very book in
which he writes what we have just seen, he
lays down the famous maxim, that the evils
of states will never be remedied, that societies
will never be well governed, until philosophers
shall become kings, or kings become philosophers.
God preserve us from seeing on the
throne a philosophy such as his! Moreover,
his wish for the reign of philosophy has been
realized in modern times. What do I say? It
has had more than empire; it has been deified,
and divine honors have been paid to it in
public temples. I do not believe, however,
that the happy days of the worship of reason
are now much regretted.</p>

<p>The horrible doctrine which we have just
seen in Plato was transmitted with fidelity to
future schools. Aristotle, who on so many
points took the liberty of departing from the
doctrines of his master, did not think of correcting
those which regard abortion and infanticide.
In his <cite>Politics</cite> he teaches the same
crimes with the same calmness as Plato: "In
order," he says, "to avoid nourishing weak or
lame children, the law should direct them to
be exposed or made away with." "Propter
multitudinem autem liberorum, ne plures sint
quam expediat, si gentium instituta et leges
vetent procreata exponi, definitum esse oportet
procreandorum liberorum numerum. Quod si
quibus inter se copulatis et congressis, plures
liberi, quam definitum sit, nascantur, priusquam
sensus et vita inseratur, abortus est
fœtui inferendus." (<cite>Polit.</cite> l. vii. c. 16.)</p>

<p>It will be seen how much reason I had to
say that man, <em>as man</em>, was esteemed as nothing
among the ancients; that society entirely
absorbed him; that it claimed unjust rights
over him, and regarded him as an instrument
to be used when of service, and which it had
a right to destroy.</p>

<p>We observe in the writings of the ancient
philosophers, that they make of society a kind
of <em>whole</em>, consisting of individuals, as the mass
of iron consists of the atoms that compose
it; they make of it a sort of unity, to which
all must be sacrificed; they have no consideration
for the sphere of individual liberty; they
do not appear to dream that the object of
society is the good, the happiness of individuals
and families. According to them, this
unity is the principal good, with which no<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_443b" id="Page_443b">[Pg 443b]</a></span>thing
else can be compared; the greatest evil
that can happen is, that this unity should be
broken&mdash;an evil which must be avoided by all
imaginable means. "Is not the worst evil of
a state," says Plato, "that which divides it,
and <em>makes many out of one</em>? and is not the
greatest excellence of a state, that which binds
all its parts together, and makes it <em>one</em>?" Relying
on this principle, and pursuing the development
of his theory, he takes individuals
and families, and kneads them, as it were, in
order to form them into <span class="smcap">ONE</span> compact whole.
Thus, besides education and life in common, he
wishes also to have women and children in
common; he considers it injurious that there
should be personal enjoyments or sufferings;
he desires that all should be common and
social; he allows individuals to live, think,
feel, and act only as parts of a great whole.
If you read his <cite>Republic</cite> with attention, and
particularly the fifth book, you will see that
the prevailing idea of this philosopher is what
we have just explained. Let us hear Aristotle
on the same point: "As the object of society,"
he says, "is <em>one</em>, it is clear that the education
of all its members ought necessarily to be one
and identical. Education ought to be public,
and not private; as things now are, each one
takes care of his children as he thinks proper,
and teaches them as he pleases. Each citizen
is a particle of society, and the care to be
given to a particle ought naturally to extend
to what the whole requires." (<cite>Polit.</cite> l. viii.
c. 1.) In order to explain to us what he means
by this common education, he concludes by
quoting with honor the education which was
given at Sparta, which every one knows consisted
in stifling all feelings except a ferocious
patriotism, the traits of which still make us
shudder.</p>

<p>With our ideas and customs, we do not know
how to confine ourselves to considering society
in this way. Individuals among us are attached
to the social body, forming a part of it,
but without losing their own sphere&mdash;that of
the family; and they preserve around them a
vast career, where they are allowed to exert
themselves, without coming into collision with
the colossus of society. Nevertheless, patriotism
exists; but it is no longer a blind instinctive
passion, urging man on to the sacrifice,
like a victim, with bandaged eyes, but it is no
reasonable, noble, and exalted feeling, which
forms heroes like those of Lepanto and Baylen;
which converts peaceful citizens, like
those of Gyronna and Saragossa, into lions;
which, as by an electric spark, makes a whole
people rise on a sudden without arms, and
brave death from the artillery of a numerous
and disciplined army: such was Madrid, following
the sublime <i lang="es">Mourons</i> of Daoiz and of
Velarda.</p>

<p>I have already hinted, in the text, that society
among the ancients claimed the right of
interfering in all that regards individuals. I
will add, that the thing went to a ridiculous
extent. Who would imagine that the law
ought to interfere in the food of a woman who
was <i lang="fr">enceinte</i>, or in the exercise which she
should take every day? This is what Aristotle
gravely says: "It is necessary that women
who are <i lang="fr">enceinte</i> should take particular
care of their bodies; that they should avoid<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_444" id="Page_444">[Pg 444a]</a></span>
indulgence in luxury, and using food which is
too light and weak. The legislator easily attains
his end by prescribing and ordering them
a daily walk, in order to go to honor and venerate
the gods, to whom it has been confided
by fate to watch over the formation of beings.
Atque hoc facile assequitur scriptor legum, si
eis iter aliquod quotidianum ad cultum venerationemque
deorum eorum, quibus sorte obtigit,
ut præsint gignendis animantibus, injunxerit
ac mandaverit." (<cite>Polit.</cite> l. vii. c. 16.)</p>

<p>The action of laws extended to every thing;
it seems that, in certain cases, even the tears
of children could not escape this severity.
"Those," says Aristotle, "who, by means of
laws, forbid children to cry and weep, are
wrong; cries and tears serve as exercise for
children, and assist them in growing; they are
an effort of nature, which relieves and invigorates
those who are in pain." (<cite>Polit.</cite> l. vii.
c. 17.)</p>

<p>These doctrines of the ancients&mdash;this manner
of considering the relations of individuals
with society&mdash;very well explain how castes
and slavery could be regarded as natural
among them. Who can be astonished at seeing
whole races deprived of liberty, or regarded
as incapable of partaking of the rights of
other superior classes, when we see generations
of innocent beings condemned to death,
and these conscientious philosophers not having
the slightest scruple with respect to the
legitimacy of so inhuman an act? It was not
that these philosophers had not happiness in
view as the object of society; but they had
monstrous ideas with respect to the means of
obtaining that happiness.</p>


<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_17"></a>Note</span> 17, p. 146.</p>

<p>The reader will easily dispense with my
entering into details on the abject and shameful
condition of women among the ancients,
and in which they still are among the moderns
where Christianity does not prevail; moreover,
my pen would be checked every moment by
strict laws of modesty, if I were to attempt to
represent the characteristic features of this
wretched picture. The <em>inversion</em> of ideas was
such, that we hear men the most renowned for
their gravity and moderation rave in the most
incredible manner on this point. We will lay
aside hundreds of examples which it would be
easy to adduce; but who is ignorant of the
scandalous advice of the <em>sage</em> Solon, with respect
to the lending of women for the purpose
of improving the race? Who has not blushed
to read what the <em>divine</em> Plato, in his <cite>Republic</cite>,
says of the propriety and manner of making
women share in the public games? Let us
throw a veil over recollections so dishonourable
to human wisdom. When the chief legislators
and sages so far forgot the first elements
of morality, and the most ordinary inspirations
of nature, what must have been the case with
the vulgar? How fearfully true those words
of the sacred text which represent to us the
nations deprived of the light of Christianity as
sitting <em>in darkness and in the shadow of death!</em></p>

<p>There is nothing more fatal to woman, nothing
more apt to degrade her, than that which
is injurious to modesty; and yet we see that
the unlimited power granted to man over woman<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_444b" id="Page_444b">[Pg 444b]</a></span>
contributed to this degradation, and reduced
her, among certain nations, to be nothing but a
slave. Losing sight of the manners of other
nations, let us consider those of the Romans
for a moment. Among them the formula, <i lang="la">ubi
tu Cayus ego Caya</i>, seemed to indicate a subjection
so slight, that it might almost be called
an equality; but in order to appreciate this
equality, it is enough to recollect that, at
Rome, a husband could put his wife to death
by his own authority, and that not only in the
case of adultery, but for offences infinitely less
serious. In the time of Romulus, Egnacius
Menecius was acquitted of a similar crime,
although his wife had done nothing more than
drink wine from a cask. These traits describe
a nation, whatever importance you may besides
think proper to attach to the solicitude of the
Romans to prevent their matrons from becoming
addicted to wine. When Cato directed an
embrace, as a proof of affection, among relations,
for the purpose, as Pliny relates, of ascertaining
whether the women smelt of wine, <i lang="la">an temetum
olerent</i>, it is true he showed his strictness; but
it was an unworthy outrage offered to the
honor of the women themselves whose virtue
it pretended to preserve. There are some
remedies worse than the disease.</p>


<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_18"></a>Note</span> 18, p. 157.</p>

<p>The antichristian philosophy must have had
considerable influence on the desire to find
among the barbarians the origin of the elevation
of the female character in Europe, and of
some other principles of our civilization. Indeed
as soon as you discover the source of these
admirable qualities in the forests of Germany,
Christianity is stripped of a portion of its
honors; and what was its own and peculiar
glory is divided among many. I will not deny
that the Germans of Tacitus are sufficiently
poetical; but it is difficult to believe that the
real Germans were so to any extent. Some
passages inserted in the text add great force to
our conjecture; but what appears to me eminently
calculated to dissipate all these illusions
is, the history of the invasion by the barbarians,
above all that which has been written by eye-witnesses.
The picture, far from continuing poetical,
then becomes disgusting in the extreme.
This interminable succession of nations passes
before the eyes of the reader, like an alarming
vision in an evil dream; and certainly the first
idea which occurs to us at the sight of this picture
is, not to seek for any of the qualities of modern
civilization in these invading hordes; but the
great difficulty is, to know how this chaos has
been reduced to order, and how it has been possible
to produce from such barbarism the
noblest and most brilliant civilization that has
ever been seen on earth. Tacitus appears to
be an enthusiast; but Sidonius, who wrote at
no great distance from the barbarians, who
saw them, and suffered from meeting them,
does not partake of this enthusiasm. "I find
myself," he said, "among long-haired nations,
compelled to hear the German language, and
to applaud, at whatever cost, the song of the
drunken Burgundian, with hair plastered with
rancid grease. <em>Happy your eyes who do not see
them; happy your ears who do not hear them?</em>"
If space permitted, it would be easy for me to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_445" id="Page_445">[Pg 445a]</a></span>
accumulate a thousand passages which would
evidently show what the barbarians were, and
what could be expected from them in all respects.
It is as clear as the light of day, that
it was the design of Providence to employ these
nations to destroy the Roman empire, and
change the face of the world. The invaders
seem to have had a feeling of their terrible
mission. They march, they advance, they
know not whither they go; but they know well
that they go to destroy. Attila called himself
the scourge of God. The same barbarian himself
defined his formidable duty in these words:
"<em>The star falls, the sea is moved; I am the
hammer of the earth.</em> Where my horse passes,
the grass never grows." Alaric, marching towards
the capital of the world, said: "<em>I cannot
stop; there is some one urges me, who excites me
to sack Rome.</em>" Genseric prepares a naval expedition;
his troops are on board, he himself
embarks: no one knows the point towards
which he will direct his sails. The pilot approaches
the barbarian, and asks him; "<em>My
lord, against what nations will you wage war?</em>"
"<em>Against those who have provoked the anger of
God</em>," replies Genseric.</p>

<p>If Christianity, in the midst of this catastrophe,
had not existed in Europe, civilization
would have been lost and annihilated, perhaps
forever. But a religion of light and love was
sure to triumph over ignorance and violence.
Even during the times of the calamities of the
invasion, that religion prevented many disasters,
owing to the ascendency which it began
to exercise over the barbarians; the most
critical moment being past, the conquerors
having become in some degree settled, she
immediately employed a system so vast, so
efficacious, so decisive, that the conquerors
found themselves conquered, not by arms, but
by charity. It was not in the power of the
Church to prevent the invasion; God had decreed
it, and His decree must be accomplished.
Thus the pious monk who went to meet Alaric
approaching Rome, could not stop him on his
march, because the barbarian answered him,
that he could not stop,&mdash;that there was some
one who urged him on, and that he advanced
against his own will. But the Church awaited
the barbarians after the conquest, knowing that
Providence would not abandon His own work,
that the hope of the future lot of nations was
left in the hands of the spouse of Jesus Christ;
on this account does Alaric advance on Rome,
sack, and destroy it; but on a sudden, finding
himself in presence of religion, he stops, becomes
mollified, and appoints the Churches of
St. Peter and St. Paul as places of refuge. A
remarkable fact, and an admirable symbol of the
Christian religion preserving the universe from
total ruin.</p>


<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_19"></a>Note</span> 19, p. 165.</p>

<p>The great benefit conferred on modern
society by the formation of a pure and correct
public conscience, would acquire extraordinary
value in our eyes, if we compared our moral
ideas with those of all other nations, ancient
and modern; the result of such an examination
would be, to show in how lamentable a manner
good principles become corrupted, when they
are confided to the reason of man. I will<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_445b" id="Page_445b">[Pg 445b]</a></span>
content myself, however, with a few words
on the ancients, in order to show how correct
I was in saying that our manners, however
corrupt they may be, would have appeared
a model of morality and dignity to the heathens.</p>

<p>The temples consecrated to Venus in Babylon
and Corinth are connected with abominations
such as to be even incomprehensible.
Deified passion required sacrifices worthy of it;
a divinity without modesty required the sacrifice
of modesty; and the sacred name of
Temple was applied to asylums of the most
unbridled licentiousness. There was not a veil
even for the greatest crimes. It is known how
the daughters of Chypre gained a dowry for
their marriage; all have heard of the mysteries
of Adonis, Priapus, and other impure divinities.
There are vices which, as it were, want a name
among the moderns; or if they have one, it is
accompanied by the recollection of a terrible
chastisement inflicted on some criminal cities.
In reading the histories of antiquity descriptive
of the manners of their times, the book falls
from our hands. On this subject we must be
content with these few hints, calculated to
awaken in the minds of our readers the recollection
of what has a thousand times excited
their indignation in reading the history and
studying the literature of pagan antiquity.
The author is compelled to be satisfied with a
recollection: he abstains from a description.</p>


<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_20"></a>Note</span> 20, p. 171.</p>

<p>It is now so common to exalt beyond measure
the power of ideas, that some persons will perhaps
consider exaggerated what I have said
with respect to their want of power, not only to
influence society, but even to preserve themselves,
while, remaining in the mere sphere of
ideas, they do not become realized in institutions,
which are their organ, and at the same
time their rampart and defence.</p>

<p>I am very far, as I have clearly stated in the
text, from denying or calling in question what
is called the power of ideas: I only mean to
show that, alone and by themselves, ideas have
little power; and that science, properly so
called, as far as the organization of society is
concerned, is a much less important thing than
is generally supposed. This doctrine has an
intimate connection with the system followed
by the Catholic Church, which, while constantly
endeavoring to develop the human
mind by means of the propagation of the
sciences, has nevertheless assigned to them a
secondary part in the regulation of society.
While religion has never been opposed to true
science, never, on the other hand, has she
ceased to show a certain degree of mistrust
with respect to all that was the exclusive production
of human thought; and observe that
this is one of the chief differences between religion
and the philosophy of the last age; or,
we should rather say, it was the cause of their
violent antipathy. Religion did not condemn
science; on the contrary, she loved, protected,
and encouraged it; but at the same time she
marked out its limits, warned it that it was
blind on some points, announced to it that it
would be powerless in some of its labors, and
that in others its action would be destructive<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_446" id="Page_446">[Pg 446a]</a></span>
and fatal. Philosophy, on the contrary, loudly
proclaimed the sovereignty of science, declared
it to be all-powerful, and deified it; it attributed
to it strength and courage to change the
face of the world, and wisdom and foresight
enough to work this change for the good of
humanity. This pride of knowledge, this deification
of thought, is, if you observe closely,
the foundation of Protestant doctrine. All
authority being taken away, reason is the only
competent judge, the intellect receives directly
and immediately from God all the light which
is necessary. This is the fundamental doctrine
of Protestantism, that is to say, the pride of
the mind.</p>

<p>If we closely observe, even the triumph of
revolutions has in no degree nullified the wise
anticipations of religion; and knowledge, properly
so called, instead of gaining any credit
from this triumph, has entirely lost what it
had: there remains nothing of the revolutionary
knowledge; what remains is the effects
of the revolution, the interests created by it,
the institutions which have arisen from those
interests, and which, since that time, have
sought in the department of science itself our
principles to support them,&mdash;principles altogether
different from those which had been
proclaimed in the beginning.</p>

<p>I have said that every idea has need of being
realized in an institution; this is so true, that
revolutions themselves, warned by the instinct
which leads them to preserve, with more or less
integrity, the principles whence they have
arisen, tend from the first to create those institutions
in which the revolutionary doctrines
may be perpetuated, or to constitute successors
to represent them when they shall have
disappeared from the schools. This may lead
to many reflections on the origin and present
condition of several forms of governments in
different countries of Europe.</p>

<p>When speaking of the rapidity with which
scientific theories succeed each other, when
pointing out the immense development which
the press has given to the field of discussion, I
have shown that this was not an infallible sign
of scientific progress, still less a guarantee for
the fertility of human thought in realizing
great things in the material and social order.
I have said that grand conceptions proceed
rather from <em>intuition</em> than from <em>discourses</em>; and
on this subject I have recalled to mind historical
events and personages which place this
matter beyond a doubt. In support of this
assertion, ideology might have furnished us
with abundant proofs, if it were necessary to
have recourse to science itself to prove its own
sterility. But mere good sense, taught by the
lessons of experience daily, is enough to convince
us that the men who are the most able
in theory are, often enough, not only mediocre,
but even weak in the exercise of authority.
With regard to the hints which I have thrown
out with respect to "intuition" and "discourses,"
I leave them to the judgment of any
one who has applied to the study of the human
mind. I am confident that the opinion
of those who have reflected will not differ
from my own.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_446b" id="Page_446b">[Pg 446b]</a></span></p>


<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_21"></a>Note</span> 21, p. 175.</p>

<p>I have attributed to Christianity the gentleness
of manners which Europe now enjoys.
Yet, in spite of the decline of religious belief
in the last century, this gentleness of manners,
instead of being destroyed, has only been
raised to a higher degree. This contrast, the
effect of which, at first sight, is to destroy
what I have established, requires some explanation.
First of all, we must recollect the distinction
pointed out in the text between effeminacy
and gentleness of manners. The first is
a fault, the second a valuable quality; the first
emanates from enervation of the mind and
weakening of the body; the second is owing
to the preponderance of reason, the empire of
the mind over the body, the triumph of justice
over force, of right over might. There is a
large portion of real gentleness in manners at
the present day, but luxury has also a considerable
part therein. This luxury of manners
has certainly not arisen from religion, but from
infidelity; the latter, never extending its view
beyond the present life, causes the lofty destinies,
and even the very existence of the soul,
to be forgotten, puts egotism upon the throne,
constantly excites and keeps alive the love of
pleasure, and makes man the vile slave of his
passions. On the contrary, at the first sight,
we perceive that our manners owe all their
gentleness to Christianity; all the ideas, all
the feelings, on which this gentleness is founded,
bear the mark of Christianity. The dignity
of man, his rights, the obligation of treating
him with the respect which is due to him,
and of appealing to his mind by reason rather
than to his body by violence, the necessity imposed
on every one of keeping within the line
of his duty, of respecting the property and the
persons of others,&mdash;all this body of principles,
to which real gentleness of manners is owing,
is due, in Europe, to the influence of Christianity,
which, after a struggle of many centuries
against the barbarism and ferocity of
invading nations, succeeded in destroying the
system of violence which these same nations
had made general.</p>

<p>As philosophy has taken care to change the
ancient names consecrated by religion, and
authorized by the usage of a succession of
ages, it happens that some ideas, although the
produce of Christianity, are scarcely acknowledged
as such, only because they are disguised
under a worldly dress. Who does not know
that mutual love among men and fraternal
charity are ideas entirely due to Christianity?
Who does not know that pagan antiquity did
not acknowledge them, that it even despised
them? And nevertheless, this affection, which
was formerly called <em>charity</em>, because charity
was the virtue from which it took its legitimate
origin, has constantly taken care to assume
other names, as if it were ashamed to be seen
in public with any appearance of religion.
The mania for attacking the Christian religion
being passed, it is openly confessed that the
principle of universal charity is owing to her;
but language remains infected with Voltairian
philosophy even since the discredit into which
that philosophy has fallen. Whence it follows,
that we very often do not appreciate as we<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_447" id="Page_447">[Pg 447a]</a></span>
ought the influence of Christianity on the society
which surrounds us, and that we attribute
to other ideas and other causes the phenomena
which are evidently owing to religion.
Society at present, in spite of all its indifference,
is more indebted to religion than is
commonly supposed; it resembles those men,
who, born of an illustrious family, in which
good principles and a careful education are
transmitted as an inheritance from generation
to generation, preserve in their manners and
behavior, even in the midst of their disorders,
their crimes, and I will even venture to say,
their degradation, some traits which denote
their noble origin.</p>


<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_22"></a>Note</span> 22, p. 183.</p>

<p>A few regulations of Councils, quoted in the
text, are sufficient to give an idea of the system
pursued by the Church for the purpose of
reforming and softening manners. It may be
remarked that, on previous occasions during
this work, I have a strong inclination to call
to mind monuments of this kind; I will state
here that I have two reasons for doing this:
1. When having to compare Protestantism with
Catholicity, I believe that the best means of
representing the real spirit of the latter is, to
show it at work; this is done when we bring
to light the measures which were adopted, according
to different circumstances, by Popes
and Councils. 2. Considering the direction
which historical studies take in Europe, and
the taste, which is daily becoming more general,
not for histories, but for historical documents,
it is proper always to bear in mind that
the proceedings of Councils are of the highest
importance, not only in historical and ecclesiastical
matters, but also in political and social
ones; so that to pay no attention to the data
which are found in the records of Councils, is
monstrously to mutilate, or rather wholly to
destroy, the history of Europe.</p>

<p>On this account it is very useful, and even
necessary in many things, to consult these records,
although it may be painful to our indolence,
on account of their enormous extent and
the ennui of finding many things devoid of interest
for our times. The sciences, above all
those which have society for their object, lead
to satisfactory results only by means of painful
labors. What is useful is frequently mixed
and confounded with what is not. The most
valuable things are sometimes found by the
side of repulsive objects; but in nature, do we
find gold without having removed rude masses
of earth?</p>

<p>Those who have attempted to find the germ
of the precious qualities of European civilization
among the barbarians of the north, should
undoubtedly have attributed the gentleness of
our manners to the same barbarians; they
would have had in support of this paradox a
fact certainly more specious than that which
they have relied on to give the honor of elevating
European women to the Germans. I
allude to the well-known custom of avoiding
the infliction of corporal punishments, and of
chastising the gravest offences by fines only.
Nothing is more likely to make us believe that
these nations were happily inclined to gentleness
of manners, since, in the midst of their<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_447b" id="Page_447b">[Pg 447b]</a></span>
barbarism, they used the right of punishment
with a moderation which is not found even
among the most civilized and refined nations.
If we regard the thing in this point of view,
it seems as if the influence of Christianity on
the barbarians had the effect of rendering their
manners more harsh instead of more gentle;
indeed, after Christianity was introduced, the
infliction of corporal punishments became general,
and even that of death was not excluded.</p>

<p>But when we attentively consider this peculiarity
of the criminal code of the barbarians,
we shall see that, far from showing the advancement
of their civilization and the gentleness of
their manners, it is, on the contrary, the most
evident proof that they were behindhand; it
is the strongest index of the harshness and barbarism
which reigned among them. In the first
place, inasmuch as crimes among them were
punished by means of fines, or, as it was called,
by <em>composition</em>, it is clear that the law paid
much more attention to <em>repairing an injury</em>
than to <em>punishing a crime</em>; a circumstance
which clearly shows us how little they thought
about the morality of the action, as they attended
not so much to the action itself, as to
the wrong which it inflicted. Therefore this
was not an element of civilization but of barbarism;
this tended to nothing less than the
banishment of morality from the world. The
Church combated this principle, as fatal in public
as in private affairs; she introduced into
criminal legislation a new set of ideas, which
completely changed its spirit. On this point
M. Guizot has done full justice to the Catholic
Church. I am delighted to acknowledge and to
insert this homage here by transcribing his own
words. After having pointed out the difference
which existed between the laws of the Visigoths,
derived in great part from the Councils
of Toledo, and the other barbarian laws, M.
Guizot signalizes the immense superiority of
the ideas of the Church in matters of legislation,
of justice, and in all that concerns the
search after truth and the lot of men; he adds:
"In criminal matters, the relation of crimes to
punishments is fixed (in the laws of the Visigoths)
according to sufficiently just, philosophical,
and moral notions. We there perceive
the efforts of an enlightened legislator, who
contends against the violence and rashness of
barbarian manners. The chapter <i lang="la">De cæde et
morte hominum</i>, compared with the corresponding
laws of other nations, is a very remarkable
example of this. Elsewhere, it is almost
exclusively the injury which seems to constitute
the crime, and the punishment is sought
in that material reparation which is the result
of composition. Here, the crime is referred to
its real and moral element, the intention. The
different shades of criminality, absolutely voluntary
homicide, homicide by inadvertence,
provoked homicide, homicide with or without
premeditation, are distinguished and defined
almost as well as in our own codes, and the
punishments vary in a proportion equally just.
The justice of the legislator has gone still
further. He has attempted, if not to abolish,
at least to diminish the diversity of legal value
established among men by the other barbarian
laws. The only distinction which it preserves
is that of freeman and slave. With respect to
freeman, the punishment varies neither with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_448" id="Page_448">[Pg 448a]</a></span>
the origin nor the rank of the deceased, but
only according to the different degrees of the
culpability of the murderer. With regard to
slaves, not venturing completely to withdraw
from the masters the right of life and death, it
has been attempted at least to restrain it by
subjecting it to a public and regular procedure.
The text of the law deserves to be cited.</p>

<p>"'If no one guilty of, or an accomplice in,
a crime ought to remain unpunished, with how
much more reason ought he to be condemned
who has wickedly and rashly committed a homicide!
Thus, as masters, in their pride, often
put their slaves to death without any fault of
the latter, it is proper altogether to extirpate
this license, and to ordain that the present law
shall be forever observed by all. No master
or mistress shall put to death, without public
trial, any of their slaves, male or female, or
any person dependent on them. If a slave or
any other servant shall commit a crime which
may subject him to capital punishment, his
master or his accuser shall immediately inform
the judge or the count or duke of the place
where the deed has been committed. After the
affair has been inquired into, if the crime be
proved, let the criminal undergo, either by the
judge or his own master, the sentence of death
which he has deserved; so that, nevertheless,
if the judge be unwilling to put the accused to
death, he shall draw up in writing a capital
sentence, and then it shall be in the power of
the master to put him to death or not. Indeed,
if the slave, with a fatal audacity, resisting his
master, has struck, or attempted to strike, him
with a weapon, with a stone, or with any other
kind of blow, and if the master, in defending
himself, has killed the slave in his passion, the
master shall be in no way subject to the punishment
of homicide. But it shall be necessary
to prove that the event took place thus, and
that by the testimony or oath of the slaves,
male or female, who shall have been present,
and by the oath of the author of the deed himself.
Whoever from mere malice, either by his
own hand or that of another, shall have killed
his slave without public trial, shall be marked
with infamy, declared incapable of appearing
as a witness, shall be obliged to pass the rest
of his life in exile and penance, and his goods
shall go to the nearest relations to whom they
are given by the law.'&mdash;For. Jud. liv. vi. tit.
xv. l. 12." (<cite>Hist. Génér. de la Civilisation en
Europe</cite>, leçon 6.)</p>

<p>I have copied this passage from M. Guizot
with pleasure, because I find there a confirmation
of what I have just said on the subject of
the influence of the Church in softening manners,
and of what I have before stated with respect
to the great amelioration which the Church
made in the condition of slaves, by limiting
the excessive power of their masters. This
truth is proved in its place by so many documents,
that it seems useless to revert to it here;
it is enough now for my purpose, to point out
that M. Guizot fully allows that the Church
gave morality to the legislation of the barbarians,
by making them consider the wickedness
of the crime, whereas they had previously attended
only to the injury of which it was the
cause; she has thus transferred the action from
the physical to the moral order, giving to punishments
their real character, and not allow<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_448b" id="Page_448b">[Pg 448b]</a></span>ing
them to remain reduced to the level of a
mere material reparation. Hence we see that
the criminal system of the barbarians, which,
at the first <em>view</em>, seemed to indicate progress in
civilization, was, in reality, owing to the little
ascendency which moral principles exercised
over these nations, and to the fact, that the
views of the legislator were very slightly raised
above the purely material order.</p>

<p>There is another observation to be made on
this point, viz. that the mildness with which
crimes were punished is the best proof of the
frequency with which they were committed.
When in a country assassinations, mutilations,
and other similar attempts are very rare, they
are regarded with horror; those who are guilty
of them are chastised with severity. But when
crimes are very frequently committed, they insensibly
lose their enormity; not only those
who commit them, but all the world become
accustomed to their hideous aspect, and the legislator
is then naturally induced to treat them
with indulgence. This is shown us by the experience
of every day; and the reader will have
no difficulty in finding in society at the present
time more than one crime to which the remark
which I have just made is applicable.
Among the barbarians, it was common to appeal
to force, not only with respect to property,
but also to persons; wherefore it was natural
that crimes of this kind should not be regarded
by them with the same aversion, it may be
said with the same horror, as among a people
where the triumph of the ideas of reason, justice,
right, and law, render it impossible to conceive
even the existence of a society where
each individual should believe himself self-entitled
to do justice to himself. Thus the laws
against these crimes naturally became milder,
the legislator contenting himself with repairing
the injury, without paying much attention
to the culpability of the delinquent. And this
is intimately connected with what I have said
above with respect to public conscience; for
the legislator is always more or less the organ
of this public conscience. Where an action,
in any society whatever, is regarded as a heinous
offence, the legislator cannot decree a mild
punishment for it; on the other hand, it is not
possible for him to chastise with great severity
what the society absolves or excuses. It will
sometimes happen that this proportion will be
altered, that this harmony will be destroyed;
but things soon quitting the path into which
violence forced them, will not be long in returning
to their ordinary course. Manners being
chaste and pure, offences against them will be
covered with abhorrence and infamy; but if
morals be corrupted, the same acts will be regarded
with indifference; at the most they will
be denominated slight weaknesses. Among a
people where religious ideas exercise great influence,
the violation of all that is consecrated
to God is regarded as a horrible outrage,
worthy of the greatest chastisements;
among another people, where infidelity has
made its ravages, the same violation is not
even placed on the list of ordinary offences;
instead of drawing on the guilty the justice
of the law, scarcely does it draw on them
the slight correction of the police. The reader
will understand the appropriateness of this digression
on the criminal legislation of the bar<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_449" id="Page_449">[Pg 449a]</a></span>barians,
when he reflects that, in order to examine
the influence of Catholicity on the civilization
of Europe, it is indispensable to take
into consideration the other elements which
have concurred in forming that civilization.
Without this, it would be impossible properly
to appreciate the respective action of each of
these elements, either for good or evil; impossible
to bring to light the share which the
Church can exclusively claim in the great work
of our civilization; impossible to resolve the
high question which has been raised by the
partisans of Protestantism on the subject of the
assumed advantages which the religious revolution
of the sixteenth century has conferred
on modern society. It is because the barbarian
nations are one of these elements, that it is
so often necessary to attend to them.</p>


<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_23"></a>Note</span> 23, p. 189.</p>

<p>In the middle ages, almost all the monasteries
and colleges of canons had a hospital annexed
to them, not only to receive pilgrims,
but also to aid in the support and consolation
of the poor and the sick. If you desire to see
the noblest symbol of religion sheltering all
kinds of misfortune, consider the houses devoted
to prayer and the most sublime virtues
converted into asylums for the miserable. This
was exactly what took place at that time, when
the public authority not only wanted the
strength and knowledge necessary to establish
a good administration for the relief of the unfortunate,
but did not even succeed in covering
with her ægis the most sacred interests of society;
this shows us that when all was powerless,
religion was still strong and fruitful; that
when all perished, religion not only preserved
herself, but even founded immortal establishments.
And pay attention to what we have
so many times pointed out, viz. that the religion
which worked these prodigies was not a
vague and abstract religion&mdash;the Christianity
of the Protestants; but religion with all her
dogmas, her discipline, her hierarchy, her
supreme Pontiff, in a word, the Catholic
Church.</p>

<p>They were far from thinking in ancient times
that the support of the unfortunate could be
confided to the civil administration alone, or to
individual charity; it was then thought, as I
have already said, that it was a very proper
thing that the hospitals should be subjected to
the Bishops; that is to say, that there should
be a kind of assimilation made between the
system of public beneficence and the hierarchy
of the Church. Hence it was that, by virtue
of an ancient regulation, the hospitals were
under the control of the Bishops as well in
temporals as in spirituals, whether the persons
appointed to the care of the establishments
were clerical or lay, whether the hospital had
been erected by order of the Bishop or not.</p>

<p>This is not the place to relate the vicissitudes
which this discipline underwent, nor the different
causes which produced the successive
changes; it is enough to observe, that the fundamental
principle, that is, the interference of
the ecclesiastical authority in establishments
of beneficence, always remained unimpaired,
and that the Church never allowed herself to
be entirely deprived of so noble a privilege.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_449b" id="Page_449b">[Pg 449b]</a></span>
Never did she think that it was allowable for
her to regard with indifference the abuses which
were introduced on this point to the prejudice
of the unfortunate; wherefore she has reserved
at least the right to remedy the evils which
might result from the wickedness or the indolence
of the administrators. The Council of
Vienne ordains, that if the administrators of a
hospital, lay or clerical, become relaxed in the
exercise of their charge, proceedings shall be
taken against them by the Bishops, who shall
reform and restore the hospital of their own
authority, if it has no privilege of exemption,
and by delegation, if it has one. The Council
of Trent also granted to Bishops the power of
visiting the hospitals, even with the power of
delegates of the Apostolic See in the cases fixed
by law; it ordains, moreover, that the administrators,
lay or clerical, shall be obliged every
year to render their accounts to the ordinary
of the place, unless the contrary has been provided
in the foundation; and that if, by virtue
of a particular privilege, custom, or statute, the
accounts must be presented to any other than
the ordinary, at least he shall be added to those
who are appointed to receive them.</p>

<p>Without paying attention to the different
modifications which the laws and customs of
various countries may have introduced in this
matter, we will say that one thing remains
manifest, viz. the vigilance of the Church in all
that regards beneficence; it is her constant tendency,
by virtue of her spirit and maxims, to
take part in affairs of this kind, sometimes to
direct them exclusively, sometimes to remedy
the evils which may have crept in. The civil
power acknowledged the motives of this holy
and charitable ambition; we see that the Emperor
Justinian does not hesitate to give public
authority over the hospitals to the Bishops,
thereby conforming to the discipline of the
Church and the general good.</p>

<p>On this point there is a remarkable fact,
which it is necessary to mention here, in order
to signalize its beneficent influence; I mean,
the regulation by which the property of hospitals
was looked upon as Church property,&mdash;a
regulation which was very far from being a
matter of indifference, although at first sight it
might appear so. Their property, thereby invested
with the same privileges as that of the
Church, was protected by an inviolability so
much the more necessary as the times were the
more difficult, and the more abounding in outrages
and usurpations. The Church which,
notwithstanding all the public troubles, preserved
great authority and a powerful ascendency
over governments and nations, had thus
a simple and powerful claim to extend her
protection over the property of hospitals, and
to withdraw them as much as possible from the
cupidity and the rapacity of the powerful.
And it must not be supposed that this doctrine
was introduced with any indirect design, nor
that this kind of community, this assimilation
between the Church and the poor, was an unheard-of
novelty; on the contrary, this assimilation
was so well suited to the common order
of things, it was so entirely founded on the
relations between the Church and the poor,
that if the property of the hospitals had the
privilege of being considered as the property
of the Church, that of the Church, on the other<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_450" id="Page_450">[Pg 450a]</a></span>
hand, was called the property of the poor. It
is in these terms that the holy Fathers express
themselves on this point: these doctrines had
so much affected the ordinary language, that
when, at a later period, the canonical question
with respect to the ownership of the goods of
the Church had to be solved, there were found
by the side of those who directly attributed
this property to God, to the Pope, to the clergy,
some who pointed out the poor as being the
real proprietors. It is true that this opinion
was not the most conformable to the principles
of law; but the mere fact of its appearing on
the field of controversy is a matter for grave
consideration.</p>


<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_24"></a>Note</span> 24, p. 196.</p>

<p>A few reflections, in the form of a note, on a
certain maxim of toleration professed by a philosopher
of the last century, Rousseau, would
not be out of place here; but the analogy of
the following chapter with that which we have
just finished induces us to reserve them for
note 25. The considerations to which the
opinion of Rousseau will lead, apply to the
question of toleration in religious matters, as
well as to the right of coercion exercised by
the civil and political power; I therefore beg
my reader to reserve for the following note
the attention which he might be willing to afford
me now.</p>


<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_25"></a>Note</span> 25, p. 203.</p>

<p>For the purpose of clearing up ideas on toleration
as far as lay in my power, I have presented
this matter in a point of view but little
known; in order to throw still more light upon
it, I will say a few words on religious and civil
intolerance,&mdash;things which are entirely different,
although Rousseau absolutely affirms the
contrary. Religious or theological intolerance
consists in the conviction, that the only true
religion is the Catholic,&mdash;a conviction common
to all Catholics. Civil intolerance consists in
not allowing in society any other religions
than the Catholic. These two definitions are
sufficient to make every man of common sense
understand that the two kinds of intolerance
are not inseparable; indeed, we may very
easily conceive that men firmly convinced of
the truth of Catholicity may tolerate those who
profess another religion, or none at all. Religious
intolerance is an act of the mind, an act
inseparable from faith; indeed, whoever has a
firm belief that his own religion is true, must
necessarily be convinced that it is the only
true one; for the truth is one. Civil intolerance
is an act whereby the will rejects those
who do not profess the same religion; this act
has different results, according as the intolerance
is in the individuals or in the government.
On the other hand, religious tolerance
consists in believing that all religions are true;
which, when rightly understood, means that
none are true, since it is impossible for contradictory
things to be true at the same time.
Civil tolerance is, to allow men who entertain a
different religion to live in peace. This tolerance,
as well as the co-relative intolerance,
produces different effects, according as it exists
in individuals or in the government.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_450b" id="Page_450b">[Pg 450b]</a></span></p>

<p>This distinction, which, from its clearness
and simplicity, is within the reach of the most
ordinary minds, has nevertheless been mistaken
by Rousseau, who affirms that it is a
vain fiction, a chimera, which cannot be realized,
and that the two kinds of intolerance
cannot be separated from each other. Rousseau
might have been content with observing,
that religious intolerance, that is to say, as I
have explained above, the firm conviction that
a religion is true, if it is general in a country,
must produce, in the ordinary intercourse of
life as well as in legislation, a certain tendency
not to tolerate any one who thinks differently,
principally when those who dissent are very
limited in number; his observation would then
have been well founded, and would have agreed
with the opinion which I have expressed on
this point, when I attempted to represent the
natural course of ideas and events in this matter.
But Rousseau does not consider things
under this aspect: desiring to attack Catholicity,
he affirms that the two kinds of intolerance
are inseparable; "for," says he, "it is
impossible to live in peace with those whom
one believes to be damned; to love them would
be to hate God, who punishes them." It is
impossible to carry misrepresentation further:
who told Rousseau that the Catholics believe
in the damnation of any man, whoever he may
be, as long as he lives; and that they think
that to love a man who is in error would be to
hate God? On the contrary, could he be ignorant
that it is a duty, an indispensable precept,
a dogma, for Catholics to love all men? Could
he be ignorant that even children, in the first
rudiments of Christian doctrine, learn that we
are obliged to love our neighbor as ourselves,
and that by this word neighbor is meant whoever
has gained heaven, or may gain it; so that
no man, so long as he lives, is excluded from
this number? But Rousseau will say, you are
at least convinced that those who die in that
fatal state are condemned. Rousseau does not
observe that we think exactly the same with
respect to sinners, although their sin be not
that of heresy; now, it has not come into the
head of any body that good Catholics cannot
tolerate sinners, and that they consider themselves
under the obligation of hating them.
What religion shows more eagerness to convert
the wicked? The Catholic Church is so far
from teaching that we ought to hate them, that
she causes to be repeated a thousand times, in
pulpits, in books, and in conversations, those
words whereby God shows that it is His will
that sinners shall not perish, that He wills that
they shall be converted and live, that there is
more joy in heaven when one of them has done
penance, than upon the ninety-nine just who
need not penance. And let it not be imagined
that the man who thus expresses himself
against the intolerance of Catholics was the
partizan of complete toleration; on the contrary,
in society, such as he imagined it, he
did not desire toleration for those who did not
belong to the religion which the civil power
thought proper to establish. It is true that he
is not at all anxious that the citizens should
belong to the true religion. "Laying aside,"
he says, "political considerations, let us return
to the right, and let us lay down principles on
this important point. The right which the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_451" id="Page_451">[Pg 451a]</a></span>
social pact gives to the sovereign over his subject
does not exceed, as I have said, the
bounds of public utility. Subjects, therefore,
are accountable to their sovereign for their
opinions, inasmuch as those opinions are of
importance to the community. Now, it is of
great importance to the state, that every citizen
should have a religion which shall make
him love his duties; but the dogmas of that
religion interest the state and its members only
inasmuch as those dogmas affect morality and
the duties which those who profess it are
bound to perform towards others. As for the
rest, each one may have what opinions he
pleases, without being subject to the cognizance
of the sovereign, for he has no power in
the other world; it is not his affair what may
be the lot of his subjects in the life to come,
provided they be good citizens in this. There
is, therefore, a profession of faith purely civil,
the articles whereof it belongs to the sovereign
to fix, not exactly as dogmas of religion, but
as social sentiments, without which it is impossible
to be a good citizen or a faithful subject.
Without being able to compel any one
to believe them, it can banish from the state
him who does not believe them; it can banish
him, not as wicked, but as anti-social, as incapable
of sincerely loving the laws and justice,
and of sacrificing his life to his duty. If any
one, after having publicly acknowledged these
dogmas, conducts himself as if he did not believe
them, let him be punished with death; he
has committed the greatest of crimes, he has
lied against the laws." (<cite>Du Contrat Social</cite>, l.
iv. c. 8.)</p>

<p>Such, then, is the final result of the toleration
of Rousseau, viz. to give to the sovereign the
power of fixing articles of faith, to grant to him
the right of punishing with banishment, or
even death, those who will not conform to the
decisions of this new Pope, or who shall violate
after having embraced them. However strange
the doctrine of Rousseau may appear, it is not
excluded from the general system of those who
do not acknowledge the supremacy of authority
in religious matters. When this supremacy is to
be attributed to the Catholic Church, or its
head, it is rejected; and, by the most striking
contradiction, it is granted to the civil power.
It is very singular that Rousseau, when banishing
or putting to death the man who quits
the religion fashioned by the sovereign, does
not wish him to be punished as impious, but as
anti-social. Rousseau, following an impulse
very natural in him, did not wish that impiety
should be at all taken into account when
punishments were to be inflicted; but of what
consequence is the name given to his crime to
the man who is banished or put to death? In
the same chapter, he allows an expression to
escape him, which reveals at once the object
which he had in view in all this show of philosophy:
"Whoever dares to affirm that <em>out of
the Church there is no salvation</em>, ought to be
driven from the state." Which means, in other
words, that toleration ought to be given to all
except Catholics. It has been said, that the
<cite>Contrat Social</cite> was the code of the French
revolution; and, indeed, the latter did not forget
what the tolerant legislator has prescribed
with respect to Catholics. Few persons now
venture to declare themselves the disciples of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_451b" id="Page_451b">[Pg 451b]</a></span>
the philosopher of Geneva, although some of
his timid partisans still lavish on him unmeasured
eulogies. Let us have sufficient confidence
in the good sense of the human race, to
hope that all posterity, with a unanimous voice,
will confirm the stamp of ignominy with which
all men of sense have already marked that
turbulent sophist, the impudent author of the
<cite>Confessions</cite>.</p>

<p>When comparing Protestantism with Catholicity,
I was obliged to treat of intolerance, as
it is one of the reproaches which are most frequently
made against the Catholic religion;
but my respect for truth compels me to state,
that all Protestants have not preached universal
toleration; and that many of them have acknowledged
the right of checking and punishing
certain errors. Grotius, Puffendorf, and some
more of the wisest men that Protestantism can
boast of, are agreed on this point; therein they
have followed the example of all antiquity,
which, in theory as well as in practice, has
constantly conformed to these principles. A
cry has been raised against the intolerance of
Catholics, as if they had been the first to teach
it to the world; as if intolerance was a cursed
monster, which was engendered only where the
Catholic Church prevailed. In default of any
other reason, good faith at least required that
it should not be forgotten that the principle of
universal toleration was never acknowledged
in any part of the world; the books of philosophers,
and the codes of legislators, contain
the principle of intolerance with more or less
rigor. Whether it were desired to condemn
this principle as false, or to limit it, or to leave
it without application, it is clear that an accusation
ought not to have been made against the
Catholic Church in particular, on account of
a doctrine and conduct, wherein she only conformed
to the example of the whole human
race. Refined as well as barbarous nations
would be culpable therein, if there were any
crime; and the stigma, far from deserving to
fall upon governments directed by Catholicity,
or on Catholic writers, ought to be inflicted on
all the governments of antiquity, including
those of Greece and Rome; on all the ancient
sages, including Plato, Cicero, and Seneca; on
modern governments and sages, including Protestants.
If men had had this present to their
minds, the doctrine would not have appeared
so erroneous, nor the facts so black; they
would have seen that intolerance, as old as the
world, was not the invention of Catholics, and
that the whole world, ought to bear the responsibility
of it.</p>

<p>Assuredly the toleration which, in our days,
has become so general, from causes previously
pointed out, will not be affected by the doctrines,
more or less severe, more or less indulgent,
which shall be proclaimed in this matter;
but for the very reason, that intolerance, such
as it was practised in other times, has at last
become a mere historical fact, whereof no one
can fear the reappearance, it is proper to enter
into an attentive examination of questions of
this kind, in order to remove the reproach
which her enemies have attempted to cast upon
the Catholic Church.</p>

<p>The recollection of the encyclical letter of
the Pope against the doctrines of M. de Lamennais,
and the profound wisdom contained<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_452" id="Page_452">[Pg 452a]</a></span>
therein appropriately presents itself here.
That writer maintained that universal toleration,
the absolute liberty of worship, is the
normal and legitimate state of society,&mdash;a state
which cannot be changed without injury to the
rights of the man and the citizen. M. de Lamennais,
combating the encyclical letter,
attempted to show that it established new doctrines,
and attacked the liberty of nations.
No; the Pope, in his encyclical letter, does not
maintain any other doctrines than those which
have been professed up to this time by the
Church&mdash;we may say by all governments&mdash;with
respect to toleration. No government
can sustain itself if it is refused the right of
repressing doctrines dangerous to social order,
whether those doctrines are covered with the
mantle of philosophy, or disguised under the
veil of religion. The liberty of man is not
thereby assailed; for the only liberty which is
worthy of the name, is liberty in conformity
with reason. The Pope did not say that governments
cannot, in certain cases, tolerate
different religions; but he did not allow it to
be established as a principle, that absolute
toleration is an obligation on all governments.
This proposition is contrary to sound religious
doctrines, to reason, to the practice of all
governments, in all times and countries, and
the good sense of mankind. The talent and
eloquence of the unfortunate author have not
availed against this, and the Pope has obtained
the most solemn assent of all sensible men of
all creeds; while the man of genius, covering
his brow with the shades of obstinacy, has not
feared to seize upon the ignoble arms of sophistry.
Unhappy genius! who scarcely preserves
a shadow of himself, who has folded up
the splendid wings on which he sailed through
the azure sky, and now, like a bird of evil
omen, broods over the impure waters of a solitary
lake.</p>


<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_26"></a>Note</span> 26, p. 219.</p>

<p>When speaking of the Spanish Inquisition,
I do not undertake to defend all its acts either
in point of justice, or of the public advantage.
Without denying the peculiar circumstances
in which this institution was placed, I think
that it would have done much better, after the
example of the Inquisition of Rome, to avoid
as much as possible the effusion of blood. It
might have perfectly watched over the preservation
of the faith, prevented the evils
wherewith religion was threatened by the Moors
and the Jews, and preserved Spain from Protestantism,
without employing that excessive
rigor, which drew upon it the severe and deserved
reprimands and admonitions of the
Sovereign Pontiffs, provoked the complaints
of the people, made so many accused and condemned
persons appeal to Rome, and furnished
the adversaries of Catholicity with a pretext
for charging <em>that</em> religion with being sanguinary
which has a horror of the effusion of
blood. I repeat, that the Catholic religion is
not responsible for any of the excesses which
have been committed in her name; and when
men speak of the Inquisition, they ought not
to fix their eyes principally on that of Spain,
but on that of Rome. There, where the Sovereign
Pontiff resides, and where they best un<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_452b" id="Page_452b">[Pg 452b]</a></span>derstand
how the principle of intolerance
should be understood, and what use ought to
be made of it, the Inquisition has been mild
and indulgent in the extreme. Rome is the
part of the world where humanity has suffered
the least for the sake of religion; and
that, without the exception of any countries,
either of those where the Inquisition has existed,
or of those where it has been unknown;
of those where Catholicity has been predominant,
or where Protestantism has triumphed.
This fact, which cannot be denied, should suffice
to convince every sincere man what is the
spirit of Catholicity in this matter.</p>

<p>I make these remarks in order to show my
impartiality, to prove that I am not ignorant
of evils, and that I do not hesitate to admit
them wherever I find them. Notwithstanding
this, I am desirous that the facts and the observations
contained in the text, as well with
respect to the Inquisition itself, and to the different
epochs of its duration, as to the policy
of the kings who founded and established it,
shall not be forgotten. The same desire makes
me transcribe here a few documents likely to
throw a stronger light upon this important subject.
In the first place, I will quote the
preamble of the Pragmatic Sanction of the
Catholic princes Ferdinand and Isabella, for
the expulsion of the Jews; we there find stated
in a few words, the outrages which the Jews
inflicted on religion, and the dangers with
which they threatened the state.</p>

<p>"Book viii. chap. 2, second law of the new
<cite>Recopilacion</cite>. Don Ferdinand and Donna Isabella,
at Granada, 30th March, 1492. Pragmatic
Sanction.</p>

<p>"Having been informed that there existed in
these kingdoms bad Christians, who judaized
and apostatized from our holy Catholic faith,
whereof the communication between the Jews
and Christians was in great part the cause, we
ordained, in the Cortes held by us in Toledo,
in 1480, that the Jews in all the cities, towns,
and other places of our kingdoms and lordships,
should be confined in the Juiferies and places
appointed for them to live and dwell in, hoping
that this separation would serve as a remedy;
we also provided and gave orders that
an Inquisition should be appointed in our said
kingdoms; which Inquisition, as you know, is
and has been practised for more than twelve
years, and has discovered a great number of
delinquents, as is notorious. As we have been
informed by the Inquisitors, and many other
religious persons, lay and ecclesiastical, it is
certain that great injury to the Christians had
been and is the result of the participation, intercourse,
and communication which they have
had, and still have, with the Jews; it has been
proved that the latter, by all the means in their
power, constantly labor to subvert the faith
of Christians, to withdraw them from our holy
Catholic faith, to lead them away from it, to
attract them, and to pervert them to their own
noxious creed and opinions; instructing them
in the ceremonies and observances of their own
law; holding meetings to teach them what
they ought to believe and observe according to
that law; taking care to circumcise them and
their children, giving them books in order to
recite their prayers, teaching them the fasts
which they ought to observe, assembling to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_453" id="Page_453">[Pg 453a]</a></span>
read with them, teaching them the histories of
their laws; notifying to them the Paschal
times before they arrive, admonishing them as
to what they ought to do and observe during
those times; giving them, bringing for them,
from their own homes, the bread of azimes,
meats killed according to their ceremonies;
instructing them as to the things from which
they ought to abstain, in order to obey the law,
as well in eating as in other things; persuading
them, as far as they can, to adopt and keep
the Law of Moses, and making them understand
that no other law than that is true. All
these things are certain from numerous testimonies,
from the acknowledgments of the Jews
themselves, and of those who have been perverted
and deceived by them, which has inflicted
great injury, detriment, and dishonor on
our holy Catholic faith. Although we were
already informed of these things from many
quarters, and although we were aware that the
real remedy for all these evils and inconveniences
was to place an insurmountable barrier
to the communication of the Jews with the
Christians, and to banish the Jews from our
kingdoms, we wished to be satisfied with enjoining
them to quit all the cities, towns, and
places of Andalusia, where it seemed that
they had done the most mischief, believing
that that would be enough to hinder those of
the other cities, towns, and places of our kingdoms
and lordships from doing and committing
what has been mentioned. But being informed
that this measure, as well as the acts of
justice exercised on some of the Jews who
were found guilty of these offences and crimes
against our holy Catholic faith, do not suffice
to remedy the evil thoroughly; for the purpose
of obviating and abolishing so great an opprobrium,
such an offence against the faith and
the Christian religion, since it appears that the
same Jews, with a fatal ardor, redouble their
perverse attempts wherever they live and associate;
wishing to suppress the occasion of offending
more against our holy Catholic faith,
as well on account of those persons whom it
has pleased God up to this time to preserve, as
of those who, after having fallen, have repented
and returned to our holy mother the Church;
wishing to prevent the offences which, on account
of the weakness of our human nature,
and the suggestions of the devil, which continually
make war on us, might easily occur, if
the principal cause of the evil were not removed
by the expulsion of the Jews from our
kingdoms; considering, besides, that when a
great and detestable crime has been committed
by some members of a college or university, it
is reasonable that that college or that university
should be dissolved and destroyed, that
some may be punished on account of the
others, and the lesser number on account of
the greater; that those who pervert the good
and virtuous mode of life of cities and towns,
by a contagion which may injure others, may
be banished from those towns; and that if it
be allowed to act thus for other slight causes
prejudicial to the state, there is still more reason
to allow it for the greatest, the most dangerous,
the most contagious of crimes, that
which is in question: for all these reasons we,
having consulted our Council, and taken the
advice of some prelates," &amp;c.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_453b" id="Page_453b">[Pg 453b]</a></span></p>

<p>We are not now examining whether or not
there is any exaggeration in these imputations
against the Jews, although, according to all
appearances, there must have been a great
deal of foundation for them, in consequence of
the situation in which the two rival nations
were placed. Observe, besides, that if the
preamble of the Pragmatic Sanction is silent
with respect to a hundred accusations brought
against the Jews by the generality of the
people, the report of these crimes had not the
less weight with the public; consequently, the
situation of the Jews was aggravated in an extraordinary
degree, and the princes were so
much the more inclined to treat them with severity.</p>

<p>With respect to the mistrust with which the
Moors and their descendants must have been
regarded, besides the facts pointed out above,
others might be related which show the disposition
of men's minds to see in the presence of
these men a permanent conspiracy against the
Christians. Almost a century had elapsed since
the conquest of Granada, and it was still feared
that this kingdom might be the centre of plots
contrived by the Moors against the Christians,
the source of perfidious projects, and the place
whence came the means of maltreating in all
ways the defenceless persons upon our coasts.</p>

<p>Thus spoke Philip II. in 1567:</p>

<p>"Book viii. chap. 2, of the new <cite>Recopilacion</cite>.</p>

<p>"Law xx., which decrees severe punishments
against the inhabitants of the kingdom
of Granada who shall have hidden, received,
or favored the Turks, Moors, or Jews, or given
them intelligence, or corresponded with them.</p>

<p>"D. Philip II., Madrid, 10 December, 1567.</p>

<p>"Having been informed that, notwithstanding
what has been ordained by us, as well by
sea as by land, particularly for the kingdom
of Granada, for the purpose of insuring the
defence and security of our kingdoms, the
Turks, Moors, and corsairs have already committed,
and still commit, in the ports of this
kingdom, on the coasts, in maritime places,
and those bordering on the sea, robberies, misdeeds,
injuries, and seizures of Christians;
evils which are notorious, and which, it is said,
have been, and are, committed with ease and
security, by favor of the intercourse and understanding
which the ravishers have had, and
still have, with some of the inhabitants of the
country, who give them intelligence, guide
them, receive them, hide them, and lend them
favor and assistance; some of them even going
away with the Moors and Turks, leading away
and carrying with them their wives, their children,
their goods, Christian captives, and the
things which they were able to ravish from the
Christians; while other inhabitants of the
same kingdom, who have participated in these
projects, or have been acquainted with them,
remain in the country, without having been or
being punished; for it appears that measures
are not executed with due severity, nor as completely,
or with as much care as they ought to
be: as, moreover, it seems very difficult to get
accurate information, as it appears that even
the justices and the judges, to whom it belongs
to make inquiries and to punish, have displayed
remissness and negligence in their employment;&mdash;this
having been agitated and discussed
in our Council, with the view of providing,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_454" id="Page_454">[Pg 454a]</a></span>
as is proper in a thing of such great importance,
for the service of God our Master, for
our own and the public good; the thing having
been consulted upon by us, it has been
agreed that we ought to publish this present
letter," &amp;c.</p>

<p>Years passed away; the hatred between the
two nations still endured; in spite of the numerous
checks which the Mahometan race had
received, the Christians were not satisfied. It
was very probable that a nation who had suffered,
and might still suffer, such great humiliations,
would attempt to avenge them. It is
also by no means difficult to believe in the reality
of the conspiracies which were charged
against the Moors. However this may be, the
report of these conspiracies was general, and
the government was seriously alarmed by them.
Those who desire a proof of this, may read
what Philip III. said, in 1609, in the law which
expelled the Moriscoes.</p>

<p>"Book viii. chap. 2, of the new <cite>Recopilacion</cite>.</p>

<p>"Law <span class="smcap">xxv.</span> By virtue of which the Moriscoes
were banished from the kingdom: causes
of this expulsion&mdash;means which were adopted
for the execution of the measure.</p>

<p>"D. Philip III., Madrid, 9 December, 1609.</p>

<p>"For a long time it has been endeavored to
save the Moriscoes in these kingdoms: the
holy office of the Inquisition has inflicted
divers punishments; numerous edicts of mercy
have been granted; neither means nor diligence
have been spared to instruct them in
our holy faith, without being able to obtain the
desired result, for none of them have been
converted. On the contrary, their obstinacy
has increased; the peril which threatens our
kingdoms, if we keep the Moriscoes, has been
represented to us by persons very well informed
and full of the fear of God, who, thinking it
proper that a prompt remedy should be applied
to this evil, have represented to us that the
delay might be charged upon our royal conscience,
considering the grave offences which
our Lord receives from that people. We have
been assured that we might, without scruple,
punish them in their lives and properties, since
they were convicted by their continued offences
of being heretics, apostates, and traitors of
<i lang="fr">lèse-majesté</i> divine and human. Although it
would have been allowable to proceed against
them with the rigor which their offences deserve,
nevertheless, desiring to bring them
back by means of mildness and mercy, I ordained,
in the city and kingdom of Valencia,
an assembly of the patriarchs, and other prelates
and wise men, in order to ascertain what
could be resolved upon and settled; but having
learned that, at the very time they were engaged
in remedying the evil, the Moriscoes of
the said kingdom of Valencia, and of our other
domains, continued to urge forward their pernicious
projects; knowing, moreover, from correct
and certain intelligence, that they had
sent to treat at Constantinople with the Turks,
and at Morocco with the king, Muley Fidon,
in order that there might be sent into the
kingdom of Spain the greatest number of
forces possible to aid and assist them; being
sure that there would be found in our kingdom
more than 150,000 men, as good Moors as those
from the coasts of Barbary, all ready to assist<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_454b" id="Page_454b">[Pg 454b]</a></span>
them with their lives and fortunes, whereby
they were persuaded of the facility of the enterprise;
knowing that the same treaties have
been attempted with heretics and other princes
our enemies: considering all that we have just
said, and to fulfill the obligation which we are
under of preserving and maintaining the holy
Roman Catholic faith in our kingdoms, as well
as the security, peace, and repose of the said
kingdoms, with the counsel and advice of
learned men, and others, very zealous for the
service of God and for our own, we ordain
that all the Moriscoes, inhabitants of these
kingdoms, men, women, and children, of all
conditions," &amp;c.</p>

<p>I have said that the Popes labored, from the
commencement, to soften the rigors of the
Spanish Inquisition, sometimes by admonishing
the kings and inquisitors, sometimes by
giving the accused and condemned a right of
appeal. The kings feared that the religious
innovations would produce a public disturbance;
I add, that their policy embarrassed
the Popes, and prevented them from carrying
as far as they would have wished their measures
of mildness and indulgence. Among the other
documents which support this assertion, I will
cite one which proves the irritation of the
Spanish kings at the assistance which the accused
found at Rome.</p>

<p>"Book viii. chap. 3, law 2, of the new <cite>Recopilacion</cite>,
enjoining persons condemned by
the Inquisition, and absent from these kingdoms,
not to return there under pain of death
and losing their goods.</p>

<p>"D. Ferdinand and D. Isabella, at Saragossa,
2d August, 1498. Pragmatic Sanction.</p>

<p>"Some persons condemned as heretics by the
Inquisition have absented themselves from our
kingdoms, and have gone to other countries,
where, by means of false reports and undue
formalities, they have surreptitiously obtained
exemptions, absolutions, mandates, securities,
and other privileges, in order to be exempt
from the condemnations and punishments
which they had incurred, and to remain in
their errors, which, nevertheless, does not prevent
their attempting to return to these kingdoms,
wherefore, wishing to extirpate so great
an evil, we command these condemned persons
not to be so bold as to return. Let them not
return into our kingdoms and lordships, by any
way, in any manner, for any cause or reason
whatsoever, under pain of death and the loss
of their goods; which punishment we will and
ordain to be incurred by the act itself. One-third
of the property shall be for the persons
who shall have denounced, another for the
courts, and the third for our exchequer. Whenever
the said justices, in their own places and
jurisdiction, shall know that any of the said
persons are in any part of their jurisdiction,
we order all and each of them, without exception,
to go to the place where such persons are,
without being otherwise called upon, to apprehend
them forcibly and immediately, and without
delay to execute, and cause to be executed,
on them and their properties the punishments
which we have appointed; and this notwithstanding
all exemption, reconciliation, securities,
and other privileges which they may have,
these privileges, in the present case, and with
respect to the said penalties, not availing them.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_455" id="Page_455">[Pg 455a]</a></span>
We order them to do and accomplish this under
pain of the loss and confiscation of all
their property. The same penalty shall be incurred
by all other persons who shall have
hidden or received the said condemned persons,
and who knowing that they were so, shall not
have given information to our courts. We
order all great men and councillors, and other
persons of our kingdoms, to give favor and
assistance to our courts, whenever it shall be
demanded and required from them, to accomplish
and execute what has been said above,
under the penalties which the courts themselves
shall appoint on this subject."</p>

<p>We see from this document, that, after the
year 1498, things had reached such a point,
that the kings attempted to maintain against
every one all the rigor of the Inquisition, and
that they were offended that the Popes interfered
to soften it. It will be understood thereby
whence proceeded the harshness with which
the guilty were treated; and this shows us one
of the causes which made the Inquisition
sometimes use its power with excessive severity.
Although it was not a mere instrument
of the policy of kings, as some have said, the
Inquisition felt more or less the influence of
that policy; and we know that policy, when
about to defeat an adversary, does not commonly
display an excess of compassion. If
the Spanish Inquisition had been at that time
under the exclusive authority and direction of
the Popes, it would have been infinitely milder
and more moderate in its method of acting.</p>

<p>At that time the object ardently desired by
the kings of Spain was, to obtain that the
judgments of the Inquisition should be definitive
in Spain, without appeal to Rome; Queen
Isabella had expressly demanded this of the
Pope. The Sovereign Pontiffs would not accede
to these solicitations, no doubt fearing the
abuse which might be made of so fearful an
arm when the restraint of the moderating
power should become wanting.</p>

<p>It will be understood from the facts which I
have just quoted, how much reason I had to
say that, if you excuse the conduct of Ferdinand
and Isabella with respect to the Inquisition,
you must not condemn that of Philip II.,
since the Catholic sovereigns showed themselves
still more harsh and severe than the
latter monarch. I have already pointed out
the reason why the conduct of Philip II. has
been so rigorously condemned; but it is also
necessary to show why there has been a sort
of obstinacy in excusing that of Ferdinand
and Isabella.</p>

<p>When it is wished to falsify an historical
fact by calumniating a person or an institution,
it is necessary to begin with an affectation of
impartiality and good faith; great success is
obtained in this by manifesting indulgence for
the same thing which it is desired to condemn,
but taking care that this indulgence has strongly
the appearance of being a concession gratuitously
made to our adversaries, or of a sacrifice
of our opinions, of our feelings, on the
altars of reason and justice, which are our
guide and our idol. We thus predispose our
hearers or readers to regard the condemnation
which we are about to pronounce as a judgment
dictated by the strictest justice; a judgment
in which neither passion, nor partiality,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_455b" id="Page_455b">[Pg 455b]</a></span>
nor perverse views, have any part. How can
we doubt the good faith, the love of truth, the
impartiality of the man who begins by excusing
what, according to all appearances, and
considering his opinions, ought to be the object
of his anathemas? Such is the situation of
the men of whom we speak. They intended
to attack the Inquisition; now it happened that
the protectress, and, in some sort, the foundress
of that tribunal was Queen Isabella,&mdash;that
distinguished name which Spaniards have
always pronounced with respect, that immortal
queen, one of the noblest ornaments of our
history. What was to be done in this difficulty?
The means were simple. Although the
Jews and heretics had been treated with the
greatest severity in the time of the Catholic
sovereigns, and although they had carried
severity further than all those who have succeeded
them, it was necessary to close the eye
to these facts, to excuse the conduct of these
sovereigns, and to point out the important matters
which urged them to employ the rigors
of justice. They thus avoided the difficulty,&mdash;for
it was one to cast a stigma on the memory
of a great queen cherished and respected
by all Spaniards,&mdash;and they thus prepared the
way for merciless accusations against Philip
II. That monarch had the unanimous cry of
all Protestants against him, for the simple
reason that he had been their most powerful
adversary; it would therefore cost nothing to
make all the weight of execration fall upon
him. The enigma is thus explained. Such is
the cause of a partiality so unjust,&mdash;such is
the hypocrisy of that opinion which, while excusing
the Catholic sovereigns, condemns Philip
II. without appeal.</p>

<p>I have not attempted to justify the policy
of this monarch in all respects; but I have
presented a few considerations which may
serve to mitigate the violent attacks made
upon him by his adversaries: it only remains
for me to transcribe here the documents to
which I alluded when I said that the Inquisition
was not a mere instrument of the policy
of Philip II., and that this prince did not intend
to establish a system of <i lang="fr">obscurantisme</i> in
Spain.</p>

<p>Don Antonio Perez, in his <cite>Relations</cite>, gives a
letter of the confessor of the king, Fray Diego
de Chaves, in which letter the latter affirms
that the secular prince has power over the lives
of his subjects and vassals, and adds in a note:
"I shall not undertake to relate all that I have
heard said on the subject of the condemnation
of some of these propositions; this is not within
my province. Those who are concerned in this
will at once understand the import of my words.
I shall content myself with saying that, at the
time when I was at Madrid, the Inquisition condemned
the following proposition: a preacher&mdash;it
matters not that I should mention his
name&mdash;maintained in a sermon, at St. Jerome's,
in Madrid, in presence of the Catholic king,
<em>that kings have an absolute power over the persons
of their subjects, as well as over their properties</em>.
Besides some other separate matters,
the preacher was condemned to retract this
publicly, in the same place, with all the ceremonies
of a juridical act, which he did in the
same pulpit, saying that he had advanced such
a proposition on such a day, and that he re<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_456" id="Page_456">[Pg 456a]</a></span>tracted
it as erroneous. 'For, messieurs,' said
he, reading literally from a paper, '<em>kings have
no other power over their subjects than what is
given them by the divine and human law; they
have none proceeding from their own free and
absolute will</em>.' I even know who condemned
the proposition, and appointed the words which
the accused, to the great gratification of the
former, was obliged to pronounce; indeed, he
rejoiced to see torn up so poisonous a weed,
which he felt was increasing, as the event
proved. Master Fray Hernando del Castillo
(I will mention his name) was the one who
prescribed what the accused was to say; he
was consultee of the holy office, and preacher
to the king; he was a man of singular learning
and eloquence, very well known and esteemed
by his own nation, and especially by the Italians.
Dr. Velasco, an important personage of
that time, said of him, that the guitar in the
hands of Fabricio Dentici was not so sweet as
the tongue of Master Fray Hernandez del Castillo
to the ears of those who heard him." And
at page 47 in the text: "I know," says Don
Antonio Perez, "that they were denominated
very scandalous by persons very important by
their rank, their learning, and their Christian
purity of heart; there was one among them
who had held supreme rank in the spiritual
order in Spain, and had previously filled an
office in the tribunal of the Inquisition." Perez
afterwards says, that this person was the nuncio
of his Holiness. (<cite>Relaciones de Anton. Perez.</cite>
Paris, 1624.)</p>

<p>The letter of Philip II. to Doctor D. Benito
Arias Montano contains the following, in addition
to the remarkable passage which we have
quoted.</p>

<p>"Concerning what you, Dr. &amp;c., my chaplain,
will have to do at Antwerp, whither we send
you. Dated at Madrid, 25th March, 1568.</p>

<p>"Besides that you will render this good office
and service to the said Plantinus, know that,
from this time, in proportion as the six thousand
crowns are recovered from his hands, I apply
them to buy books for the monastery of St.
Laurent-le-Royal, of the order of St. Jerome,
which I am building near the Escurial, as you
know. Thus you are admonished that such is
my intention; you will comply with this, and
will be diligent in collecting all the choice
books, printed and MS., that your excellent
discernment shall think proper, in order to bring
them and place them in the library of the said
monastery. Indeed, it is one of the chief possessions
which I would wish to leave to the
religious who are intended to dwell there, for
it is the most useful and necessary. Wherefore
I have also commanded my ambassador in
France, D. Francis de Alaba, to collect the best
books which he shall be able in that kingdom:
you will communicate with him on that subject.
I will direct him to communicate in writing
also with you, to send you a list of the books
which are to be had, as well as their price, before
buying them; you will advise him as to
which he had better take or leave, and what
he may give for such. He will send to you at
Antwerp those which he has thus bought; you
will acknowledge them, and forward them here,
all at once, at the proper time."</p>

<p>During the reign of Philip II.,&mdash;of that
prince who is represented to us as one of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_456b" id="Page_456b">[Pg 456b]</a></span>
principal authors of <i lang="fr">obscurantisme</i>,&mdash;choice
works, both printed and MS., were sought in
foreign countries, in order to enrich the Spanish
libraries; in our age, which we call that
of enlightenment, the libraries of Spain have
been plundered, and their treasures have gone
to add to those of foreigners. Who is ignorant
of the collections which have been made of
our books and MS., in England? Consult the
catalogues of the British Museum and other
private libraries. The author of these lines
states only what he has seen with his own eyes&mdash;what
he has heard lamented by persons
worthy of respect. While we show so much
negligence in preserving our treasures, let us
not be so unjust and so puerile as to lose our
time in vain declamation against those who
have bequeathed them to us.</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap">Appendix.</span></p>

<p class="center"><i>A few words on Puigblanch, Villeneuve, and
Llorente.</i></p>

<p>Here, in the Spanish edition, the notes relating
to the Inquisition terminate; but I think
it may not be useless in the French edition to
add a few words, to explain the matter to my
foreign readers: little versed as they are in
the knowledge of our affairs, they might often
happen to drink at corrupted sources, which
they imagine to be pure and salutary. Le
Compte de Maistre, with respect to the Spanish
Inquisition, cites <cite>L'Inquisition dévoilée de
Natanaël Jomtob</cite>: I will say a few words, lest
the authority of the author who quotes should
give too much importance to him who is quoted.
This Natanaël Jomtob is no other than Dr. D.
Antonio Puigblanch, a Spaniard, who died not
long ago in London. This author, in the prologue
to his works published in London, himself
explains the reason which made him adopt a
strange name. "These Hebrew words," he says,
"are two proper significative names, which,
together, form the inscription, <i lang="la">Dedit Deus diem
bonum</i>. I wished thus to express the happiness
of being able to speak and write freely against
the tribunal of the Inquisition, and the happiness
of seeing it abolished." (<cite>Prolog.</cite> p. cxv.)</p>

<p>In order that the reader may judge of the
value that belongs to this work, I will observe,
that the first qualification in an historian, especially
on a matter so delicate, is complete
impartiality united to a great fund of moderation:
these two qualifications were wanting in
M. Puigblanch, who was lamentably infected
with the contrary faults. It is impossible to
be more violent than he is against all that he
meets with; his ill-humor and anger blind
him; he attacks institutions and men with perfect
fury; he respects nothing: add to this a
pitiable vanity. It would be easy for me to
produce here various proofs of the impiety of
Puigblanch; but I should fear to soil my paper
by transcribing the impious satires of this
man. This is enough to give an idea of the
point of view in which he could regard things
relating to religious affairs and to the clergy.
He misses no opportunity of ridiculing the
ministers of religion, of indulging in invectives
against them, and of giving vent to the incomprehensible
rage which he has against
them. The unbecoming manner in which he
treats his adversaries, real or imaginary, even<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_457" id="Page_457">[Pg 457a]</a></span>
when they have more or less sympathy with
his opinions, is a good apology for the things
which he combats on the other hand. I cannot
repeat his words here, so coarse are they; besides,
they attack persons who are still living;
suffice it to say, that not content with insulting
them in the most disgusting way, Puigblanch
descends so low as to reproach them with their
physical defects, after the manner of a market-woman.
What was to be hoped from such a
mind in a matter so important and delicate?
Were such dispositions suitable for an historian
of the Inquisition, who published his work
precisely in the year 1811, that is to say, at a
time of reaction and effervescence? With respect
to talent and knowledge, I will not refuse
to M. Puigblanch either reading or erudition,
or a certain aptitude for criticism, yet it must
not be forgotten that his mind was far from
being so cultivated as it ought to have been,
in order to keep pace with our age. A work
like his required that he should have followed
the march of the times, that he should not have
been altogether devoid of the philosophy of
history, that he should not have relied exclusively
upon certain books, while accumulating
crude erudition, and incessantly perusing etymologies
and grammatical questions: this is
what was wanting in M. Puigblanch. To sum
up all in one sentence, I have found the following
description, which I heard in London,
from the mouth of a distinguished man who
had intercourse with Puigblanch for a long
time, to be perfectly correct: "Puigblanch,"
he told me, "knew what a learned man of the
seventeenth century in Spain might have
known." The Christian reader may imagine
what was the result of the amalgamation of
this kind of instruction with all the bile of
Voltairian passion.</p>

<p>D. Joaquin Lorenzo Villanueva is another of
those Spaniards who have distinguished themselves
by declaiming against the Inquisition;
in his Literary Life (<cite>Vida Literaria</cite>) he had
asserted that the public information on this
question, and the abolition of that famous tribunal,
were in great part owing to him. Puigblanch
strongly recriminates against Villanueva,
who attempted to usurp his glory by
availing himself of his work without acknowledging
it, and other similar things, which do
as little honor to the one as to the other. Villanueva
has been already judged in Spain by
all sensible men; foreigners who desire to understand
this question will be under the unpleasant
obligation of reading the two large
volumes in 8vo, in which he has written his
literary life. The bile of Villanueva against
all the clergy who are not of his coterie, and,
above all, his hatred against Rome, show themselves
at every page of his book, and from
time to time produce explosions which are
much too violent to accord with the extreme
mildness which he is pleased to affect. Moreover,
let the reader prepare and arm himself
with patience, if he undertake to get through
these two large volumes, which contain, written
by the man himself, who so well deserved
it, the most complete panegyric of his profound
knowledge, his vast erudition, his great
humility, and his virtues of all kinds. It certainly
would have been very well, if the
author, with a slight recollection of modesty,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_457b" id="Page_457b">[Pg 457b]</a></span>
had not candidly told us, that they went so far
as to call him the <em>father of the poor</em>, that his
poetic fire was not cooled by age, that his
activity in labor did not allow him to remain
idle, even in the midst of the greatest persecutions;
in fine, if he had not undertaken to
make us believe that all his life was a continual
sacrifice on the altars of knowledge and
virtue. To those who desire to derive their
information from Villanueva, we have a right
to say: Do not forget that you must beware
of believing all&mdash;that the tree is known by its
fruits&mdash;that the wolf often assumes sheep's
clothing.</p>

<p>Among those who have made the most noise
with respect to the Inquisition, is Llorente, the
author of a history of that famous institution.
The impartiality which may be expected from
this writer shows itself every moment in his
book, which has evidently been written for the
purpose of blackening, as much as possible,
the Catholic clergy and the Holy See. Happily
the author has made himself too well
known by his other works, for any Catholic to
allow himself to be deceived by his insidious
writings. No one, especially in Spain, is ignorant
of the project of the religious constitution
with which Llorente attempted to disturb consciences,
and introduce schism and heresy into
our country. Does he who attempts to destroy
the universal discipline established from the
earliest ages, who expresses doubts on the most
sacred mysteries of our holy religion, who contests
the infallible authority of the Church,
and does not hold the first four Œcumenical
Councils to be legitimate, deserve the least
credit when writing the history of the Inquisition,&mdash;that
history which affords so many opportunities
of declaiming against the clergy
and against Rome? Here is a proof of his
impartiality. In his history of the Inquisition,
he could not avoid relating the conduct
of the Apostolic See in the early times of the
Inquisition in Spain, and the efforts made by
the Holy See for the purpose of softening the
rigors of that tribunal, the appeals which were
made, and the merciful judgments which were
almost always obtained at Rome; all these facts
clearly showed that Rome, far from being, as
he pretended, a monster of cruelty, was rather
a model of mildness and prudence. How do
you think he gets out of this difficulty? By
saying, that what the Court of Rome wanted
was, to extort money from us. An explanation
as unworthy as it is impudent&mdash;an odious means
of depriving the most beneficent and generous
actions of their lustre, and which shows a fixed
design to find evil every where, even to the extent
of assigning evil motives for benefits which
are the most worthy of gratitude.</p>

<p>With respect to Llorente, I am unwilling to
pass over in silence a remarkable fact which
he has had the kindness to communicate to the
public in the same work. King Joseph, the
intruder, intrusted Llorente, by express orders,
with the archives of the Supreme Council and
the Tribunal of the Inquisition of the capital.
This excellent man was so perfect an archivist,
that he burnt all the reports of proceedings,
with the approbation of his master (as he himself
tells us), with the exception of those
which could appertain to history, by the celebrity
or the renown of the persons who figured<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_458" id="Page_458">[Pg 458a]</a></span>
in them, such as those of Caranza, of Macanaz,
and a few others; although he preserved
entire, he adds, the registers of the decisions
of the Council, the royal ordinances, and the
bulls and briefs from Rome. (Edition Française,
1818, t. 4, p. 145.) After having heard
this remarkable confession, we will ask every
impartial man, whether there is not room for
greatly mistrusting an historian who claims to
be sole and <em>unique</em>, because he has had the opportunity
of consulting the original documents
whereon he founds his history, and who, nevertheless,
burns and destroys these same documents?
Was there no place to be found in
Madrid to place them, where they could be examined
by those who, after Llorente, might
wish to write the history of the Inquisition
from the original documents? Llorente has
preserved, he tells us, those which belonged to
history; but the history of the Inquisition had
equally need of others, even the most obscure&mdash;even
the most apparently insignificant; for
it not seldom happens that a fact, a circumstance,
a word, shows us an institution, and
paints for us an age. And observe, that this
destruction took place at a critical moment of
public disturbance, when the whole nation, devoted
to an immortal struggle in defence of her
independence, could not fix her attention on
such matters. The most remarkable men,
scattered on all sides, then led their fellow-citizens
in arms, or were engaged in the most
important interests of the country; consequently
they could not watch over the conduct
of an archivist, who, after having left his brethren,
whose blood was flowing upon the battle-field,
accepted employment under a foreign intruder,
and burned the documents of an institution
whereof he undertook to write the
history.</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_27"></a>Note</span> 27, p. 281.</p>

<p>The plan of my work required that questions
relating to the religious communities should be
examined at some length but it did not allow
me to give to this matter all the development
of which it is susceptible. Indeed, it would
be possible, in my opinion, in writing the
history of religious communities, to give side
by side that of the nations among whom these
communities arose, so as to show in detail a
truth we have now proved, viz. that the establishment
of religious institutions, besides the
superior and divine object which they have
had in view, has been at all times the fulfilment
of a social and religious necessity. Although
my strength does not enable me to aspire
to such an enterprise, by which the courage
may well be daunted, even by contemplating
the immense extent of such a work, I
wish to suggest the idea of it here; perhaps a
man may be found with sufficient capacity,
learning, and leisure, to undertake it, and enrich
our age with this new monument of history
and philosophy. By conceiving the plan in
this point of view, and making it subordinate
to this unity of object, whereof the foundation,
which shows itself in well-known facts, is discovered
in obscure and conjectured in hidden
ones, there would be no difficulty in giving all
desirable variety to this work. The subject
itself leads to variety; for it invites the writer<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_458b" id="Page_458b">[Pg 458b]</a></span>
to descend to extremely interesting particulars,
which will be like the episodes of a grand
and unique poem. The disposition of men's
minds, now become favorable to religious institutions,
thanks to the deceptions which are
the consequence of vain theories, and to the
lessons of experience, which destroy the calumnies
invented by philosophy, render the road
every day more easy. The path is already
sufficiently beaten; it is only required to enlarge
and extend it, in order to conduct a
greater number of men towards the region of
truth.</p>

<p>Having pointed out this, it only remains for
me to state here, in conclusion, divers facts
which could not be given in the text, and which
I have preferred to collect in a note. As these
facts belonged to the same subject, it appeared
to me proper to collect them apart, while leaving
the reader to pay full attention to the observations
which form the body of my work.</p>

<p>There were known among the pagans, under
the name of ascetics, persons who devoted
themselves to abstinence and the practice of
the austere virtues; so that, even before Christianity,
there already existed the idea of those
virtues which have been since exercised in
Christianity. The lives of the philosophers
are full of examples which prove the truth of
my assertion. Yet it will be understood that,
deprived of the light of faith and the aid of
grace, the pagan philosophers afforded but a
very faint shadow of what was afterwards realized
in the lives of the Christian ascetics. We
have stated that the monastic life is founded
on the Gospel, inasmuch as the Gospel contains
asceticism. From the foundation of the Church
we see the monastic life established under one
form or another. Origen tells us of certain
men, who, in order to reduce their bodies into
subjection, abstained from eating meat and
from all that had life. (Origen, <cite>Contr. Celsum</cite>,
lib. v.) Tertullian makes mention of some
Christians who abstained from marriage, not
because they condemned it, but in order to
gain the kingdom of heaven. (Tertul. <cite>De
Cult. Femin.</cite> lib. ii.)</p>

<p>It is remarkable, that the weaker sex participated
in a singular manner in that strength
of mind which Christianity communicated for
the exercise of the heroic virtues. In the
early ages of the Church there were already
reckoned, in great numbers, virgins and widows
consecrated to the Lord, bound by a vow
of perpetual chastity; and we see that special
care was taken in the ancient Councils of the
Church of that chosen portion of her flock. It
is one of the objects of the solicitude of the
Fathers to regulate discipline on this point in
a proper manner. The virgins made their public
profession in the church; they received
the veil from the hands of the bishop, and, for
greater solemnity, they were distinguished by
a kind of consecration. This ceremony required
a certain age in the person who was
consecrated to God; we also observe that discipline
has been very different on this point.
In the East they received persons seventeen
years old, and even sixteen, as we learn from
St. Basil (<cite>Epist.</cite> can. 18); in Africa at twenty-five,
as we see from the fourth canon of the
third Council of Carthage; in France at forty,
as appears from the nineteenth canon of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_459" id="Page_459">[Pg 459a]</a></span>
Council of Agde. Even when the virgins and
widows dwelt in the houses of their fathers,
they did not cease to be reckoned among ecclesiastical
persons; they received the support
of the Church by this title, in cases of necessity.
If they violated their vow of chastity,
they were excommunicated, and could not return
to the communion of the faithful, except
by submitting to public penance. (For these
details, see the thirty-third canon of the third
Council of Carthage, the nineteenth canon of
the Council of Ancyra, and the sixteenth
canon of that of Chalcedon.)</p>

<p>In the first three centuries, the state of the
Church, subject to an almost continual persecution,
must naturally have hindered persons
who loved the ascetic life, men or women, from
assembling in the towns to observe it in common.
Some think that the propagation of the
ascetic life in the desert is in great part due to
the persecution of Decius, which was very
cruel in Egypt, and made a great number of
Christians retire into the deserts of the Thebais,
or other solitudes in the neighbourhood.
Thus commenced the establishment of that
method of life which, in the end, was to gain
so prodigious an extension. St. Paul, if we are
to believe St. Jerome, was the founder of the
solitary life.</p>

<p>It appears that some abuses were introduced
into the monastic life from the earliest ages, as
we see certain monks detested at Rome in the
time of Jerome. <i lang="la">Quousque genus detestabile
monacorum urbe non pellitur</i>, says the saint by
the mouth of the Romans in a letter to Paula;
but the reputation of the monks, which had
perhaps been compromised by the Sarabaïtes
and the Gyrovagues, a kind of vagabonds
whose last care was the practice of the virtues
of their state, and who indulged in gluttony
and other pleasures with shameful licentiousness,
was soon restored. St. Athanasius, St.
Jerome himself, St. Martin, and other celebrated
men, among whom St. Bennet distinguished
himself in a particular manner, renewed
the splendor of the monastic life by the most
eloquent apology, that which consisted in giving,
as they did, the most sublime example
of the most austere virtues.</p>

<p>It is remarkable that, in spite of the multiplication
of monks in the east and west, they
were not divided into different orders, so that,
during the first six centuries, all, as Mabillon
observes, were considered as forming one institute.
There was something noble in this unity,
which, as it were, formed all the monasteries
into one family; but it must be acknowledged
that the diversity of orders afterwards introduced
was essentially calculated to attain the
various and numerous objects which successively
attracted the attention of religious institutions.</p>

<p>The discipline, by virtue whereof no new
order could be instituted without the previous
approbation of the sovereign Pontiff, it may be
said, was very necessary, considering the ardor
which afterwards urged many persons to
establish new institutions; so that, without this
prudent check, disorder would have been introduced
in consequence of the exaggerated
transports which urged some imaginations to
exceed all bounds.</p>

<p>Some people take delight in relating the ex<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_459b" id="Page_459b">[Pg 459b]</a></span>cesses
into which some individuals of the mendicant
orders fell; and they borrow the narratives
of Matthew Paris, without forgetting the
lamentations of St. Bonaventura himself. I
wish not to excuse evil, wherever it is found;
but I will observe, that the circumstances of
the times when the mendicant orders were
established, and the kind of life they were obliged
to embrace, in order to fulfill the purpose
for which they were intended, as I have pointed
out in the text, rendered almost inevitable
those evils which pious men sincerely deplored,
and which the enemies of the Church lament
with no less affectation than exaggeration.</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_28"></a>Note</span> 28, p. 305.</p>

<p>I have already shown, by numerous testimonies
of scholastic theologians, how the divine
origin of the civil power is to be understood;
and it is evident that it contains nothing but
what is perfectly conformable to sound reason,
and adapted, at the same time, to the high
aims of society. It would have been easy for
me to accumulate testimonies; but I think I
have adduced a sufficient number to throw light
on the subject, and to satisfy every reader who,
free from unjust prejudices, is sincerely desirous
of listening to truth. In order, however, to
view this subject under every aspect, I will add
a few explanations on that celebrated passage
of St. Paul to the Romans, chap. xiii., in which
the Apostle speaks of the origin of powers, and
of the submission and obedience due to them.
Let it not be thought, however, that I purpose
attaining this end by any reasoning more or
less specious. Whenever a passage of Scripture
is to be expounded in its true sense, we
should not rely principally upon what our
wavering reason suggests to us, but rather
upon the interpretation of the Catholic Church;
for this reason we should consult those writers
whose high authority, founded on their wisdom
and their virtue, leads us to hope that they
have not deviated from the maxim, <i lang="la">Quod semper,
quod ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est</i>.</p>

<p>We have already seen a remarkable passage
of St. John Chrysostom, explaining this point
with as much clearness as solidity; we have
also learned, from the testimony of the Fathers,
what motives induced the Apostles to inculcate
so pressingly the obligation of obedience to the
lawful authorities. It only remains for us to
insert here the commentaries of some illustrious
writers on the text of the Apostle. In them
we shall find, as it were, a code of doctrine;
and when we come to appreciate the reasons
on which the precepts inculcated in the sacred
text are founded, we shall more easily discover
their true meaning.</p>

<p>Observe, in the first place, with what wisdom,
prudence, and piety this important subject is
expounded by a writer who was not of the
golden era, but, on the contrary, who lived in
what is generally termed the barbarous age&mdash;St.
Anselm. In his commentaries on the 13th
chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, this doctor
thus expresses himself:</p>

<p>"<em>Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita
sit. Non est enim potestas nisi a Deo.
Quæ autem sunt, a Deo ordinatæ sunt. Itaque
qui resistit potestati, Dei ordinationi resistit.
Qui autem resistunt, ipsi sibi damnationem acquirunt.</em></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_460" id="Page_460">[Pg 460a]</a></span></p>

<p>"Sicut superius reprehendit illos, qui gloriabantur
de meritis, ita nunc ingreditur illos redarguere,
qui postquam erant ad fidem conversi
nolebant subjici alicui potestati. Videbatur
enim quod infideles, Dei fidelibus non deberent
dominari, etsi fideles deberent esse pares.
Quam superbiam removet, dicens: <em>Omnis anima</em>,
id est, <em>omnis</em> homo, <em>sit</em> humiliter <em>subdita
potestatibus</em> vel secularibus, vel ecclesiasticis,
sublimioribus se: hoc est, omnis homo sit subjectus
superpositis sibi potestatibus. A parte
enim majore significat totum hominem, sicut
rursum a parte inferiore totus homo significatur
ubi Propheta dicit: <em>Quia videbit omnis caro
salutare Dei</em>. Et recte admonet, ne quis ex eo
quod in libertatem vocatus est, factusque Christianus,
extollatur in superbiam, et non arbitretur
in hujus vitæ itinere servandum esse ordinem
suum, et <em>potestatibus</em>, quibus pro tempore
rerum temporalium gubernatio tradita est, non
se putet esse subdendum. Cum enim constemus
ex anima et corpore, et quamdiu in hac
vita temporali sumus, etiam rebus temporalibus
ad subsidium ejusdem vitæ utamur, oportet nos
ex ea parte, quæ ad hanc vitam pertinet, subditos
esse <em>potestatibus</em>, id est, res humanas cum
aliquo honore administrantibus: ex illa vero
parte, qua Deo credimus, et in regnum ejus vocamur,
non debemus subditi esse cuiquam homini,
id ipsum in nobis evertere cupienti, quod
Deus ad vitam æternam donare dignatus est.
Si quis ergo putat quoniam Christianus est, non
sibi esse vectigal reddendum, sive tributum,
aut non esse honorem exhibendum debitum eis
quæ hæc curant <em>potestatibus</em>, in magno errore
versatur. Item si quis sic se putat esse subdendum,
ut etiam in suam fidem habere potestatem
arbitretur eum, qui temporalibus administrandis
aliqua sublimitate præcellit, in
majorem errorem labitur. Sed modus iste servandus
est, quem Dominus ipse præcipit, ut
reddamus <em>Cæsari quæ sunt Cesaris, et Deo quæ
sunt Dei</em>. Quamvis enim ad illud regnum vocati
simus, ubi nulla erit potestas hujusmodi,
in hoc tamen itinere conditionem nostram pro
ipso rerum humanarum ordine debemus tolerare,
nihil simulate facientes, et in hoc non tam
hominibus, quam Deo, qui hoc jubet, obtemperantes.
Itaque <em>omnis anima sit subdita sublimioribus
potestatibus</em>, id est, omnis homo sit
subditus primum divinæ potestati, deinde mundanæ.
Nam si mundana potestas jusserit quod
non debes facere, contemne potestatem, timendo
sublimiorem potestatem. Ipsos humanarum
rerum gradus adverte. Si aliquid jusserit procurator,
nonne faciendum est? Tamen si contra
proconsulem jubeat, non utique contemnis
potestatem, sed eligis majore servire. Non
hinc debet minor irasci, si major prælata est.
Rursus si aliquid proconsul jubeat, et aliud imperator,
numquid dubitatur, illo contempto
huic esse serviendum. Ergo si aliud imperator,
et aliud Deus jubeat, quid faciemus? Numquid
non Deus imperatori est præferendus? Ita
ergo <em>sublimioribus potestatibus anima</em> subjiciatur,
id est, homo. Sive idcirco ponitur <em>anima</em>
pro homine, qui secundum hanc discernit, cui
subdi debeat, et cui non. Vel homo, qui promotione
virtutem sublimatus est, <em>anima</em> vocatur
a digniore parte. Vel, non solum corpus
sit subditum, sed <em>anima</em>, id est, voluntas: hoc
est, non solum corpore, sed et voluntate serviatis.
Ideo debetis subjici, quia <em>non est potestas<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_460b" id="Page_460b">[Pg 460b]</a></span>
nisi a Deo</em>. Numquam enim posset fieri nisi
operatione solius Dei, ut tot homines uni servirent,
quem considerant unius secum esse fragilitatis
et naturæ. Sed quia Deus subditis
inspirat timorem et obediendi voluntatem, contigit
ita. Nec valet quisquam aliquid posse, <em>nisi</em>
divinitus ei <em>datum</em> fuerit. <em>Potestas</em> omnis <em>est a
Deo</em>. Sed ea <em>quæ sunt, a Deo ordinatæ sunt</em>.
Ergo potestas est ordinata, id est, rationabiliter
a Deo disposita. <em>Itaque qui resistit potestati</em>,
nolens tributa dare, honorem deferre, et
his similia, <em>Dei ordinationi resistit</em>, qui hoc ordinavit,
ut talibus subjiciamur. <em>Hoc enim contra
illos dicitur, qui se putabant ita debere uti
libertate Christiana, ut nulli vel honorem deferrent,
vel tributa redderent.</em> Unde magnum
poterat adversus <em>Christianam religionem scandalum
nasci a principibus seculi</em>. De bona potestate
patet, quod eam perfecit Deus rationabiliter.
De mala quoque videri potest, dum et
boni per eam purgantur, et mali damnantur, et
ipsa deterius præcipitatur. <em>Qui potestati resistit</em>,
cum Deus eam ordinaverit, <em>Dei ordinationi
resistit</em>. Sed hoc tam grave peccatum est,
<em>quod qui resistunt, ipsi</em> pro contumacia et
perversitate <em>sibi damnationem</em> æternæ mortis
acquirunt. Et ideo non debet quis resistere,
sed subjici."</p>

<p>This remarkable passage contains all&mdash;the
origin of power, its object, its duties, and its
limits. We must observe, that St. Anselm expressly
confirms what I have hinted in the text
on the subject of the wrong meaning sometimes
given in the first centuries to Christian
liberty; many imagining that this liberty carried
with it the abolition of the civil powers,
and particularly of those which were infidel.
He also shows the scandal which this doctrine
might cause; thus explaining how the Apostles,
without attempting to attribute to the civil
power any extraordinary and supernatural origin,
like that of the ecclesiastical power, had
nevertheless powerful reasons for inculcating
that this power emanates from God, and that
whoever resists it, resists the ordinance of God.</p>

<p>Passing on to centuries nearer our own time,
we find the same doctrines in the most eminent
commentators. Cornelius a Lapide interprets
the passage of St. Paul in the same way as St.
Anselm, and explains, by the same reasons, the
solicitude with which the Apostles recommended
obedience to the civil powers. These are
his words:</p>

<p>"<em>Omnis anima</em> (omnis homo) <em>potestatibus
sublimioribus</em>, id est principibus et magistratibus,
qui potestate regendi et imperandi sunt
præditi; ponitur enim abstractum pro concreto;
<em>potestatibus</em>, hoc est potestate præditis,
<em>subdita sit</em>, scilicet iis in rebus, in quibus potestas
illa sublimior et superior est, habetque jus
et jurisdictionem, puta in temporalibus, subdita
sit regi et potestati civili, quod propie hic
intendit Apostolus: per potestatem enim, civilem
intelligit; in spiritualibus vero subdita sit
Prælatis, Episcopis et Pontifici.</p>

<p>"Nota.&mdash;Pro <em>potestatibus sublimioribus</em>, <em>potestatibus</em>
supereminentibus vel <em>præcellentibus</em>,
ut, Noster vertit, 1 Pet. ii., <em>sive regi quasi præcellenti</em>,
Syrus vertit, <em>potestatibus dignitate præditis</em>:
id est magistratibus secularibus, qui potestate
regendi præditi sunt, sive duces, sive
gubernatores, sive consules, prætores, &amp;c.</p>

<p>"Seculares enim magistratus hic intelligere<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_461" id="Page_461">[Pg 461a]</a></span>
Apostolum patet, quia his solvuntur tributa et
vectigalia quæ hisce potestatibus solvi jubet
ipse v. 7, ita Sanctus Basilius de <cite>Constit. Monast.</cite>
c. 23.</p>

<p>"Nota.&mdash;Ex Clemente Alexand. lib. iv. <i>Stromatum</i>,
et S. Aug. in Psal. cxviii. cont. 31,
<em>Initio Ecclesiæ, puta tempore Christi et Pauli,
rumor erat, per Evangelium politias humanas,
regna et respublicas seculares everti</em>; uti jam
fit ab hæreticis prætendentibus libertatem
Evangelii: unde contrarium docent, et studiose
inculcant Christus, cum solvit didrachma, et
cum jussit Cæsari reddi ea quæ Cæsaris sunt;
et Apostoli: idque ne in odium traheretur
Christiana religio, et ne Christiani abuterentur
libertate fidei ad omnem malitiam.</p>

<p>"Ortus est his rumor ex secta Judæ et Galilæorum
de qua Actor. 5, in fine, qui pro libertate
sua tuenda omne dominium Cæsaris et vectigal,
etiam morte proposita abnuebant, de quo
Josephus, libr. xviii. <cite>Antiqu.</cite> 1. Quæ secta diu
inter Judæos viguit; adeoque Christus et Apostoli
in ejus suspicionem vocati sunt, quia origine
erant Galilæi, et rerum novarum præcones.
Hos Galilæos secuti sunt Judæi omnes, et de
facto Romanis rebellarunt: quod dicerent populum
Dei liberum non debere subjici et servire
infidelibus Romanis; ideoque a Tito excisi
sunt. Hinc etiam eadem calumnia in Christianos,
qui origine erant et habebantur Judæi, derivata
est: unde Apostoli, ut eam amoliantur,
sæpe docent principibus dandum esse honorem
et tributum.</p>

<p>"Quare octo argumentis probat his Apostolus
principibus et magistratibus deberi obedientiam....</p>

<p>"His rationibus probat Apostolus Evangelium,
et Christianismum, regna et magistratus
non evertere, sed firmare et stabilire: quia nil
regna et principes ita confirmat, ac subditorum
bona, Christiana et sancta vita. Adeo, ut etiam
nunc principes Japones et Indi Gentiles ament
Christianos, et suis copiam faciant baptismi et
Christianismi suscipiendi, quia subditos Christianos,
magis quam Ethnicos, faciles et obsequentes,
regnaque sua per eos magis firmari,
pacari et florere experiuntur."</p>

<p>With regard to the mode in which civil power
proceeds from God, the celebrated commentator
agrees with the other theologians. Like
them, he distinguishes between direct and indirect
communication, and takes care to define
the particular meaning of the term, <em>divine
origin</em> of power, when applied to ecclesiastical
authority.</p>

<p>In his explanation of these words, <em>all power
is from God</em>, he thus expresses himself:</p>

<p>"<em>Non est enim potestas, nisi a Deo</em>; quasi diceret
principatus et magistratus non a diabolo,
nec a solo homine, sed a Deo ejusque divina
ordinatione et dispositione conditi et instituti
sunt: eis ergo obediendum est.</p>

<p>"Nota primo.&mdash;<em>Potestas sæcularis est a Deo
mediate; quia natura et recta ratio, quæ a Deo
est, dicat, et hominibus persuasit præficere
reipublicæ magistratus, a quibus regantur.
Potestas vero ecclesiastica immediate est a Deo
instituta; quia Christus ipse Petrum et Apostolos
Ecclesiæ præfecit.</em>"</p>

<p>The celebrated Dom Calmet explains the
same passage with no less learning; he quotes
numerous passages from the holy Fathers,
showing what ideas the first Christians held<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_461b" id="Page_461b">[Pg 461b]</a></span>
on the subject of civil power, and how calumniously
they have been accused of being the
disturbers of public order.</p>

<p>"<em>Omnis anima potestatibus</em>, &amp;c. Pergit hic
Apostolus docere Fideles vitæ ac morum officia.
Quæ superiori capite vidimus, eo desinunt, ut
bonus ordo et pax in Ecclesia interque Fideles
servetur. Hæc potissimum spectant ad obedientiam,
quam unusquisque superioribus potestatibus
debet. Christianorum libertatem atque
a Mosaicis legibus immunitatem commendaverat
Apostolus; at ne quis monitis abutatur,
docet hic, quæ debeat esse subditorum subjectio
erga Reges et Magistratus.</p>

<p>"Hoc ipsum gravissime monuerant primos
Ecclesiæ discipulos Petrus et Jacobus; repetitque
Paulus ad Titum scribens, sive ut Christianos,
insectantium injuriis undique obnoxios,
in patientia contineret, <em>sive ut vulgi opinionem
deleret, qua discipuli Jesu Christi, omnes ferme
Galilæi, sententiam Judæ Gaulonitæ sequi, et
principum authoritati repugnare censebantur</em>.</p>

<p>"<em>Omnis anima</em>, quilibet, quavis conditione
aut dignitate, <em>potestatibus sublimioribus subdita
sit</em>; Regibus, Principibus, Magistratibus, iis
denique quibus legitima est authoritas, sive
absoluta, sive alteri obnoxia. Neminem excipit
Apostolus, non Presbyteros, non Præsules,
non Monachos, ait Theodoretus; illæsa tamen
Ecclesiasticorum immunitate. Tunc solum
modo parere non debes, cum aliquid Divinæ
Legi contrarium imperatur: tunc enim præferenda
est debita Deo obedientia; quin tamen
vel arma capere adversus Principes, vel in seditionem
abire liceat. Repugnandum est in
iis tantum, quæ justitiam, ac Dei legem violant;
in cæteris parendum. Si imperaverint
aut idolorum cultum aut justitiæ violationem
cum necis vel bonorum jacturæ interminatione,
vitam et fortunas discrimini objicito, ac
repugnato; in reliquis autem obtempera.</p>

<p>"<em>Non est enim potestas nisi a Deo.</em> Absolutissima
in libertate conditus est homo, nulli
creatæ rei, at uni Deo subditus. Nisi mundum
invasisset una cum Adami transgressione
peccatum, mutuam æqualitatem libertatemque
homines servassent. At libertate abusos damnavit
Deus, ut parerent iis, quos ipse principes
illis daret, ob pœnam arrogantiæ, qua pares
Conditori effici voluerunt. At, inquies, quis
nesciat, quorumdam veterum Imperiorum initia
et incrementa ex injuria atque ambitione
profecta. Nemrod, exempli causa, Ninus, Nabuchodonosor,
aliique quamplures, an Principes
erant a Deo constituti? Nonne similius
vero est, violenta Imperia primum exorta esse
ab imperandi libidine? liberorum vero Imperiorum
originem fuisse hominum metum, qui
sese impares propulsandæ externorum injuriæ
sentientes, aliquem sibi Principem creavere,
datamque sibi a Deo naturalem ulciscendi injurias
potestatem, volentes libentesque alteri
tradiderunt? Quam vere igitur docet Apostolus,
quamlibet potestatem a Deo esse, eumque
esse positæ inter homines authoritatis institutorem?"</p>

<p>He points out four ways in which power may
be said to emanate from God, and it is remarkable
that none of them are extraordinary
or supernatural; all of them serve to confirm
more and more what reason and the very
nature of things teach us.</p>

<p>"Omnino Deus potestatis autor et causa est.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_462" id="Page_462">[Pg 462a]</a></span>
I. Quod, hominibus tacite inspiraverit consilium
subjiciendi se uni, a quo defenderentur.
II. Quod imperia inter homines utilissima sint
servandæ concordiæ, disciplinæ, ac religioni.
Porro quicquid boni est, a Deo ceu fonte proficisciter.
III. Cum potestas tuendi ab aggressore
vitam vel opes, hominibus a Deo tradita,
atque ab ipsis in Principem conversa, a Deo
primum proveniat, Principes ea potestate ab
hominibus donati, hanc ab ipso Deo accepisse
jure dicuntur; quamobrem Petrus humanam
creaturam nuncupat, quam Paulus potestatem
a Deo institutam: humana igitur et divina est,
varia ratione spectata, uti diximus. IV. Denique
suprema authoritas a Deo est, utpote
quam Deus, a sapientibus institutam, probavit.</p>

<p>"Nulla unquam gens sæcularibus potestatibus
magis paruit, quam primæ ætatis Christiani,
qui a Christo Jesu et ab Apostolis edocti, nunquam
ausi sunt Principibus a Providentia sibi
datis repugnare. Discipulos fugere tantum
jubet Christus. Ait Petrus, Christum nobis
exemplum reliquisse, cum sese Judicum iniquitate
pessime agi passus est. Monet hic
Paulus, resistere te Dei voluntati, atque æternæ
damnationis reum effici, si potestati repugnas.
'Quamvis nimius et copiosus noster populus,
non tamen adversus violentiam se ulciscitur:
patitur,' ait sanctus Cyprianus. 'Satis virium
est ad pugnam; at omnia perpeti ex Christo
didicimus. Cui bello non idonei, non prompti
fuissemus, etiam copiis impares, qui tam libenter
trucidamur? si non apud istam disciplinam
magis occidi liceret, quam occidere,' inquit
Tertullianus. 'Cum nefanda patimur, ne verbo
quidem reluctamur, sed Deo remittimus ultionem,'
scribebat Lactantius. Sanctus Ambrosius:
'coactus, repugnare non novi. Dolere
potero, potero flere, potero gemere: abversus
arma, milites, Gothos quoque; lacrymæ meæ
arma sunt. Talia enim sunt munimenta Sacerdotis.
Aliter ne debeo nec possum resistere.'"</p>

<p>I have said in the text, that there was to be
remarked a singular coincidence of opinions
on the origin of society between the philosophers
of antiquity, deprived of the light of
faith, and those of our days who have abandoned
this light; both wanting the only guide,
which is the Mosaic history, have found in
their researches after the origin of things,
nothing more than chaos, in the physical as
well as in the moral order. In support of my
assertion, I will insert passages from two celebrated
men, in which the reader will find, with
very little difference, the same language as in
Hobbes, Rousseau, and other writers of the
same school.</p>

<p>"There was a time," says Cicero, "when
men wandered in the fields like the brutes,
feeding on prey like wild beasts, deciding
nothing by reason, but every thing by force.
No religion was then professed, no morality
observed; there were no laws of marriage;
the father could not distinguish his own children,
and the possession of property by virtue
of principles of equity was unknown. Hence
the blind, unrestrained passions ruled tyrannically
in the midst of error and ignorance, and
used the powers of the body for their gratification
as their most injurious satellites."</p>

<p>"Nam fuit quoddam tempus cum in agris
homines passim bestiarum more vagabantur,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_462b" id="Page_462b">[Pg 462b]</a></span>
et sibi victu ferino vitam propagabant; nec
ratione animi quidquam, sed pleraque viribus
corporis administrabant. Nondum divinæ religionis,
non humani officii ratio colebatur;
nemo nuptias viderat legitimas, non certos
quisquam inspexerat liberos; non jus æquabile
quid utilitatis haberet, acceperat. Ita
propter errorem atque inscitiam, cæca ac temeraria
dominatrix animi cupiditas ad se explendam
viribus corporis abutebatur, perniciosissimis
satellitibus." (<cite>De Inv. 1.</cite>)</p>

<p>The same doctrine is to be found in Horace:</p>

<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza">
<div class="verse">"Cum prorepserunt primis animalia terris,<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Mutum et turpe pecus, glandem atque cubilia propter<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Unguibus et pugnis, dein fustibus, atque ita porro<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Pugnabant armis, quæ post fabricaverat usus:<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Donec verba, quibus voces sensusque notarent,<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Nominaque invenere: dehinc absistere bello,<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Oppida cœperunt munire et ponere leges,<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Neu quis fur esset, neu latro, neu quis adulter.<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Nam fuit ante Helenam mulier teterrima belli<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Causa: sed ignotis perierunt mortibus illi,<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Quos Venerem incertam rapientes, more ferarum,<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Viribus editior cædebat, ut in grege taurus.<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Jura inventa metu injusti fateare necesse est,<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Tempora si fastosque velis evolvere mundi,<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Nec natura potest justo secernere iniquum,<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Dividit ut bona diversis, fugienda petendis."<br /></div>
<div class="verse indent16"><cite>Satir.</cite> lib. i. sat. 3.</div>
</div></div></div>

<p>
<br />
</p>

<p>"When men first began to crawl upon the
earth, they were only like a herd of brute and
speechless animals, contending with their nails
or their fists for a few acorns or for a den.
They afterwards contended with sticks and
such arms as experience taught them to invent.
At length they discovered the use of words to
express their thoughts; gradually they became
weary of fighting, and built cities, and
made laws to prevent theft, robbery, and adultery;
for, before Helen, women had been the
cause of terrible wars. He who was the
strongest, abusing his power, after the manner
of brutes, attacked the weak, like a bull among
a subject herd; they thus contended for the
favors of inconstant Venus; but their end was
inglorious. If you consult the origin of things,
you will acknowledge that laws have been
made in apprehension of injustice. Nature
enables us to discern good from evil, what is
to be sought after from what is to be avoided,
but she is incapable of distinguishing justice
from injustice."</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_29"></a>Note</span> 29, p. 311.</p>

<p>Concerning this question, as to the direct or
indirect origin of civil power, it is remarkable,
that, in the time of Louis of Bavaria, the imperial
princes solemnly sanctioned the opinion
that power emanates directly from God. In
an imperial Constitution, published against the
Roman Pontiff, they established the following
proposition: "In order to avoid so great an
evil, we declare that imperial dignity and
power proceed directly from God.&mdash;Ad tantum
malum evitandum, declaramus, quod imperialis
dignitas et potestas est immediate a Deo solo."
That we may form an idea of the spirit and
tendency of this doctrine, let us see what kind
of man this Louis of Bavaria was. Excommunicated
by John XXII., and at a later
period by Clement VI., he went so far as to
depose this latter Pontiff, in order to exalt to
the Pontifical Chair the antipope Peter, for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_463" id="Page_463">[Pg 463a]</a></span>
which reason the Pope, after repeated admonitions,
divested him of his imperial dignity,
substituting Charles IV. in his stead.</p>

<p>Ziegler the Lutheran, a zealous supporter
of direct communication, in order to explain
his doctrine, compares the election of a prince
to that of a minister of the Church. The latter,
says he, does not receive his spiritual
authority from the people, but immediately
from God. From this explanation it is evident
with how much reason I have said, that such
a doctrine tended to place the temporal and
spiritual powers on a level, by making it appear
that the latter could not claim, by reason
of its origin, any superiority over the former.
I do not mean, however, to assert, that this
declaration, made in the time of Louis of Bavaria,
had directly this aim, since it may rather
be regarded as a sort of weapon employed
against the pontifical authority, the ascendency
of which was dreaded. But it is well known
that doctrines, besides the influence resulting
immediately from them, possess a peculiar
force, which continues to develop itself as opportunities
occur. Some time after, we see
the kings of England defenders of the religious
supremacy which they had just usurped,
supporting the proposition advanced in the
imperial Constitution.</p>

<p>I know not with what foundation it can be
said that Ziegler's opinion was general before
the time of Puffendorf; in consulting ecclesiastical
and secular writers, we do not find the
least support for such an assertion. Let us be
just even to our adversaries. Ziegler's opinion,
defended by Boecler and others, was attacked
by certain Lutherans, amongst others
by Boehmer, who observes, that this opinion
is not favorable, as its partisans pretend, to the
security of states and princes. To repeat what
I have already explained in the text, I do not
consider that the opinion of <em>direct communication</em>,
rightly understood, is so inadmissible and
dangerous as some have imagined; but as it
lay open to an evil interpretation, Catholic
theologians have done well to combat its tendency
to encroach upon the divine origin of
ecclesiastical power.</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_30"></a>Note</span> 30, p. 317.</p>

<p>I might quote a thousand remarkable passages
showing the reader how unjust it is in
the enemies of the clergy to accuse them of
being favorable to despotism. But, to be brief,
and to spare him the fatigue of perusing so
many texts and quotations, I shall merely present
to him a specimen of the current opinions
on this point in Spain at the beginning of the
17th century, a few years after the death of
Philip II., the monarch who is represented to
us as the personification of religious fanaticism
and political tyranny. Among the numerous
books published at that time on these
delicate points, there is a very singular one,
which does not appear to be very well known;
its title is as follows:</p>

<p><cite>A Treatise on the State and Christian Politics,
for the use of Kings and Princes, and those
holding government appointments, by Brother
John de Ste.-Marie, a religious in the province
of St. Joseph, of the order of our glorious
Father St. Francis.</cite></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_463b" id="Page_463b">[Pg 463b]</a></span></p>

<p>This book, printed at Madrid in 1615, furnished
with all the privileges, approbations,
and other formalities in use, must have been
well received at that epoch, since it was reprinted
at Barcelona in 1616, by Sebastian de
Cormellas. Who shall say whether this work
did not inspire Bossuet with the idea of that
intituled <cite>Politics derived from the very words
of Scripture</cite>? The title is certainly analogous,
and the idea is in fact the same, although
differently carried out. "I think," says Brother
John de Ste.-Marie, "I shall escape all difficulty,
by laying before kings in this work, not
my own reasonings, nor those afforded by eminent
philosophers and the records of profane
history, but the words of God and His saints,
and the divine and canonical histories, whose
teaching commands respect, and whose authority
cannot be prejudicial to any one, however
powerful a sovereign he may be; in fact,
to these a Christian cannot but submit, since
every thing in them is dictated by the Holy
Ghost, the author of these divine maxims. If
I cite examples of Gentile kings, if I appeal
to antiquity, and adduce passages from philosophers
unconnected with the people of God,
I shall do so incidentally only, and as we resume
possession of what of right belongs to
us, and has been unjustly usurped by others."
(Chap. 2.)</p>

<p>The work is dedicated to the king. Addressing
him, and praying him to read it, and
not to allow himself to be imposed upon by
those who would dissuade him from its perusal,
the good religious says, with a pleasing
candor, "Let no one tell you that these things
are metaphysical, impracticable, and all but
impossible."</p>

<p>The following inscription is placed at the
head of the 1st chapter: "Ad vos (O Reges)
sunt hi sermones mei, ut discatis sapientiam
et non excidatis: qui enim custodierint justa
juste, justificabuntur: et qui didiscerint ista,
invenient quid respondeant." (<cite>Sap.</cite> 6, v. 10.)</p>

<p>In the first chapter, the title of which is,
"A treatise in which the import and definition
of this word commonwealth are briefly discussed,"
we read these remarkable words:
"So that monarchy must degenerate if it be
absolute and without restraint (for power and
authority thus become unreasonable); in all
things falling under the cognizance of law, it
should be bound by the law; and in special
and incidental matters it should be subject to
advice, from the connection which it ought to
have with the aristocracy, which is its assistant,
and forms a council of learned and powerful
men. Without this wise modification,
monarchy will create great errors of government,
will give but little satisfaction, but, on
the contrary, will cause great discontent among
the governed. The wisest and most enlightened
men of every age have invariably considered
this form of government the best; and
without such a modification no city or kingdom
has ever been considered well governed.
Good kings and the wisest statesmen have
always been in favor of this system; bad
kings, on the contrary, elated by their power,
have pursued the opposite course. Hence, if
a monarch, whoever he be, decides by himself,
without taking advice, or against the advice
of his councillors, he passes the legitimate<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_464" id="Page_464">[Pg 464a]</a></span>
bounds of monarchy, and even when his decisions
are fortunate, he is a tyrant. History
is full of these examples and of their disastrous
consequences; it will be enough to adduce
one only, that of Tarquin the Proud, as
related in the 1st book of Livy, a king whose
pride was unbounded, and who, to render himself
absolute, and to put every thing under his
feet, strove to weaken the authority of the
Roman Senate by diminishing the number of
Senators, thus arrogating to himself an absolute
right of decision in all the affairs of the
empire."</p>

<p>In chapter 2, in which the author treats of
"the meaning of the word king," we read as
follows: "We meet here very opportunely
with the third meaning of the word king,
which is the same as that of father; as we find
in Genesis, when the Sichemites gave to their
king the name of Abimelech, which means
'Father and Lord.' Kings were formerly
styled the fathers of their states. Whence
King Theodoric, defining royal majesty (as
Cassiodorus relates), makes use of these words:
'<i lang="la">Princeps et Pastor publicus et communis.</i>&mdash;The
king is the public and common father of the
state.' From the extreme resemblance between
the office of a king and that of a father,
Plato was induced to call the king the father
of a family; and the philosopher Xenophon
says: <i lang="la">Bonus Princeps nihil differt a bono Patre</i>.
The difference solely consists in one
having few and the other a great number of
persons under his dominion. And it is certainly
very reasonable to give kings this title
of father; for they ought to be the fathers of
their subjects and of their kingdoms, watching
over their welfare and preservation with
the love and solicitude of a Father. Royalty,
says Homer, is nothing else than a paternal
government, like that of a father over his
children: '<i lang="la">Ipsum namque regnum imperium est
suapte natura paternum.</i>' <em>The best manner of
governing well is, for the king to be possessed
with the love of a father, and to regard his subjects
at his own children. The love of a father
for his children, his solicitude that they should
want for nothing, his devotedness to each of them,
all this bears the greatest resemblance to the love
of a king for his subjects. He is called father,
and this name lays him under the obligation of
acting in accordance with the meaning it conveys.</em>
This name, so well adapted to kings, and which,
when well considered, is the greatest of all
titles and epithets of majesty and power, since
it embraces all, the genus and the species, the
father being alone the lord, the master, or the
chief; this name, I say, is above all human
names for expressing authority and solicitude.
Antiquity, with a view to confer upon an emperor
an extraordinary degree of honor, called
him the Father of the State, which was greater
than Cæsar, Augustus, or any other glorious
name; it decreed him this title, either to flatter
him, or to lay him under the weighty obligations
required by the name of father. In
fine, to give kings this name is to remind them
of their duty, viz. to direct, govern, and maintain
their states and kingdoms in justice; like
good pastors, to feed their rational sheep; like
physicians, to care for them and heal them;
to take care of their subjects, as a father does
of his children, with prudence, love, and soli<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_464b" id="Page_464b">[Pg 464b]</a></span>citude;
for the king is for <em>them</em>, rather than for
himself. 'Kings are under greater obligations
to their kingdoms and states than to themselves;'
in fact, if we consider the institution
of kings and monarchs, we shall find that the
king was appointed for the good of the kingdom,
and not the kingdom for the good of the
king."</p>

<p>In his 3d chapter, of which the following is
the title, "Whether the name of king necessarily
implies an office," he thus expresses himself:&mdash;"Besides
what we have advanced, it
may be proved that the name of a king is the
name of an office, by the common maxim, 'the
benefice is the reward of the office.' Since,
therefore, kings receive such great benefices,
not only from the considerable tributes they receive
from the State, but also from the advantage
they derive from benefices and ecclesiastical
rents, they certainly do hold an office, and
that the greatest of all, for which reason the
entire kingdom so bountifully assists them.
This is what St. Paul says in his Epistle to the
Romans: <i lang="la">Ideo et tributa præstatis</i>, &amp;c. Kingdoms
do not contribute for nothing; all those
states, taxes, and great revenues, that name,
that high authority and eminent dignity, are
not given gratuitously. They would have their
title of king for nothing if they had no subjects
to rule and govern, and if they were freed
from this obligation: <i lang="la">In multitudine populi
dignitas regis</i>. This great dignity, wealth,
rank, majesty, and honor, are possessed by
them with the perpetual obligation of ruling
and governing their states, so as to preserve
them in peace and justice. <em>Let kings bear in
mind, therefore, that they are only invested with
this title to serve their kingdoms; and the latter,
that kings ought to be paid.</em> They hold an
office requiring them to labor: <i lang="la">Qui præest in
sollicitudine</i>, says St. Paul. Such is the title
and the name of king, and of him who rules:
one who is the first not only as regards honors
and enjoyments, but also as regards cares and
solicitude. <em>Let them not imagine that they are
kings merely in name and representation, and
appointed only to make themselves honored</em>;
merely to exhibit their royal person and sovereign
dignity in a pompous manner, like some
of the kings of the Persians and Medes, who
were mere shadows of kings, forgetful of their
office, as though they had never received it.
Nothing is more destitute of life and substance
than the shadowy image which stirs its arm or
its head only when some one acts upon it. God
forbade the Israelites to have statues or painted
images, representing a hand where there
was none, and a face that did not exist, exhibiting
to the eye an imaginary body, and feigning
by apparently living actions to see and to
speak; for God loves not feigned images, painted
men, or sculptured kings, like those spoken
of by David: <i lang="la">Os habent et non loquentur, oculos
habent et non videbunt</i>. What does it avail
to have a tongue that speaks not, eyes that see
not, ears that hear not, or hands which do not
work? Is it any thing more than an idol of
stone, bearing only the external representation
of a king? To bear the supreme name and all
authority, and not to be capable of any thing,
sounds badly. The names which God has
given to things are like the title of a book,
which, in a few words, contains every thing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_465" id="Page_465">[Pg 465a]</a></span>
that is included in the book. This name of
king was given to kings by God himself, and
contains every thing to which they are obliged
by virtue of their office. If their actions are
not in accordance with the name, it is as if the
mouth should affirm what the head denies, like
a buffoon, whom no one believes in earnest.
Every one would regard as a mockery and a
delusion a signboard bearing the inscription,
'Pure gold sold here,' if, in reality, nothing but
tinsel was sold. The name of king should not
be an empty thing, a mere superfluity in the
royal person&mdash;it should be what it implies and
gives itself out for. Your name indicates that
you rule and govern; rule and govern, therefore,
in reality. Do not be mere pasteboard
kings, to use a common expression, that is,
kings in name only. In France, there was a
time when kings had nothing but the name,
and the government was entirely in the hands
of their generals, whilst they, like animals,
were occupied only with gluttony and luxurious
living. That it might be known they were
living, for they never went out, they used to
appear in public once a year, on the 1st of
May, in the squares of Paris, seated on a
throne, as kings in a dramatic representation,
and there they were saluted, gifts were presented
to them, and they, on their part, granted
certain favors to whomsoever they thought
proper. In order to show to what a degree of
degradation they had fallen, Eginard tells us,
in the beginning of his Life of Charlemagne,
that they were devoid of courage and incapable
of great actions; they merely held the
empty name of king; for, in reality they were
not kings, neither had they any participation
in the government or riches of the kingdom;
every thing was entrusted to the mayors of the
palace, styled majors-domo of the royal household;
and the latter usurped every thing to
such a degree, that they left the wretched king
nothing but his title. Seated on his throne,
with his long hair and beard, the monarch
played his part, pretending to give audiences
to ambassadors arriving from all parts, and to
furnish them with answers to convey to their
masters; whilst in reality they merely answered
according to the instructions they had received,
either by word or writing, although
they appeared to answer on their own responsibility.
So that royal power for such a king
was reduced to the mere name, to this throne
and this ridiculous majesty; the real kings and
masters were those favorites by whom the monarch
was oppressed. God said of one of the
kings of Samaria, that he was merely to be
compared to a little vapor, which, seen from
afar, appeared something, but when touched
was no longer any thing. Simia in tecto rex
fatuus in solio suo. (St. Bernard, <cite>de Consider
ad Eug.</cite> cap. 7.) <em>A monkey on a housetop,
which, presenting the appearance of a man, is
taken for such by those who know not what it
is; such is a useless king upon a throne. Monkeys
also serve to amuse children, and the king
is a laughing-stock to him who looks upon him
apart from any royal act, invested with authority,
and making no use of it. A king dressed
in purple, seated on a throne with great majesty,
suited to his grandeur, grave, severe, and
terrible in appearance, but in reality an absolute
nonentity. Like a painting</em> de la main du<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_465b" id="Page_465b">[Pg 465b]</a></span>
Greco, <em>which, placed in an elevated position,
and seen from a distance, looks very beautiful,
and produces a great effect, but when nearly
approached is but a rough sketch</em>. All pomp
and majesty, properly considered, are a mere
sketch and shadow of a king. <i lang="la">Simulacra gentium</i>,
says David, speaking of kings who have
nothing but the name; and according to the
Hebrew text: <i lang="la">Imago fictilis et contrita</i>. A
figure of pounded earth, crumbling on all sides;
an empty phantom, great in appearance, but a
mere piece of deception. The name which
Elifaz unjustly applied to Job is perfectly applicable
here, when he designated this good
and just king, a man void of foundation and
substance, bearing only external appearances;
he styled him <i>Myrmicoleon</i>, that is, the name
of the animal which, in Latin, is called Formica-leo,
because it is a monstrous conformation,
one half of its body, in fact, representing
a fearful lion, an animal always used as an
emblem of a king, and the other half an ant,
that is, a most feeble and insignificant thing.
Such are the authority, the name, throne, and
majesty of a fierce lion and of a powerful monarch;
but as regards the essence, you will find
only that of an ant. There have been kings
whose very name filled the world with terror;
but these kings were void of substance in themselves,
in their kingdoms they were as mere ants;
their names and offices were very great, but without
effect. Let the king, therefore, bear in mind
that he has an office to fulfill, and not only an
office, but that he is obliged to speak and labor
on all offices, of which he is the general
superintendent. St. Augustine and St. Thomas,
explaining that passage of St. Paul which
treats of episcopal dignity, say, that the word
<em>bishop</em>, in Greek, is composed of two roots
signifying the same thing as <em>superintendent</em>.
The name of bishop, king, and every other superior,
are names signifying superintendence
over, and co-operation with, every office. This
is what is expressed by the sceptre used by
kings in public acts, a ceremony used by the
Egyptians, who borrowed it from the Israelites.
The latter, in order to point out the duty of a
good king, painted an open eye placed in an
elevated position on the point of a rod in the
form of a sceptre, representing, on the one
hand, the great power of the king, the solicitude
and vigilance which he ought to exercise;
on the other, that he ought not to be satisfied
with holding the supreme power, with
occupying the most exalted and most eminent
position, and, in possession of these, passing
his life in sleep and repose; on the contrary,
he should be the first in commanding and
counselling, he should appear in every office,
incessantly watching and inspecting, like a
man doing the business in which he is
engaged. Jeremiah also understands it in
this sense, for when God asked him what he
saw, he answered: <i lang="la">Virgam vigilantem ego video</i>.
Thou hast seen well; and verily I tell
thee, that I who am supreme, will watch over
my flock; I who am a shepherd, will watch
over my sheep; I who am a king and a monarch,
will watch without ceasing over all my
inferiors. <i lang="la">Regem festinantem</i>, says the Chaldean,
a king who is in haste; for, although he
has eyes and sees, if he remains in repose, in
his pleasures and amusements, if he does not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_466" id="Page_466">[Pg 466a]</a></span>
go about from place to place, if he does not act
so as to become acquainted with all the good
and evil that is going on in his kingdom, he is
as though he did not exist. Let him consider
that he is the head, and even the head of the
lion, which even in its sleep keeps its eyes
open; that he is the rod with eyes, that he is
the torch; let him open his eyes, therefore, and
sleep no longer, trusting to those who are blinded,
and see no better than moles; who, if they
have eyes, only employ them to see their own
interest, and to distinguish at a greater distance
what may conduce to their own profit
and aggrandizement. Such persons have eyes
for themselves, and it would be better if they
had them not, for their eyes are those of birds
of prey&mdash;of vultures."</p>

<p>In his fourth chapter, the title of which is,
"On the office of kings," the author thus explains
the origin of royal power and its obligations:&mdash;"From
this it follows," says he,
"that the institution of the state of royalty,
or king, represented by the head, was not
merely for the use and profit of the king himself,
but for that of his whole kingdom. Hence
he ought to see, hear, feel, and understand,
not only by himself and for himself, but by
all and for all. He ought not merely to fix his
regards upon his own greatness, but on the
good of his subjects, since it is for them, and
not for himself, that he was born a king. <i lang="la">Adverte</i>,
said Seneca to the Emperor Nero, <i lang="la">rempublicam
non esse tuam, sed te reipublicæ</i>.&mdash;When
men first issued from solitude, and
united to live in common, they knew that
every one would naturally labor for himself
or his own family, and that no one would take
an interest in all; they agreed to select a man
of great merit, that all might have recourse
to him; a man who, distinguished above all
the rest by his virtue, his prudence, and courage,
should be the chief over all, should govern
all, watch over all, and should exert himself
for the advantage of all&mdash;for the common
weal&mdash;like a father for his children, or a shepherd
for his sheep. Now, considering that
this man, abandoning his own affairs to look
after those of others, could not maintain himself
and his family (every one was then maintained
by the labor of his hands), it was agreed
that all should contribute to his support, in
order that he might not be distracted by any
other occupations than those of the common
weal and the public government. Such was
the end for which kings were instituted&mdash;such
was their beginning. The good king ought to be
more solicitous for the public than for his own
private interest. He possesses his grandeur at
the expense of great solicitude; the anxiety,
the disquietude of mind and body, which is
fatigue for him, is repose, support, and protection
for others. Thus smiling flowers and
fruits, whilst they adorn the tree, exist not so
much for the tree, nor on account of the tree,
as for the sake of others. Do not imagine that
all happiness is in the beauty and grace of
the flower, and in those who are the flowers
of the world: powerful kings and princes may
be termed the flowers of the world, but flowers
who consume their lives, who are full of solicitude,
and whose fruit will rather contribute
to the enjoyment of others than to their own.
'For,' says the Jew Philo, 'the king is to the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_466b" id="Page_466b">[Pg 466b]</a></span>
kingdom what the wise is to the ignorant man,
what the shepherd is to his sheep, the father
to his children, light to darkness, and what
God is upon earth to all his creatures.' The
investiture he gave to Moses, when he appointed
him the chief and king over his
people, was to tell him that he ought to be as
God, the common father of all; for the office
and dignity of a king require all this. <i lang="la">Omnium
domos illius vigila defendit, omnium otium illius
industria, omnium vacationem illius occupatio.</i>
(Seneca, <cite>Lib. de Consol.</cite>) This is what the
prophet Samuel says to Saul, recently elected
king, when he expounds to him the obligations
of his office: 'Consider, Saul, that God has
this day constituted thee king over all this
kingdom; thou art bound by the office to
govern the whole of it. Thou hast not been
made a king to enjoy repose, to become proud,
and to glory in the dignity of a king; but to
govern thy kingdom, to maintain it in peace
and justice, to defend and protect it against
its enemies.' <i lang="la">Rex eligitur, non, ut sui ipsius
curam habeat</i>, says Socrates, <i lang="la">et sese molliter
curet, sed ut per ipsum ii, qui elegerunt, bene
beateque vivant</i>. They were not created and
introduced into the world for their own convenience
and pleasure or to be fed upon every
dainty morsel of food (if such were the case,
no one would willingly submit to them); but
they were appointed for the advantage and
common good of all their subjects, to govern
them, protect them, enrich them, preserve and
serve them. All this is perfectly admissible;
for although the sceptre and crown appear to
be the emblems of domination, the office of a
king is, strictly speaking, that of a slave.
<i lang="la">Servus communis, sive servus honoratus</i>, are
words which have sometimes been applied to
a king, <i lang="la">quia a tota republica stipendia accipit
ut serviat omnibus</i>. And the Supreme Pontiff
glories in this title, <i lang="la">Servus servorum Dei</i>. In
ancient times this name of slave was one of
infamy; but since Christ bore it it has become
a name full of honor. Now, since it is neither
repugnant nor derogatory to the essence nor
nature of the Son of God, neither can it be
derogatory to the nature and grandeur of the
king.</p>

<p>"Antigonus, king of Macedon, was perfectly
aware of this, and said candidly to his son,
when he rebuked him for the severity with
which he governed his subjects: <i lang="la">An ignoras,
fili mi, regnum nostrum nobilem esse servitutem?</i>
Before his time Agamemnon expressed himself
in the same manner: 'We live apparently
in the midst of grandeur and exaltation; but
in reality we are the servants and slaves of
our subjects.' Such is the office of good kings&mdash;an
honorable servitude. From the moment
of their being created kings, their actions no
longer depend upon their own will, but on the
laws and rules which have been given them,
and on the conditions upon which they have
undertaken their office. And although they
may fail to comply with these conditions
(which are the effects of a human convention),
they may not fail to comply with that dictated
by natural and divine law, the mistress of
kings as well as of subjects. Now, these rules
are almost all included in the words of Jeremiah,
which God, according to St. Jerome,
addresses to kings on giving them the com<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_467" id="Page_467">[Pg 467a]</a></span>mand:&mdash;<i lang="la">Facite
judicium et justitiam, liberate
vi oppressum de manu calumniatoris, et advenam,
et pupillum, et viduam nolite contristare, neque
opprimatis inique, et sanguinem innocentum non
effundatis</i>. Such is the summary of the obligations
of a king; such the laws of his institution,
which lay him under the obligation of
maintaining in peace and justice the orphan,
the widow, the poor, the rich and the powerful
man, and him who can do nothing for himself.
Upon him rest the wrongs of his ministers
towards some, the injustice suffered by others,
the sorrows of the afflicted, the tears of those
who weep, not to mention many other burdens&mdash;a
flood of cares and obligations&mdash;imposed
upon every prince or chief of a state.
For if he is the head to command and govern,
and to bear the burdens of others, he should
also be the feet upon which the whole weight
of the state is sustained. Kings and monarchs,
says the holy man Job, as we have seen,
bear and carry the world upon their shoulders,
on account of their office. Hence the figure
we meet with in the Book of Wisdom: <i lang="la">In veste
poderis, quam habebat summus sacerdos, totus
erat orbis terrarum</i>. From the moment a man
is created king, let him consider himself loaded
with a burden so heavy that a strong carriage
would not support it. Moses felt this
strongly; for God having made him His
viceroy, His captain-general, His lieutenant
in the government, instead of returning thanks
for so distinguished a favor, he complains that
so heavy a burden should be placed upon him.
<i lang="la">Cur afflixisti servum tuum? Cur imposuisti
pondus universi populi hujus super me?</i> Again,
continuing his complaint, he says, <i lang="la">Numquid
ego concepi omnem hanc multitudinem? Aut
genui eam, ut dicas mihi: Porta eos?</i>&mdash;'Lord,
have I conceived all this multitude, or begotten
them, and thou shouldst say to me, Carry
them on thy shoulders?' Now, it is remarkable
that God said nothing of that to Moses;
he merely tells him to rule and govern them,
to fulfill towards them the office of captain and
chief. Nevertheless, what says Moses? That
God commanded him to bear them on his
shoulders&mdash;<i lang="la">Porta eos</i>. It appears, then, that
he has no reason to complain, since he is merely
told to be the captain, to direct, rule, and
govern. It is a common expression, 'A word
to the wise is sufficient.' He who knows and
understands what it is to govern and to be the
chief, knows also that government and obligation
are the same thing. The very words
<i lang="la">regere</i> and <i lang="la">portare</i> are synonymous, and have
the same meaning: there is no government
nor employment without obligation and labor.
In the distribution of the offices which Jacob
made among his children, he appointed Reuben
to be the first in his inheritance and the
highest in command&mdash;<i lang="la">prior in donis, major in
imperio</i>. And St. Jerome translates <i lang="la">major ad
portandum</i>, for command and obligation are
the same thing; and the obligation and the
labor are so much more considerable as the
command is more exalted. St. Gregory, in his
<cite>Morales</cite>, says, that the power, domination, and
rule of kings over the whole world should not
be looked upon as an honor but as a labor.
<i lang="la">Potestas accepta non honor, sed onus æstimatur.</i>
And this truth was ever received by the blindest
among the Gentiles. One of them, taking<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_467b" id="Page_467b">[Pg 467b]</a></span>
the same view of the subject, says, speaking
of another Pagan, that his god Apollo had
made him all glorious and happy by the gift
of a certain office: <i lang="la">Lætus erat, mixtoque oneri
gaudebat honore</i>. So that power and command
composed of a little honor and weighty obligations.
The Latin word for honor only
differs from that for burden by one letter&mdash;<i lang="la">onos</i>
and <i lang="la">onus</i>. Besides, there always were and
always will be persons willing to undertake
the responsibility for the sake of the honor,
although every one avoids as much as possible
any thing that lays him under an obligation,
and seeks after what is glorious; a dangerous
choice, for the latter is not always the most
secure."</p>

<p>If such language is taxed with flattery, it
would be difficult to comprehend what is meant
by <em>telling the truth</em>. And observe, that the above
truths are not told without reflection; the good
religious takes such pains to inculcate them,
that were it not for the childlike candor of
his language, which discloses the purest of intentions,
we might accuse him of irreverence.
This passage is long, but exceedingly interesting,
for it faithfully reflects the spirit of the
age. Innumerable other texts might be adduced
to prove how unjustly the Catholic clergy
are accused of being favorable to despotism.
I cannot conclude without inserting here two
excellent passages from the learned Father
Fr. Ferdinand de Zeballos, a religious of the
order of St. Jerome in the Monastery of St.
Isidore del Campo, and known by a work intituled,
"False Philosophy, or Atheism, Deism,
Materialism, and other new sects convicted of
State Crimes against their Sovereigns and
Rulers, against the Magistrates and Lawful
Authorities." Madrid, 1776. Observe with
what tact the learned writer appreciates the
influence of religion upon society. (Book ii.
dissertation 12, art. 2.)</p>



<p class="hangt">"<i>A mild and moderate government is most
agreeable to the spirit of the gospel.</i></p>

<p class="center">§ I.</p>

<p>"One excellent and estimable point in our
holy religion is, that she offers to human policy,
in her important truths, assistance in preserving
good order among men with less trouble.
'The Christian religion,' says Montesquieu,
with much truth, 'is far removed from
pure despotism. Mildness being so strongly
recommended in the gospel, it is opposed to
the despotic fury with which princes might
administer justice and practise cruelties.' This
opposition on the part of Christianity to the
cruelty of the monarch should not be active,
but passive and full of mildness, which Christianity
can never lose sight of without losing
its character. This is the difference between
Catholic Christians and the Calvinists and
other Protestants. Basnages and Jurieu, in
the name of all their reformation, wrote that
it is allowable for the people to wage war
against their princes whenever they are oppressed
by them, or their conduct appears
tyrannical.</p>

<p>"The Catholic Church has never changed
the doctrines she received from Jesus Christ
and His Apostles. She loves moderation, she
rejoices in good: but she does not resist evil,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_468" id="Page_468">[Pg 468a]</a></span>
she overcomes it by patience. Governments
established under the direction of false religions
cannot be satisfied with a moderate policy.
With them the despotism or tyranny of
princes, the ferocity of penalties, the rigor of
an inflexible and cruel legislation, are so many
necessary evils. But why has it been given to
the Catholic religion only to purge human
governments from such inhumanity? First,
on account of the forcible impression produced
by her dogmas; secondly, through the effect
of the grace of Jesus Christ, which renders
men docile in doing good, and energetic in
combating evil. Wherever false religion predominates,
and where, in consequence, these
two means of aid are wanting, the government
is under the necessity of supplying them as far
as possible by efforts of a severe, harsh, and
terror-inspiring policy, in default of that virtue
which ought to exist in religion to restrain
citizens.</p>

<p>"Hence the Catholic religion, by the influence
of her dogmas over human affairs, relieves
governments from the necessity of being harsh.
In Japan, where the prevailing religion has
no dogmas, and gives no idea of heaven or hell,
laws are made to supply this defect&mdash;laws rendered
useful by the cruelty with which they
are conceived and the punctuality with which
they are executed. In every society in which
deists, fatalists, and philosophers have promulgated
this error, that our actions are unavoidable,
it is impossible to prevent laws from
becoming more terrible and sanguinary than
any we have known among barbarian nations;
for in such a society, men, after the manner of
brutes, being urged by palpable motives to do
what they are commanded and omit what they
are forbidden, these motives, with chastisements,
must be daily more formidable, in order
to avoid losing from habit the power of making
themselves felt. The Christian religion, which
admirably teaches and explains the dogmas of
rational liberty, has no need of an iron rod to
govern mankind. The fear of the pains of
hell, whether eternal, to punish crimes unrepented
of, or temporal, to wash away the
stains of sins confessed, relieves judges from
the necessity of augmenting punishments. On
the other hand, the hope of gaining heaven,
as a reward for laudable actions, words, and
thoughts, induces men to be just, not only in
public but also in the secrecy of the heart.
What laws or penalties would avail governments
not possessed of this dogma of hell and of
glory, to make their citizens men of real merit?
Materialists, denying the dogma of a future
state, and deists, holding out to the wicked the
flattering security of paradise, place governments
under the painful necessity of arming
themselves with all the instruments of terror,
and of always inflicting the most cruel punishments,
to restrain the people from destroying
one another.</p>

<p>"Protestants have already come to this point
by rejecting the dogma of the eternity of
hell, or, at least, by preserving merely the fear
of a temporary pain. The first reformers, as
d'Alembert observes to the clergy of Geneva,
denied the doctrine of purgatory, and retained
that of hell; but the Calvinists, and
modern reformers, by their limitation of the
duration of hell, leave only what may be properly
termed purgatory. Is not the dogma of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_468b" id="Page_468b">[Pg 468b]</a></span>
the last judgment, when each one's secret offences,
however small, shall be exposed to the
whole world, of singular efficacy in restraining
the thoughts and desires, and all the perversity
of the heart and of the passions? It is evident
that this dogma so far relieves political
governments from the painful and continual
vigilance which it would have to exercise over
a town in which the idea of this judgment has
perished, together with the thoughts which it
inspires."</p>


<p class="center">§ II.</p>

<p>"There are certain aberrations observable
among philosophers, which lead us to think that
these men were possessed of some true discernment
in their lucid moments, or whilst they were
in the Catholic religion. Hence they have said,
'that religion was invented for a political purpose,
to spare sovereigns the necessity of being
just, of making good laws, and of governing
well.' This folly, which stands self-condemned
when we come to speak of religion previously
formed, supposes, nevertheless, the truth
we are speaking of. It is evident to every
one, even to the philosophers whose extravagant
assertion we have just adduced, that the
Christian religion, by her dogmas, is serviceable
to human governments, and aids in making
good citizens, even in this world. Yet
they avail themselves of this very point to put
forth their insane malice: but, in reality, and
in spite of themselves, they mean to say, that
the dogmas of religion are of such service to
governments, and so efficacious in facilitating
a great part of their work, that they appear to
be formed on purpose, and according to the
designs of a magistrate or a political government.
We cannot say, on this account, that
religion alone is sufficient to govern men,
without any judicial aid, without the intervention
of the laws and of penalties. In speaking
of this efficacy of the dogmas inculcated
by religion, we are not rash and presumptuous;
we do not reject as superfluous the office of law
and police. We are told by the Apostle, that
for the just there would have been no need of
laws; but there are so many wicked, who,
through their forgetfulness of their destiny
and the terrible judgments of God, live under
the exclusive rule of their passions, that it
has been found necessary to make laws and
institute punishments, in order to restrain
them. Hence, the Catholic religion does not
reject the wise vigilance of police, nor abrogate
its office; she seconds it, on the contrary,
and receives assistance from it, to the very
great advantage of good governments; the
people, through its influence, are ruled better,
and with less austerity and severity."</p>


<p class="center">§ III.</p>

<p>"The second reason which renders the most
mild and moderate governments sufficient in
Catholic States is, the assistance which the
grace of the gospel affords for doing good and
avoiding evil,&mdash;an assistance imparted by the
use of the sacraments, or other means employed
by the Spirit from above. Without this,
every law is harsh; this unction softens every
yoke, renders every burden light."</p>

<p>In his third article, Father Zeballos repels the
accusation of despotism with which the ene<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_469" id="Page_469">[Pg 469a]</a></span>mies
of monarchy reproach it. On this occasion
he points out the just limits of royal authority,
and overthrows an argument which
some persons have pretended to found on the
Scriptures, for the exaggeration of the prerogatives
of the throne. He expresses himself as
follows:</p>

<p>"When the objection, that the sovereign had
the power of seizing the property of every
citizen, was made against monarchy, it was
rather an argument against the nature of despotism
than against the form of monarchical
government. 'What does it avail,' says Theseus
in Euripides, 'to amass riches for our heirs,
to bring up our daughters with care, if we are
to be deprived of the greater portion of these
riches by a tyrant, if our daughters are to
serve the most unruly passions?' You perceive,
then clearly, that in pretending to argue against
the office of a monarch, it is a tyrant only that
is spoken of. True, the frequent abuse of
power resorted to by kings has caused these
names and forms to be confounded. Others
have already observed that the ancients were
scarcely acquainted with the nature of true
monarchy; this was very natural, since they
never witnessed any thing but the abuse of it.
This gives me the opportunity of making a
remark upon the circumstance of the Hebrews
asking to be governed by kings. 'Make us a
king to judge us, as all nations have,' said they
to the prophet. Samuel saw with grief this
levity, which was about to cause a total revolution
in the government appointed by God.
Nevertheless, God commands the prophet to
take no notice of this affront, which was principally
offered to the Lord; for they were
abandoning Him, being unwilling that He
should rule over them any longer. 'As they
have forsaken Me, and served strange gods, so
do they also unto thee,' and ask for kings like
unto those of the nations. Observe what an
intimate connection always exists between a
change of government and a change in religion,
especially when the change is from a true to a
false one.</p>

<p>"But what is particularly deserving of notice
is, the acquiescence granted to the people's
demand. They wish to be ruled by kings, exactly
as all other nations were. The Lord
chastises their spirit of revolt by leaving them
to their desires. He commands Samuel to
comply with their request, but to point out to
them, at the same time, <em>the rights of the king</em>
who was to rule over them like unto the nations,
and said: 'This will be the right of the king
that shall reign over you: he will take your
sons, and will put them in his chariots, and
will make them his horsemen, and his running
footmen, to run before his chariots; and he
will appoint them to be his tribunes, and his
centurions, and to plough his fields, and to reap
his corn, and to make him arms and chariots.
Your daughters also will he take to make him
ointments, and to be his cooks and bakers; and
he will take your fields, and your vineyards,
and your best olive-yards, and give them to his
servants. Moreover, he will take the tenth of
your corn, and of the revenues of your vineyards,
to give to his eunuchs and servants.
Your servants also, and hand-maids, and your
goodliest young men, and your asses, he will
take away, and put them to his work. Your
flocks also he will tithe, and you shall be his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_469b" id="Page_469b">[Pg 469b]</a></span>
servants; and you shall cry out in that day
from the face of the king whom you have
chosen to yourselves; and the Lord will not
hear you in that day, because you desired unto
yourselves a king. And the people would not
hear the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay,
but there shall be a king over us, and we also
will be like all nations.' (1st Kings, chap.
viii., from verse 11 to middle of verse 20 inclusively.)</p>

<p>"Some persons, being determined to extend
the power of kings beyond its limits, draw from
these words the formula of royal right. A
blind pretension, and reflecting little honor on
legitimate monarchs such as the Catholic sovereigns.
Unless a person wishes knowingly
to deceive himself on this portion of the Scripture,
or is blind, he may see by the context,
and by comparing this passage with others,
that it is not legitimate right that is here meant,
but <i lang="la">de facto</i> right. I mean to say, that the
Holy Spirit does not explain what just monarchs
ought to do; but what had been done,
and was still done, by the kings of Pagan nations,
mere tyrants, and commonly so called.
Observe, that the people demanded nothing
but to be placed on an equality with the Pagan
nations in a political point of view. They
had not the prudence to demand a king such
as he ought to be, but such as was common in
those days; and this was what God granted
them. If God, as the prophet observes, has
sometimes given the people kings in His wrath,
what people were more deserving of this than
those who had abandoned God himself, and
refused to be ruled by Him? Indeed, God did
chastise His people severely by granting them
their foolish demand. He did give them a king,
but a king who was to exercise what, according
to the perverse custom of the times, formed the
royal right described in the sacred text just
quoted.</p>

<p>"What man in our days, conversant with
what has been written upon the different natures
of governments, upon their abuse, and
without even understanding what is said in the
Scriptures, could imagine that the text of
Samuel contains the legitimate form of royalty
or of monarchy? Does this power impart the
right of seizing the property of the subjects,
their lands, their riches, their sons and daughters,
and even their natural liberty? Is this
the model of a monarchy, or of the most tyrannical
despotism? To dispel every illusion
on this point, we need only compare with what
we have just read the 21st chap. of the third
Book of Kings, in which the history of Naboth,
an inhabitant of Jezrael, is narrated.
Achab, the king of Israel, wished to enlarge
the palace, or pleasure-house which he possessed
in that town. A vineyard of Naboth's,
near the palace, came within the plan of the
gardens that were to be added. The king did
not seize it at once, of his own authority, but
asked the proprietor to let him have it on the
honest condition of paying him the price at
which he should value it, or giving him a better
in another place. Naboth would not consent
to this, because it was the inheritance of his
ancestors. The king, not being accustomed
to meet with a refusal, threw himself upon his
couch oppressed with grief; the queen, Jezabel,
came, and told him to calm his agitation: 'Thy
authority is great indeed,' said she to him;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_470" id="Page_470">[Pg 470a]</a></span>
<i lang="la">Grandis authoritatis es</i>: she promises to put
him in possession of the vineyard. This
abominable woman wrote to the judges of
Jezrael to commence an action against Naboth
for a calumny, to be proved against him by
two suborned witnesses; and she demanded
that he should be condemned to death. The
queen was obeyed; Naboth was stoned to
death. All this was necessary that the vineyard
might enter into the royal treasury, and
that, watered by the blood of the proprietor,
it might produce flowers for the palace of these
princes. But, in reality, it produced none,
neither for the king nor for the queen; it furnished
them with nothing but briars and mortal
poisons. Elias presents himself before Achab
when he was going to take possession of Naboth's
vineyard; he announces to him that he,
and all his house, even to the dog that approacheth
the wall, shall be erased from the
face of the earth.</p>

<p>"You look upon royal right as explained to
the people by Samuel as legitimate; tell me,
then why Achab and Jezabel are so severely
punished for taking the vineyard and the life
of Naboth, <em>since the king had a right to take
from his subjects their most valuable vineyards
and olive trees</em>, according to the declaration of
the prophet. If Achab possesses this right
after he is established the king of the people
of God, whence comes it that he, so violent a
prince, should entreat Naboth with so much
civility? And why is it necessary to accuse
Naboth of some calumny? His resistance to
the king's right, by refusing to accept the just
value of what was suitable to the enlargement
of the palace and gardens, would have been
a sufficient motive for instituting an action
against him. We find, however, that Naboth
committed no injustice against the king by
refusing to sell his patrimony, not even in the
estimation of the queen, who boasted of her
husband's <em>great authority</em>. This great authority,
which Jezabel admitted in the king, was
neither more nor less than the royal right
spoken of by Samuel to the people; it was, as
I have said, a <i lang="la">de facto</i> right to take and seize
upon every thing by mere force, as Montesquieu
says of the tyrant.</p>

<p>"<em>Do not therefore, mention this passage, nor
any other of the Scriptures, to justify the idea
of a government so ill-conceived. The doctrine
of the Catholic religion is attached to legitimate
monarchy, with its suitable characteristics, and
in accordance with the qualities which modern
publicists recognise, viz. as a paternal and sovereign
power, but conformable to the fundamental
laws of the state. Within limits so suitable,
nothing can be more regular than this power,
the most extensive of all temporal powers, and
that which is most favored and supported by the
Catholic Church.</em>"</p>

<p>Such is the horrible despotism taught by
these men so basely calumniated! Happy the
people who are ruled by a prince whose government
is regulated by these doctrines!</p>


<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_31"></a>Note</span> 31, p. 330.</p>

<p>The importance of the matter treated of in
this part of my work obliges me to insert here,
at some length, passages proving the truth of
what I have advanced. I did not think it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_470b" id="Page_470b">[Pg 470b]</a></span>
advisable to give a translation of the Latin
passages, that I might avoid augmenting excessively
the number of pages; besides, among
the persons who may wish to make themselves
thoroughly acquainted with the subject, and
who will consequently take an interest in consulting
the original texts, there are few ignorant
of the Latin language.</p>

<p>Observe how St. Thomas expresses himself
on royal power, and with what solid and generous
doctrine he points out its duties in the
third book, chap. 11, of his treatise <cite>De Regimine
Principum</cite>.</p>


<p  class="centert">DIVUS THOMAS.</p>

<p class="center">"<cite>De Regimine Principum</cite>, liber iii. caput <span class="smcap">XI</span>.</p>

<p>"Hic Sanctus Doctor declarat de dominio
regali, in quo consistit, et in quo differt a politico,
et quo modo distinguitur diversimodo
secundum diversas rationes.</p>

<p>"Nunc autem ad regale dominium est procedendum,
ubi est distinguendum de ipso secundum
diversas regiones, et prout a diversis
varie invenitur traditum. Et primo quidem,
in Sacra Scriptura aliter leges regalis dominii
traduntur in Deuteronomio per Moysen, aliter
in 1 Regum per Samuelem prophetam, uterque
tamen in persona Dei differenter ordinat regem
ad utilitatem subditorum, quod est proprium
regum, ut Philosophus tradit in 8 ethic. Cum,
inquit, constitutus fuerit rex, non multiplicabit
sibi equos, nec reducet populum in Ægyptum,
equitatus numero sublevatus, non habebit uxores
plurimas, quæ alliciant animam ejus,
neque argenti, aut auri immensa pondera:
quod quidem qualiter habet intelligi, supra
traditur in hoc lib. describetque sibi Deuteronomium
legis hujus, et habebit secum, legetque
illud omnibus diebus vitæ suæ, ut discat
timere dominum Deum suum, et custodire
verba ejus et cæremonias, et ut videlicet possit
populum dirigere secundum legem divinam,
unde et rex Salomon in principio sui regiminis
hanc sapientiam a Deo petivit, ad directionem
sui regiminis pro utilitate subditorum, sicut
scribitur in 3 lib. Regum. Subdit vero dictus
Moyses in eodem lib. Nec elevetur cor ejus in
superfluum super fratres suos, neque declinet
in partem dexteram, vel sinistram, ut longo
tempore regat ipse et filius ejus super Israel.
Sed in primo Regum, traduntur leges regni,
magis ad utilitatem Regis, ut supra patuit in
lib. 2 hujus operis, ubi ponuntur verba omnino
pertinentia ad conditionem servilem, et tamen
Samuel leges quas tradit cum sint penitus despoticæ
dicit esse regales. Philosophus autem
in 8 ethic. magis concordat cum primis legibus.
Tria enim ponit de rege in eo. 4, videlicet,
quod ille legitimus est rex qui principaliter
bonum subditorum intendit. Item, ille rex est,
qui curam subditorum habet, ut bene operentur
quemadmodum pastor ovium. Ex quibus omnibus
manifestum est, quod juxta istum, modum
despoticum multum differat a regali, ut
idem Philosophus videtur dicere in 1 politic.
Item, <em>quod regnum non est propter regem, sed
rex propter regnum</em>, quia ad hoc Deus <em>providit
de eis, ut regnum regant et gubernent, et unumquemque
in suo jure conservent</em>: et hic est <em>finis
regiminis, quod si ad aliud faciunt in seipsos
commodum retorquendo, non sunt reges sed tyranni</em>.
Contra <em>quos dicit Dominus in Ezech</em>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_471" id="Page_471">[Pg 471a]</a></span>
Væ pastoribus Israel, qui pascunt semetipsos.
Nonne greges pascuntur a pastoribus? Lac
comedebatis, et lanis operiebamini, et quod
crassum erat occidebatis: gregem autem meum
non pascebatis: quod infirmum fuit, non consolidastis,
et quod ægrotum non sanastis, quod
confractum non alligastis, quod abjectum non
reduxistis, et quod perierat non quæsistis;
sed cum austeritate imperabatis eis et cum potentia.
In quibus verbis nobis sufficienter
forma regiminis traditur redarguendo contrarium.
Amplius autem regnum ex hominibus
constituitur, sicut domus ex parietibus, et
corpus humanum ex membris, ut Philos. dicit in
3 politic. Finis <em>ergo regis est, ut regimen prosperetur,
quod homines conserventur per regem</em>.
Et hinc habet commune bonum cujuslibet
principatus participationem divinæ bonitatis:
unde bonum commune dicitur a Philosopho in
1 ethic. esse quod omnia appetunt, et esse
bonum divinum, <em>ut sicut Deus qui est rex regum,
et dominus dominantium, cujus virtute
principes imperant, ut probatum est supra, nos
regit et gubernat non propter seipsum, sed propter
nostram salutem: ita et reges faciant et alii
dominatores in orbe</em>."</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_32"></a>Note</span> 32, p. 336.</p>

<p>I have noticed the opinion of D. Felix Amat,
Archbishop of Palmyra, with respect to the
obedience due to <i lang="la">de facto</i> governments. I have
remarked, that this writer's principles, besides
being false, are opposed to the rights of the
people. The Archbishop of Palmyra appears
to have been at a loss to discover a maxim to
which it is possible to conform under all circumstances
that may occur, and which do occur
but too often. He dreaded the obscurity
and confusion of ideas when the legitimacy of
a given case was to be defined; he wished to
remedy an evil, but he appears to have aggravated
it to an extraordinary degree. Observe
how he sets forth his opinion in his work entitled
<cite>Idea of the Church Militant</cite>, chap. iii.
art. 2:</p>

<p>"The more I reflect," says he, "on the difficulties
I have just pointed out, the more I am
convinced that it is impossible to resolve them,
even those which are ancient, with any degree
of certainty; and it is equally impossible to
derive any light from them to aid us in resolving
those which are formed at the present day
by the struggle between the prevailing spirit
of insubordination in opposition to the judgment
and will of the governor, and the contrary
effort made to limit more and more the
liberty of those who obey. Starting from the
divers points and notions that I have laid down
relative to the supreme power in all really civil
societies, it appears to me, that, instead of losing
time in mere speculative discussions, it will
be more useful to propose a practical, just, and
opportune maxim for the preservation of public
tranquillity, especially in Christian kingdoms
and states, and for affording the means
of re-establishing it when it has been troubled
or destroyed.</p>

<p>"The <em>Maxim</em>.&mdash;No one can doubt the legitimacy
of the obligation of every member of any
civil society whatever to obey the government
which is de facto and unquestionably established.
I say '<em>unquestionably established</em>,' be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_471b" id="Page_471b">[Pg 471b]</a></span>cause
there is here no question of a mere invasion
or temporary occupation in time of war.
From this maxim follow two consequences:
1st, to take part in insurrections, or assemblages
of people, addressing themselves to the
constituted authorities with a view to compel
them to grant what they consider unjust, is
always an act contrary to right reason; always
unlawful, condemned by the natural law and
by the Gospel. 2dly, individual members of
society, who combine together and take up
arms, in small or large numbers, for the purpose
of attacking the established government
by physical force, are always guilty of rebellion,
a crime strongly opposed to the spirit of
our divine religion."</p>

<p>I will not here repeat what I have already
said on the unsoundness, the inconveniences,
and the dangers of such a doctrine, but merely
add, that with respect to governments only
established <i lang="la">de facto</i>, to grant them the right of
commanding and exacting obedience involves
a contradiction. To say that a <i lang="la">de facto</i> government
is bound, whilst it does exist, to protect
justice, to avoid crimes, to prevent the
dissolution of society, is merely to maintain
truths universally admitted, and denied by no
one; but to add, that it is unlawful, and contrary
to our holy religion, to combine together
and raise forces for the overthrow of a <i lang="la">de facto</i>
government, is a doctrine which Catholic theologians
have never professed, which true philosophy
has never admitted, and which no nation
has ever observed.</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_33"></a>Note</span> 33, p. 343.</p>

<p>I insert here certain remarkable passages from
St. Thomas and Suarez, in which these authors
explain the opinions to which I have alluded
in the text, respecting the differences which
may arise between governors and the governed.
I refer to what I have already pointed out in
another place; we are not about to examine so
much whether such or such doctrines are true,
as to discover what were the doctrines at the
time we are speaking of, and what opinion
the most distinguished doctors formed on the
delicate questions of which we are treating.</p>


<p class="centert">D. THOMAS.</p>

<p class="center">(2. 2. Q. 42. art. 2<sup>o</sup> ad tertium.&mdash;Utrum seditio sit
semper peccatum mortale?)</p>

<p>3. Arg. Laudantur qui multitudinem a potestate
tyrannica liberant, sed hoc non de facili
potest fieri sine aliqua dissensione multitudinis,
dum una pars multitudinis nititur retinere
tyrannum, alia vero nititur eum abjicere, ergo
seditio potest fieri sine peccato.</p>

<p>Ad tertium dicendum; quod regimen tyrannicum
non est justum quia non ordinatur ad
bonum commune, sed ad bonum privatum
regentis ut patet per Philosophum; et ideo
perturbatio hujus regiminis non habet rationem
seditionis, nisi forte quando sic inordinate perturbatur
tyranni regimen, quod multitudo subjecta
majus detrimentum patitur ex perturbatione
consequenti quam ex tyranni regimine;
magis autem tyrannus seditiosus est, qui in
populo sibi subjecto discordias et seditiones
nutrit, ut tutius dominari possit; hoc enim
tyrannicum est, cum sit ordinatum ad bonum<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_472" id="Page_472">[Pg 472a]</a></span>
proprium præsidentis cum multitudinis nocumento.</p>

<p>Cardinalis Cayetanus in hunc textum. "Quis
sit autem modus ordinatus perturbandi tyrannum
et qualem tyrannum, puta secundum regimen
tantum, vel secundum regimen et
titulum, non est præsentis intentionis: sat est
nunc, quod utrumque tyrannum licet ordinate
perturbare absque seditione quandoque; illum
ut bono reipublicæ vacet, istum ut expellatur."</p>


<p class="center">LIB. I.</p>

<p class="center"><cite>De Regimine Principum.</cite> (Cap. x.)</p>

<p class="hang">Quod rex et princeps studere debet ad bonum regimen
propter bonum sui ipsius, et utile quod inde
sequitur, cujus contrarium sequitur regimen
tyrannicum.</p>

<p>Tyrannorum vero dominium diuturnum esse
non potest, cum sit multitudini odiosum. Non
potest enim diu conservari, quod votis multorum
repugnat. Vix enim a quoquam præsens vita
transigitur quin aliquas adversitates patiatur.
Adversitatis autem tempore occasio deesse non
potest contra tyrannum insurgendi; et ubi
adsit occasio, non deerit ex multis vel unus qui
occasione non utatur. Insurgentem autem populus
votive prosequitur: nec de facili carebit
effectu, quod cum favore multitudinis attentatur.
Vix ergo potest contingere, quod tyranni
dominium protendatur in longum. Hoc etiam
manifeste patet, si quis consideret unde tyranni
dominium conservatur. Non n. conservatur
amore, cum parva, vel nulla sit amicitia subjectæ
multitudinis ad tyrannum ut ex præhabitis
patet: de subditorum autem fide tyrannis
confidendum non est. Non n. invenitur tanta
virtus in multis, ut fidelitatis virtute reprimantur,
ne indebitæ servitutis jugum, si possint,
excutiant. Fortassis autem nec fidelitati contrarium
reputabitur secundum opinionem multorum,
si tyrannicæ nequitiæ qualitercumque
obvietur. Restat ergo ut solo timore tyranni
regimen sustentetur; unde et timeri se a
subditis tota intentione procurant. Timor
autem est debile fundamentum. Nam qui
timore subduntur, si occurrat occasio qua possint
impunitatem sperare, contra præsidentes
insurgunt eo ardentius, quo magis contra voluntatem
ex solo timore cohibebantur. Sicut
si aqua per violentiam includatur, cum aditum
invenerit, impetuosius fluit. Sed nec ipse timor
caret periculo, cum ex nimio timore plerique in
desperationem inciderint. Salutis autem desperatio
audacter ad quælibet attentanda præcipitat.
Non potest igitur tyranni dominium
esse diuturnum. Hoc etiam non minus
exemplis, quam rationibus apparet.</p>


<p class="center">LIB. I. CAP. VI.</p>


<p class="hang">Conclusio; quod regimen unius simpliciter sit optimum;
ostendit qualiter multitudo se debet habere
circa ipsum, quia auferenda est ei occasio ne tyrannizet,
ei quod etiam in hoc est tolerandus propter
majus malum vitandum.</p>

<p>Quia ergo unius regimen præ eligendum est,
quod est optimum, et contingit ipsum in tyrannidem
converti, quod est pessimum, ut ex dictis
patet, laborandum est diligenti studio, ut sic
multitudini provideatur de rege, ut non incidat
in tyrannum. Primum autem est necessarium,
ut talis conditionis homo ab illis ad quos hoc<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_472b" id="Page_472b">[Pg 472b]</a></span>
spectat officium, promoveatur in regem, quod
non sit probabile in tyrannidem declinare.
Unde Samuel Dei providentiam erga institutionem
regis commendans, ait, 1 Regum xiii.:
Quæsivit sibi Dominus, virum secundum cor
suum: deinde sic disponenda est regni gubernatio,
ut regi jam instituto tyrannidis subtrahatur
occasio. Simul etiam sic ejus temperetur
potestas, ut in tyrannidem de facili declinare
non possit. Quæ quidem ut fiant, insequentibus
considerandum erit. Demum vero curandum
est, si rex in tyrannidem diverteret,
qualiter posset occuri. Et quidem si non fuerit
excessus tyrannidis, utilius est remissam tyrannidem
tolerare ad tempus, quam tyrannum
agendo multis implicari periculis, quæ sunt
graviora ipsa tyrannide. Potest, n. contingere
ut qui contra tyrannum agunt prævalere non
possint, et sic provocatus tyrannus magis desæviat.
Quod si prævalere quis possit adversus
tyrannum, ex hoc ipso proveniunt multoties
gravissimæ dissensiones in populo, sive dum
in tyrannum insurgitur, sive post dejectionem
tyranni erga ordinationem regiminis multitudo
separatur in partes. Contingit etiam ut interdum
dum alicujus auxilio multitudo expellit
tyrannum, ille potestate accepta tyrannidem
arripiat, et timens pati ab alio quod ipse in
alium fecit, graviori servitute subditos opprimat.
Sic enim in tyrannide solet contingere,
ut posterior gravior fiat quam præcedens, dum
præcedentia gravamina non deserit, et ipse ex
sui cordis malitia nova excogitat: unde Syracusis
quondam Dyonisii mortem omnibus desiderantibus,
anus quædem ut incolumnis et sibi
superstes esset, continue orabat: quod ut
tyrannus cognovit, cur hoc faceret interrogavit.
Tum illa, puella, inquit, existens cum gravem
tyrannum haberemus, mortem ejus cupiebam,
quo interfecto, aliquantulum durior successit;
ejus quoque dominationem finiri magnum existimabam,
tertium te importuniorem habere
cœpimus rectorem; itaque si tu fueris absumptus,
deterior in locum tuum succedet. Et si
sit intolerabilis excessus tyrannidis, quibusdam
visum fuit, ut ad fortium virorum virtutem pertineat
tyrannum interimere, seque pro liberatione
multitudinis exponere periculis mortis:
cujus rei exemplum etiam in veteri Testamento
habetur. Nam Ajoth quidam Eglon regem
Moab, qui gravi servitute populum Dei premebat,
sica infixa in ejus femore interemit, et
factus est populi judex. Sed hoc Apostolicæ
doctrinæ non congruit. Docet n. nos Petrus,
non bonis tantum et modestis, verum etiam discolis
Dominis reverenter subditos esse. 2 Petr.
ii. Hæc est enim gratia, si propter conscientiam
Dei sustineat quis tristitias patiens injuste:
unde cum multi Romani Imperatores
fidem Christi persequerentur tyrannice, magnaque
multitudo tam nobilium, quam populi
esset ad fidem conversa, non resistendo, sed
mortem patienter et armati sustinentes pro
Christo laudantur, ut in sacra Thebæorum legione
manifeste apparet; magisque Ajoth judicandus
est hostem interemisse, quam populi
rectorem, licet tyrannum; unde et in veteri
Testamento leguntur occisi fuisse hi qui occiderunt
Joas regem Juda, quamvis a cultu Dei
recedentem, eorumque filiis reservatis secundum
legis præceptum. Esset autem hoc multitudini
periculosum et ejus rectoribus, si
privata præsumptione aliqui attentarent præsi<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_473" id="Page_473">[Pg 473a]</a></span>dentium
necem etiam tyrannorum. Plerumque
enim hujusmodi periculis magis exponunt se
mali quam boni. Malis autem solet esse grave
dominium non minus regum quam tyrannorum,
quia secundum sententiam Salomonis: Dissipat
impios rex sapiens. Magis igitur ex hujus
præsumptione immineret periculum multitudini
de amissione regis, quam remedium de
subtractione tyranni. Videtur autem magis
contra tyrannorum sævitiam non privata præsumptione
aliquorum, sed auctoritate publica
procedendum. Primo quidem, si ad jus multitudinis
alicujus pertineat sibi providere de
rege, non injuste ab eadem rex institutus potest
destitui, vel refrænari ejus potestas, si potestate
regia tyrannice abutatur. Nec putanda
est talis multitudo infideliter agere tyrannum
destituens, etiamsi eidem in perpetuo se ante
subjecerat: quia hoc ipse meruit in multitudinis
regimine se non fideliter gerens, ut exigit
regis officium, quod ei pactum a subditis non
reservetur. Sic Romani Tarquinium superbum
quem in regem susceperant, propter ejus et
filiorum tyrannidem a regno ejecerunt substituta
minori, scilicet consularia potestate. Sic
etiam Domitianus, qui modestissimis Imperatoribus
Vespasiano patri, et Tito fratri ejus
successerat, dum tyrannidem exercet, a senatu
Romano interemptus est, omnibus quæ perverse
Romanis fecerat per Senatusconsultum juste et
salubriter in irritum revocatis. Quo factum
est, ut beatus Joannes Evangelista dilectus Dei
discipulus, qui per ipsum Domitianum in Pathmos
insulam fuerat exilio relegatus, ad Ephesum
per Senatusconsultum remitteretur. Si
vero ad jus alicujus superioris pertineat multitudini
providere de rege, spectandum est ab eo
remedium contra tyranni nequitiam. Sic
Archelai, qui in Judæa pro Herode patre suo
regnare jam cœperat, paternam malitiam imitantis,
Judæis contra eum querimoniam ad
Cesarem Augustum deferentibus, primo quidem
potestas diminuitur, ablato sibi regio nomine,
et medietate regni sui inter duos fratres
suos divisa: deinde cum nec sic a tyrannide
compesceretur a Tiberio Cesare relegatus est
in exilium apud Lugdunum Galliæ civitatem.
Quod si omnino contra tyrannum auxilium humanum
haberi non potest, recurrendum est ad
regem omnium Deum, quid est adjutor in opportunitatibus
in tribulatione. Ejus enim potentiæ
subest, ut cor tyranni crudele convertat
in mansuetudinem, secundum Salomonis sententiam.
Proverb. xii. Cor regis in manu Dei
quocumque voluerit inclinavit illud. Ipse enim
regis Assueri crudelitatem, qui Judæis mortem
parabat, in mansuetudinem vertit. Ipse est qui
ita Nabuchodonosor, crudelem regem convertit,
quod factus est divinæ potentiæ prædicator.
Nunc igitur, inquit, ego Nabuchodonosor laudo,
et magnifico, et glorifico regem cœli, quia opera
ejus vera et viæ ejus judicia, et gradientes in
superbia potest humiliare. Dan. iv. Tyrannos
vero quos reputat conversione indignos, potest
auferre de medio vel ad infimum statum reducere,
secundum illud Sapientes Eccles. x. Sedem
ducum superborum destruxit Deus, et sedere
fecit mites pro eis. Ipse enim qui videns
afflictionem populi sui in Ægypto, et audiens
eorum clamorem Pharaonem tyrannum dejecit
cum exercitu suo in mare; ipse est qui memoratum
Nabuchodonosor prius superbientem non
solum ejectum de regni solio, sed etiam de ho<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_473b" id="Page_473b">[Pg 473b]</a></span>minum
consortio, in similitudinem bestiæ commutavit.
Nec enim abreviata manus ejus est,
ut populum suum a tyrannis liberare non possit.
Promittit enim populo suo per Isaiam, requiem
se daturum a labore et confusione, ac servitute
dura, qua ante servierat, et per Ezech. xxxiv.
dicit: Liberabo meum gregem de ore eorum
pastorum, qui pascunt seipsos. Sed ut, hoc
beneficium populus a Deo consequi mereatur,
debet a peccatis cessare, quia in ultionem peccati
divina permissione impii accipiunt principatum,
dicente Domino per Osee xiii.: Dabo
tibi regem in furore meo, et in Job. xxxiv. dicitur,
quod regnare facit hominem hypocritam
propter peccata populi. Tollenda est igitur
culpa, ut cesset a tyrannorum plaga.</p>


<p class="center">SUAREZ.</p>

<p class="center">(Disp. 13. De Bello. sect. 8.&mdash;Utrum seditio sit
intrinsece mala?)</p>

<p>Seditio dicitur bellum commune intra eamdem
Rempublicam, quod geri potest, vel inter
duas partes ejus, vel inter Principem et Rempublicam.
Dico primo: Seditio inter duas partes
Reipublicæ semper est mala ex parte aggressoris:
ex parte vero defendentis se justa
est. Hoc secundum per se est notum. Primum
ostenditur: quia nulla cernitur ibi legitima
auctoritas ad indicendum bellum; hæc enim
residet in supremo Principe, ut vidimus sect.
2. Dices, interdum poterit Princeps eam auctoritatem
concedere, si magna necessitas publica
urgeat. At tunc jam non censetur aggredi
pars Reipublicæ, sed Princeps ipse; sicque
nulla erit seditio de qua loquimur. Sed, quid
si illa Reipublicæ pars sit vere offensa ab alia
neque possit per Principem jus suum obtinere?
Respondeo, non posse plus efficere, quam possit
persona privata, ut ex superioribus constare
facile potest.</p>

<p>Dico secundo: Bellum Reipublicæ contra
Principem, etiamsi aggressivum, non est intrinsece
malum; habere tamen debet conditiones
justi alias belli, ut honestetur. Conclusio
solum habet locum, quando Princeps est
tyrannus; quod duobus modis contingit, ut
Cajet. not. 2. 2. q. 64 articulo primo ad tertium:
primo si tyrannus sit quoad dominium, et potestatem:
secundo solum quoad regimen.
Quando priori modo accidit tyrannus, tota
Respublica, et quodlibet ejus membrum jus
habet contra illum; unde quilibet potest se ac
Rempublicam a tyrannide vindicare. Ratio
est; quia tyrannus ille aggressor est, et inique
bellum movet contra Rempublicam, et singula
membra; unde omnibus competit jus defensionis.
Ita Cajetanus eo loco, sumique potest ex
D. Thom. in secundo, distinctione 44, quæstione
secunda, articulo secundo. De posteriori
tyranno idem docuit Joann. Hus, imo de omni
iniquo superiore; quod damnatum est in Concilio
Constant. Sessione 8 et 15. Unde certa veritas
est, contra hujusmodi tyrannum nullam privatam
personam, aut potestatem imperfectam
posse juste movere bellum aggressivum, atque
illud esset propie seditio. Probatur, quoniam
ille, ut supponitur, verus est Dominus: inferiores
autem jus non habent indicendi bellum,
sed defendendi se tantum; quod non habet locum
in hoc tyranno: namque ille non semper
singulis facit injuriam, atque si invaderent, id
solum possent efficere, quod ad suam defen<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_474" id="Page_474">[Pg 474a]</a></span>sionem
sufficeret. At vero tota Respublica
posset bello insurgere contra ejusmodi tyrannum,
neque tunc excitaretur propia seditio (hoc
siquidem nomen in malam partem sumi consuevit).
Ratio est: quia tunc tota Respublica
superior est Rege: nam, cum ipsa dederit illi
potestatem, ea conditione dedisse censetur, ut
politice, non tyrannice regeret, alias ab ipsa
posset deponi. Est tamen observandum, ut ille
vere, et manifeste tyrannice agat; concurrantque
aliæ conditiones ad honestatem belli positas.
Lege Divum Thomum 1 de regimine
Principum, cap. 6.</p>

<p>Dico tertio: Bellum Reipublicæ contra Regem
neutro modo tyrannum, est propiissime
seditio, et intrinsece malum. Est certa, et inde
constat: quia deest tunc et causa justa, et potestas.
Ex quo etiam e contrario constat, bellum
Principis contra Rempublicam sibi subditam,
ex parte potestatis posse esse justum, si
adsint aliæ conditiones; si vero desint, injustum
omnino esse.<a name="FNanchor_E_5" id="FNanchor_E_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_E_5" class="fnanchor">[E]</a></p>

<hr class="tb" />

<p>Listen to the language of P. Marquez in
Spain, in the so-called despotic times: it is well
known that his work intituled <cite>El Gobernador
Cristiano</cite> was not one of those obscure books
which are never widely circulated; it met
with such success that it went through several
editions, as well in Spain as in foreign countries.
I will give the title at length, and I will
add, at the same time, a note of the editions
published at different epochs, in different countries,
in different languages,&mdash;a note which is
to be found in the edition of Madrid in 1773.</p>

<p>"The Christian Magistrate (<cite>El Gobernador
Cristiano</cite>), according to the Life of Moses, the
Ruler of the People of God, by the R. P. M.
J. R. John Marquez, O. S. A., preacher to his
Majesty King Philip III., Examiner of the
Holy Office of the Inquisition, and Evening
Professor of Theology at the University of
Salamanca. New and sixth edition, with permission.
Madrid, 1773."</p>

<p>"The Christian Magistrate, composed at the
request and in honor of His Excellency the
Duke of Feria, first published at Salamanca,
in the year 1612; a second edition in the same
town in 1619; a third edition at Alcala in 1634,
and a fourth at Madrid in 1640; the fifth edition
was published out of Spain, at Brussels,
in 1664. This is the masterpiece among works
of this nature which have been written among us.</p>

<p>"Father Martin of St. Bernard, of the Order
of Cîteaux, translated this work into Italian,
and had it printed at Naples, in 1646. It was
also translated into French by M. de Virion,
counsellor to the Duke of Lorraine, and it was
printed at Nancy in 1621."</p>


<p class="center">BOOK I. CHAP. 8.</p>

<p>"We have now to answer the contrary objections.
We maintain that neither the divine
nor the natural law has given to states
the power of arresting the progress of tyranny
by means so violent as that of shedding the
blood of princes, they being the vicars of God,
divinely invested with the right of life and
death over other men. But so far as resisting
their cruelty is concerned, it is incontestable<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_474b" id="Page_474b">[Pg 474b]</a></span>
that it may and ought to be done. They are
not to be obeyed in any thing opposed to the
law of God; we must, therefore, escape from
their wicked commands, and prevent their
blows, as Jonathan did with regard to Saul,
his father, when he saw him take his spear to
smite David, and when, rising from the table,
he went in search of the latter, and warned
him of his danger. It is also sometimes allowable
to resist princes by force of arms, in order
to prevent them from executing notoriously
rash and cruel determinations; for, according
to the words of St. Thomas, this is not to excite
sedition, but to stop and prevent it. Tertullian
affirms the same thing when he says:
'Illis nomen factionis accommodandum est,
qui in odium bonorum et proborum conspirant,
cum boni, cum pii congregantur, non est factio
dicenda, sed curia.'</p>

<p>"This is the reason why the blessed St. Hermenegildus,
a glorious Spanish martyr, took
up arms and entered the field against King
Leovigildus, an Arian, to resist the great persecution
directed by this prince against the
Catholics. This fact is related by the contemporary
historians. True, St. Gregory of Tours
condemns this act of our king-martyr, not for
having resisted his sovereign, but because the
former was both his king and his father: and
he maintains that although he was a heretic,
his son ought not to have resisted him. This
reply, however, is not well founded, as Baronius
observes. Moreover, the authority of this
Gregory was combated by another Gregory,
greater than he, St. Gregory the Great, who,
in the preface to his book of <cite>Morales</cite>, approves
of the embassy of Leander, sent to Constantinople
by St. Hermenegildus, to solicit the aid
of Tiberius against Leovigildus, his father. It
is indubitable that however strong may be the
obligation of filial piety, that of religion is
still stronger. The latter obliges us to sacrifice
every thing if it be necessary; and it is
on account of cases of this nature, that it is
written of the tribe of Levi: 'Qui dixerunt
patri suo et matri suæ, nescio vos, et fratribus
suis ignoro vos, nescierunt filios suos.' Such
was the conduct of the Levites when they took
up arms, by the command of Moses, to punish
their relations for the sin of idolatry.</p>

<p>"If the prince should go so far as personally
to make an attempt upon the life of the subject
who has no other means of defending himself
than killing him,&mdash;as when Nero, parading the
streets of Rome, followed by a troop of armed
men, attacked the quiet and unsuspecting citizens;
I say, that in such a case it would be allowable
to kill him; for if it is true, as Fr.
Dominic de Soto observes, that the subject in
this extremity is to suffer himself to be killed,
and so prefer the monarch's life to his own, it
is solely in the case when the death of the
monarch would give rise to great troubles and
civil wars in the state; in any other case it
would be monstrously inhuman to force men to
a thing so insupportable. But when the subject's
property is merely to be defended against
the cupidity of the monarch, it should not be
allowable to lay hands on him; for it is a privilege
granted to princes by divine and human
laws, that their blood shall not be spilt for any
outrage which, committed by any other violator
of private property, would be a sufficient<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_475" id="Page_475">[Pg 475a]</a></span>
motive for taking away his life. The reason
of this is, that the life of the king is the soul
and bond of the state; that it is of more importance
than the property of individuals;
that it is better to tolerate grievances of this
nature, than to destroy the head of the state."</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_34"></a>Note</span> 34, p. 348.</p>

<p>In order to give an idea of the means employed
at this epoch to limit the power of the
monarch, by forming associations, whether
among the people themselves, or between the
people, the grandees, and the clergy, I insert
here the letter, or <cite>Charter of Fraternity</cite> (<i lang="es">Hermandad</i>),
which the kingdoms of Leon and
Galicia made with Castile. I have extracted
this piece literally from the collection intituled
<cite>Bullarium ordinis militiæ sancti Jacobi Gloriosissimi
Hispaniarum patroni</cite>, p. 223. It will
prove to us the existence already, at a remote
epoch of our history, of a lively instinct for
liberty, although ideas were still limited to a
secondary order.</p>

<p>"1. In the name of God and of the blessed
Virgin. Amen.</p>

<p>"Be it known to all those who shall read
this letter, that on account of the innumerable
acts of injustice, injuries, deeds of violence,
murders, imprisonments, insolent refusals of
audience, opprobriums, and other outrages
without measure, committed against us by the
king D. Alphonso, to the contempt of God, of
justice, of right, and to the great detriment
of all these kingdoms; we, the infantes, the
prelates, the rich men, the councils, the orders,
the knights of the kingdoms of Leon and Galicia,
seeing ourselves overwhelmed with injustice
and ill-treatment, as we have stated
above, and finding it insupportable; our lord
the infante Don Sancho has thought good and
appointed that we should be of one mind and
of one heart, he with us and we with him, to
maintain our laws, our privileges, and our
charters, in our usages, our manners, our liberties,
and franchises, which we enjoyed under
king Don Alphonso, his great-grandfather, the
conqueror at the battle of Merida, and under
king Don Ferdinand, his grandfather; under
the emperor and all the other kings of Spain,
their predecessors; and under the king Don
Alphonso, his father,&mdash;all princes who have
best merited our gratitude; and our said lord
the infante Don Sancho has bound us to this effect
by oath and promise, as it is certain by letters
between him and us. Considering that it is
agreeable to the service of God, of the blessed
Virgin, of the court of Heaven, to the defence
and honor of the holy Church, of the infante
Don Sancho, and of the kings who shall succeed
him, in fine, to the advantage of the
whole country, we ordain and establish fraternity
(<i lang="es">hermandad</i>), now and for ever, we the
whole of the kingdoms above named, with the
councils of the kingdom of Castile, with the
infantes, the rich men, the hidalgos, the prelates,
the orders, the knights, and all others who are
in this kingdom, and who are willing to be
with us, as it has just been said.</p>

<p>"2. Be it known to them, that we will insure
to our lord the infante Don Sancho, and to all
other kings who shall succeed him, all their
rights, all their suzerainty, wholly and entirely,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_475b" id="Page_475b">[Pg 475b]</a></span>
as we have promised, and as they are contained
in the privilege which he has given us to
this effect. Justice shall continue to be decreed
by the suzerainty. The Martiniega<a name="FNanchor_F_6" id="FNanchor_F_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_F_6" class="fnanchor">[F]</a>
shall be paid in the place and in the manner
in which it was customary to pay it, according
to right, to Don Alphonso, the conqueror at
the battle of Merida. The money<a name="FNanchor_G_7" id="FNanchor_G_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_G_7" class="fnanchor">[G]</a> shall be
paid at the end of seven years in the usual
place and manner, the kings not enjoining the
coining of money. The repast (<i lang="es">yantar</i>)<a name="FNanchor_H_8" id="FNanchor_H_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_H_8" class="fnanchor">[H]</a> shall
be taken in the place in which it was usual for
the kings to take it, according to the <i lang="es">fuero</i>,
once a year, while visiting the very place, as
it was given to the king Don Alphonso, his
great-grandfather, and to the king Don Ferdinand,
his grandfather. The <i lang="es">fonsadera</i>,<a name="FNanchor_I_9" id="FNanchor_I_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_I_9" class="fnanchor">[I]</a> when
the king is with the army, in the customary
place, according to the <i lang="es">fuero</i> and right in the
days of the above-named kings, guaranteeing
to each the privileges, charters, liberties, and
franchises appertaining to us.</p>

<p>"3. Be it known to them moreover, that we
will maintain all our rights, usages, customs,
privileges, charters, all our liberties and franchises,
always and in such a manner, that should
the king, the infante Don Sancho, or the kings
who shall succeed them, or any of the lords,
alcades, merinos, or any other persons, attempt
to infringe upon them, in whole or in part, in
any way or at any time, we will unite into one
entire whole, and inform the king, the infante
Don Sancho, or those who shall succeed them,
of the nature of our complaint, and ask them
if they are willing to reform; and if not, we
will unite into one entire body to defend and
protect ourselves, as it is ordained in the
charter granted us by the infante Don Sancho.</p>

<p>"4. Moreover, be it known to them that no
member of this <i lang="es">hermandad</i> shall be chastised,
and nothing shall be taken from him contrary
to right and the custom of the place, in the
councils of the said <i lang="es">hermandad</i>; and it shall
not be allowable to take from him more than
is demanded by the <i lang="es">fuero</i>, in the place in which
he shall be.</p>

<p>"5. We protest, that if an alcade, a merino,
or any other person, on the authority of a letter
of the king, of the infante Don Sancho, by his
command, or that of the kings who shall succeed
him, shall kill a man of our <i lang="es">hermandad</i>
without hearing him and judging him according
to law, that we, the <i lang="es">hermandad</i>, will take
away his life for such an act. And if we cannot
arrest him, he shall be declared an enemy to
the <i lang="es">hermandad</i>; every member of the <i lang="es">hermandad</i>
who shall have concealed him shall fall
under the penalty of perjury and felony, and
shall be treated in his turn as an enemy to this
<i lang="es">hermandad</i>.</p>

<p>"6. We declare, moreover, that the port-duties
shall be paid by us only in conformity
to the rights and usages of the times of Don
Alphonso, or the king Don Ferdinand, and
the councils of the <i lang="es">hermandad</i> will not permit
any person to receive them beyond this measure.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_476" id="Page_476">[Pg 476a]</a></span></p>

<p>"7. Moreover, no infante or rich man shall
be a merino or grand bailiff in the kingdoms
of Leon and Galicia. Neither can these functions
be exercised by an infançon, or a knight
having notoriously a great number of knights
or other men of the country in vassalage;
neither can they be exercised by a stranger to
the country. And we so will it, because such
was the custom in the days of the king Don
Alphonso and of the king Don Ferdinand.</p>

<p>"8. All those who may wish to appeal from
the judgment of the king, or of Don Sancho,
or of other kings who shall succeed him, may
do so; they shall have recourse to the book
of the <cite>Fuero Juzgo</cite>, in the kingdom of Leon,
as was usual in the days of the kings who preceded
this. That if the right of appeal be
refused to any who may wish to invoke it, we,
on our part, will act according to the injunctions
contained in the charters granted us by
Don Sancho.</p>

<p>"9. That we may guarantee and execute all
the acts of this <i lang="es">hermandad</i>, we make a seal of
two plates, bearing the following impressions:
upon one of the plates, the figure of a lion; and
upon the other, the figure of St. James on
horseback, with a sword in his right hand; in
his left, a standard with a cross at the top, and
shells. The inscription shall be thus expressed:
'<em>The Seal of the Hermandad of the Kingdoms
of Leon and Galicia.</em>' This seal shall be affixed
to the documents which shall be required by
this <i lang="es">hermandad</i>.</p>

<p>"10. We the whole <i lang="es">hermandad</i> of Castile,
make a promise and render homage to all the
<i lang="es">hermandad</i> of the kingdoms of Leon and Galicia,
that we will assist each other well and
loyally to keep and maintain every one of the
above-named things. That if we fail to do so,
we are traitors for this alone, like him who
slays his lord or surrenders a castle; and may
we never in that case have either hands, or
tongues, or arms to protect ourselves.</p>

<p>"11. But lest there should be any doubt
about the pact we are now making, in order
that this pact may be for ever inviolate, we seal
this letter with the two seals of the <i lang="es">hermandad</i>
of Castile, Leon, and Galicia, and place it in
the hands of D. Pedro Nunez, and the Order
of the Knights of St. John, who are united
with us in this <i lang="es">hermandad</i>. Given at Valladolid,
the 8th day of July, in the year one
thousand three hundred and twenty."</p>

<p>Spain had passed through many centuries
without knowing of any other religion than
the Catholic. She still preserved in all its
force and vigor, the idea that the king should
be the first to observe the laws; that he could
not rule the people according to his caprice;
that he ought to govern by principles of justice
and views of public expediency. Saavedra,
in his <cite>Devises</cite>, thus expressed himself:&mdash;</p>

<p>"1st. Laws are vain when the prince who
promulgates them does not confirm and uphold
them by his own life and example. A law will
appear lenient to the people when observed by
its author.</p>

<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza">
<div class="verse">"In commune jubes si quid, censesve tenendum,<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Primus jussa sibi, tunc observantior æqui<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Fit populus, nec ferre vetat, cum videri ipsum<br /></div>
<div class="verse">Auctorem parere sibi.<br /></div>
</div></div></div>

<p>"The laws promulgated by Servius Tullius
were not only intended for the people, but also<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_476b" id="Page_476b">[Pg 476b]</a></span>
for kings. The disputes between the monarch
and his subjects were to be settled in conformity
with these laws, as Tacitus relates of Tiberius:
'Although we are not subject to the laws,' said
the emperors Severus and Antonius, 'let us conform
our lives to these laws.' The monarch is
bound by the law not merely from the fact of
its being a law, but from the very reason upon
which it is founded, when it is natural and
common to all, and not particular and exclusively
destined to the right government of subjects;
for in this case the observance of the
law merely concerns the subject, although the
monarch, if it should so happen, is bound to
obey it, in order to render it tolerable to others.
Such appears to have been the meaning of the
mysterious command given by God to Ezechiel,
<em>to eat the volume</em>, that others seeing him the
first to taste the laws and declare them good,
might be induced to imitate him. The kings
of Spain are so far subject to the laws, that
the Treasury, in causes relating to the royal
patrimony, is absolutely subject to the same
laws as the least of his subjects; and in doubtful
cases, the Treasury is condemned. Philip
II. thus ordained it; and on an occasion in
which his grandson Philip IV., the glorious
father of V. A., was personally brought to
judgment in an important trial of the Chamber,
before the royal council, the judges had the
noble determination to condemn him, and his
majesty had the rectitude to hear the sentence
without expressing any indignation. Happy
empire, in which the cause of the monarch is
always the least favored!"</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_35"></a>Note</span> 35, p. 356.</p>

<p>Sufficient attention has not perhaps been paid
to the merit of the industrial organization introduced
into Europe from the earliest ages, and
which became more and more diffused after the
twelfth century. I allude to the trades-unions,
and other associations, which, established under
the influence of the Catholic religion, commonly
placed themselves under the patronage
of some Saint, and had pious foundations for
the celebration of their feasts, and for assisting
each other in their necessities. Our celebrated
Capmany, in his <cite>Historical memoirs on
the Marine, Commerce, and the Arts of the ancient
City of Barcelona</cite>, has published a collection
of documents, very valuable for the history
of the working classes and of the development
of their influence on politics. Few works have
appeared in foreign countries, in the latter part
of the last century, of such great merit as that
of our fellow-countryman, published in 1779.
One very interesting chapter of this work is
devoted to the institution of trades-corporations.
I give here a copy of the chapter, which
I particularly recommend to the perusal of
those persons who imagine that nothing had
been thought of in Europe for the benefit of the
laboring classes, of those who are so foolish as
to look upon that as a means of slavery and
exclusivism, which was in reality a means of
encouragement and of mutual support. It also
appears to me that, by reading the philosophical
remarks of Capmany, every sensible man
will be convinced that Europe, from the earliest
ages, has possessed systems adapted to the encouragement
of industry, to the preservation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_477" id="Page_477">[Pg 477a]</a></span>
of it from the fatal agitations of those times,
to secure esteem for it, and to the legitimate
and salutary development of the popular element.
It will be no less useful to present this
sketch to certain foreign writers, continually
occupied with social and political economy, and
who, nevertheless, in compiling the history of
that science, have not even been acquainted
with a work so important for every thing connected
with the middle ages of Europe, from
the eleventh to the eighteenth century.</p>


<p class="hangt"><i>"Of the institution of the Trades-Corporations
and other Associations of Artisans at Barcelona.</i></p>

<p>"No memoir has hitherto been discovered
which might serve to enlighten and guide us
in fixing the exact epoch of the institution of
the trades-associations at Barcelona.<a name="FNanchor_J_10" id="FNanchor_J_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_J_10" class="fnanchor">[J]</a> But
according to all the conjectures furnished by
ancient monuments, it is very probable that
the political erection or formation of the bodies
of laborers took place in the time of Don Jaime
I., under whose glorious reign the arts were
developed under a favorable influence; whilst
commerce and navigation took a higher flight,
owing to the expeditions of the Aragonese arms
beyond the seas. Increased facilities in the
means of transport have given an impetus to
industry; and an increasing population, the
natural result of labor, by its reaction upon
labor, augmented the demand for it. At Barcelona,
as every where else, trades-corporations
naturally arose when the wants and the tastes
of society had, of necessity, grown so multifarious,
that artisans were forced, with a view
to secure protection to their industry, to form
themselves into communities. Luxury, and
the tastes of society, like every other object
of commerce, are subject to continual change;
hence, new branches of trade are continually
springing up and displacing others; so that at
one period each separate art runs into various
branches, whilst at another, several arts are
combined into one. At Barcelona, corporate
industry has passed through all these vicissitudes
in the course of five centuries. The
hardware trade has comprised at different periods
eleven or twelve branches, and consequently
afforded subsistence to as many classes of families,
whilst at the present time these same
branches are reduced to eight, in consequence
of certain changes in fashions and customs.</p>

<p>"In accordance with the social system which
generally prevailed at that time in most European
countries, it was found necessary to
bestow liberty and privileges upon an industrious
and mercantile people, who thus became
a great source of strength and support to kings;
and this could not be effected without classify<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_477b" id="Page_477b">[Pg 477b]</a></span>ing
the citizens. But these lines of demarcation
could not be maintained distinct and inviolate
without a political division of the various
corporations in which both men and their
occupations were classified. This division was
the more necessary in a city like Barcelona,
which, ever since the middle of the thirteenth
century, had assumed a sort of democratic independence
in its mode of government. Thus,
in Italy, the first country in the West that re-established
the name and the influence of the
people, after these had been effaced in the iron
ages by Gothic rule, the industrial classes had
already been formed into corporations, which
gave stability to the arts and trades, and conferred
great honors upon them in those free
cities, where, amidst the flux and reflux of invasions,
the artisan became a senator, and the
senator an artisan. Wars and factions, endemic
evils in that delightful country at the
time of which we are speaking, could not, in
spite of all their ravages, effect the destruction
of the associated trades, whose political existence,
when once their members were admitted
to a share in the government, formed the very
basis of the constitution of both nations, inasmuch
as both were industrial and mercantile.
At Barcelona the trades were well regulated,
prosperous, and flourishing, under that municipal
system, and that consular jurisprudence,
of which commerce, and its invariable concomitant,
industry, have always stood in need. It
was thus that this capital became one of the
most celebrated centres of the manufacturing
industry of the middle ages&mdash;a reputation
which it has maintained and increased up to
the present time. In like manner, it was under
the name and rule of corporations and brotherhoods
that trades were established in Flanders,
in France, and in England, countries in
which the arts have been carried to their
highest degree of perfection and renown. The
trades-corporations of Barcelona, even when
viewed merely as a necessary institution for
the due regulation of the primitive form of
municipal government, should be regarded as
most important, whether for the preservation
of the arts, or as forming the basis of the influence
of the artisans themselves. It is at
once evident, from the experience of five centuries,
that trades-unions have effected unspeakable
good in Barcelona, were it only by
preserving, as an imperishable deposit, the
love, the tradition, and the memory of the arts.
They have formed so many rallying points, so
many banners, as it were, under which more
than once the shattered forces of industry have
found refuge; and have thus been enabled to recover
their energy and activity, and to perpetuate
their existence to our own days, in spite
of pestilence, wars, factions, and a multitude
of other calamities, which exhaust men's energies,
overthrow their habitations, and change
their manners. If Barcelona, so often visited
by these physical and political plagues, had
possessed no community, no bond, no common
interest among its artisans, it would certainly
have witnessed the destruction of their skill,
their economy, and their activity, as is the
case with beavers, when their communities
have been broken up and dispersed by the
hunters.<a name="FNanchor_K_11" id="FNanchor_K_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_K_11" class="fnanchor">[K]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_478" id="Page_478">[Pg 478a]</a></span></p>

<p>"By a happy effect of the security enjoyed
by families in their different trades, and thanks
to the aid, or <i lang="fr">mont-de-piété</i>, established in the
very bosom of the corporation for its necessitous
members, who, without this assistance,
might have been plunged into misery, these
economical establishments at Barcelona have
directly contributed to maintain the prosperity
of the arts, by shutting out misery from the
workshop, and preserving the operatives from
indigence. Without this corporate police, by
which each trade is surrounded, the property
and the fortune of the artisan would have been
exposed to the greatest risks; moreover, the
credit and stability of the trades themselves
would have been perilled; for then the quack,
the unskilled operative, and the obscure adventurer,
might have imposed upon the public
with impunity, and a pernicious latitude might
have taken the place of liberty. On the other
hand, the trades-corporations being powerful
associations, each one by itself being governed
by a unanimity of intelligence and a community
of interests, could purchase their stocks of
raw materials seasonably and advantageously.
They supplied the wants of the masters; they
made advances, or stood security, for those of
their members who lacked either time or funds
for making great preliminary disbursements
of capital at their own cost. Besides, these
corporations, comprehending and representing
the industry of the nation, and consequently
feeling an interest in its maintenance, addressed
from time to time memorials to the Municipal
Council, or to the Cortes, relative to the
injuries they were sustaining, or the approach
of which they, as it often happened, foresaw
from the introduction of counterfeit goods, or
of foreign productions, which is a cause of ruin
to our industry. In fine, without the institution
of trades-corporations, instruction would
have been void of order and fixed rules; for
where there are no masters duly authorized
and permanently established, neither will
there be any disciples; and all regulations, in
default of an executive power to see them observed,
will be disregarded and trodden under
foot. Trades-corporations are so necessary to
the preservation of the arts, that the various
trades known at the present day in this capital
have derived their appellations and their origin
from the economical divisions, and from the
arts established by these corporations. When
the blacksmith in his shop made ploughshares,
nails, keys, knives, swords, &amp;c., the names of
the trades of the blacksmith, the nailer, the
cutler, the armorer, &amp;c. were unknown; and
as there was no special and particular instruction
in each of these branches of labor, the
separation of which afterwards formed so many
new arts maintained by their respective communities,
these trades were unknown.</p>

<p>"The second political advantage resulting
from the institution of trades-corporations at
Barcelona was, the esteem and consideration<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_478b" id="Page_478b">[Pg 478b]</a></span>
in which at all times these establishments
caused both the artisans and the arts to be
held. This wise institution won respect for
the operative classes, by constituting them a
visible and permanent order in the state.
Hence it is that the conduct and the mode of
life of the Barcelonians have ever been such
as are to be found only amongst an honorable
people. Never having been confounded with
any exempted and privileged body (for the
trades-corporations draw a circle around their
members, and let them know what they are,
and what they are worth), these people learned
that there was honor and virtue within
their own sphere, and labored to preserve
these qualities; so certain is it that social distinctions
in a nation have more influence than
is sometimes believed in upholding the spirit
of each social class.</p>

<p>"Another view of this question shows us
that trades-corporations form communities,
governed by an economic code, which assigns
to each corporation certain employments and
certain honors, to which every individual
member may aspire. Even men's prejudices,
when wisely directed, sometimes produce admirable
effects. Thus the government, the
administration of these bodies, in which the
artisan always enjoyed the prerogative of
managing the resources and the interests of
his trade and of his fellow-members, with the
title of Counsellor, or Elder (<i lang="es">Prohombre</i>), won
for the mechanical arts of Barcelona public and
general esteem; whilst the pre-eminence in a
festival or an assembly serves with these men
to soften the rigors of manual labor, and the
disadvantages of their inferior condition. At
the same time that the trades of Barcelona,
formed into well-organized bodies, fixed and
preserved the arts in that capital, they had the
further credit, by acting as political bodies
of the most numerous class of the people, of
gaining a high esteem for their members. The
obscure artisan, without matriculation, or a
common bond, continues isolated and wandering;
he dies, and with him perishes his art;
or at the first reverse of fortune, he emigrates
and abandons his craft. What consideration
can wretched wandering followers of any trade
obtain in a country? Just such as knife-grinders
and tinkers possess in the provinces of
Spain. At Barcelona, all the trades have constantly
enjoyed the same general esteem, because
all have been established and governed
upon a system which has rendered them fixed,
respectable, and prosperous.</p>

<p>"The esteem in which the trades of Barcelona
were held from the time when the municipal
government had formed them into national
corporations, the agents of public economy,
gave rise to the laudable and useful custom of
perpetuating trades in the same families. In
fact the people having learned that, without
quitting the class to which they belonged,
they could preserve the respect and consideration
due to useful and honorable citizens, no
longer desired to quit it, and were no longer
ashamed of their condition. When trades are
held in honor, which is the consequence of
the stability and civil properties of corporations,
they naturally become hereditary. Now,
the advantages both to the artisan and the
arts, resulting from this transmission of trades,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_479" id="Page_479">[Pg 479a]</a></span>
are so real and so well known, that it is needless
to specify them here, or to dwell upon their
salutary effects. This demarcation and classification
of trades caused many of the arts to
become sure possessions for those who adopted
them. Hence fathers aimed at transmitting
their trade to their sons; and thus was formed
an indestructible mass of national industry,
which made labor honorable, by implanting
steady and homogeneous manners, if we may
so speak, in the bosom of the class of artisans.</p>

<p>"Another circumstance contributed still
more to render the exercise of the mechanical
arts honorable at Barcelona, not only more
than in most other parts of Spain, but more
than in any other state, ancient or modern.
This was the admission of the trades-corporations
upon the register of municipal offices
in this city, which enjoyed so many royal
grants and extraordinary privileges of independence.
Thus the nobility&mdash;that Gothic
nobility&mdash;with their great domains, sought to
be incorporated with the operatives in the
<i lang="es">Ayuntamiento</i>, there to fill the offices and supreme
stations in the political government,
which, during more than five hundred years,
continued in Barcelona under a form and in a
spirit truly democratic.<a name="FNanchor_L_12" id="FNanchor_L_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_L_12" class="fnanchor">[L]</a> All mechanical offices,
without any odious distinction or exclusion,
were held worthy to be declared qualified for
the consistorial council of magistrates; all had
a voice and a vote among the conscript fathers
who represented this city, the most highly
privileged perhaps that ever existed; one of
the most renowned for its laws, its power, and
its influence; one of the most respected in the
middle ages amongst all the states and monarchies
of Europe, Asia, and Africa.<a name="FNanchor_M_13" id="FNanchor_M_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_M_13" class="fnanchor">[M]</a></p>

<p>"This political system, and this municipal
form of government, resembled that which
prevailed in the middle ages amongst all the
principal towns of Italy, whence Catalonia
borrowed many of its customs and usages.
Genoa, Pisa, Milan, Pavia, Florence, Sienna,
and other towns, had a municipal government
composed of the leading men in commerce,
and the arts, under the name of consuls, counsellors,
&amp;c. <i lang="la">Priores Artium</i>&mdash;such was the
name of a popular form of elective government,
distributed among the different classes
of citizens, without excluding the artisans,
who, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries,
were in their most flourishing condition, forming
the most respectable part of the population,
and consequently the richest, the most powerful,
and the most independent. This democratic
liberty, besides giving stability and
permanency to industry in the towns of Italy,
conferred a singular degree of honor on the
mechanical professions. The grand council of
these towns was summoned by the tolling of
the bell, when the artisans arranged themselves<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_479b" id="Page_479b">[Pg 479b]</a></span>
under the banners or gonfalons of their respective
trades. Such was also the political constitution
of Barcelona from the middle of the
thirteenth to the commencement of the present
century. With these facts before us, need
we feel surprise that, in our own days, arts
and artisans in Barcelona still retain undiminished
esteem and consideration; that a love
for mechanical professions has become hereditary;
that the dignity and self-respect of the
artisan class have become traditional, even to
the last generations, in which the customs of
their ancestors have been transmitted by the
succession of example, even after the extinction
of the political reasons in which these
customs had their origin? Several trades-corporations
still preserve in the halls of their
<i lang="es">juntas</i> the portraits of those of their members
who formerly obtained the first employments
in the state. Must not this laudable practice
have engraven on the memory of the members
of the corporation all the ideas of honor and
dignity consistent with the condition of an
artisan? Assuredly the popular form of the
ancient government of Barcelona could not fail
to imprint itself generally and forcibly on the
manners of the people; indeed, where all the
citizens were equal in the participation of
honors, it is easy to see that no one would
willingly remain inferior to another in virtue
or in merit, although inferior, in other respects,
by his condition and fortune. This noble emulation,
which must naturally have been awakened
to activity in the concourse of all orders
in the state, gave birth to the dignity, the lofty
and inviolate probity of the artisans of Barcelona;
and this character they have maintained
to our own times, to the admiration of Spain
and of foreign nations. Such has been the
negligence of our national authors, that this
narrative will have the appearance of a discovery:
up to the present time Barcelona and
the Principality had not attracted the scrutinizing
notice of the political historian, so that
a dark shadow still concealed the real principles
(always unknown to the crowd) from which
in all times, have sprung the virtues and the
vices of nations.</p>

<p>"To these causes may be attributed, in great
part, the esteem which the artisans have acquired.
Nothing could be more salutary than
this obligation they were always under of comporting
themselves with dignity and distinction
in public employments, whether in the corporation
or the municipal government. Moreover
the constant example of the master of the
house, who, up to the present time, has always
lived in common with his apprentices in a
praiseworthy manner, has confirmed the children
in ideas of order and dignity; for the
manners and habits of a people, which are as
powerful as law, must be inculcated from the
tenderest age. Thus, in Barcelona, the operative
has never been confounded by the slovenliness
of his dress with the mendicant, whose
idle and dissipated habits, says an illustrious
writer, are easily contracted when the dress of
the man of respectability is in no way distinguished
from that of the rabble. Nor are the
laboring population ever seen wearing those
cumbersome garments which, serving as a
cover for rags and a cloak for idleness, cramp
the movements and activity of the body, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_480" id="Page_480">[Pg 480a]</a></span>
invite to a life of indolent ease. The people
have not contracted a habit of frequenting taverns,
where example leads to drunkenness
and moral disorders. Their amusements, so
necessary for working people to render their
daily toils supportable, have always been innocent
recreations, which either afforded them
repose from their fatigues or varied them. The
games formerly permitted were either the ring
(<i lang="fr">la bague</i>), nine pins, bowls, ball, shooting at
a mark, fencing, and public dancing, authorized
and watched over by the authorities; an
amusement which from time immemorial has
been general amongst the Catalans, in certain
seasons and on certain festivals of the year.</p>

<p>"The respect for the artisan of Barcelona
has never been diminished on account of the
material on which his art was exercised, whether
it was silver, steel, iron, copper, wood, or
wool. We have seen that all the trades were
equally eligible to the municipal offices of the
state; none were excluded&mdash;not even butchers.
Ancient Barcelona did not commit the political
error of establishing preferences that might
have produced some odious distinctions of
trades. The inhabitants considered that all
the citizens were in themselves worthy of
esteem, since all contributed to the growth and
maintenance of the property of a capital whose
opulence and power were founded upon the
industry of the artisan and the merchant. In
fact, Barcelona has ever been free from that
idea, so generally entertained, that every mechanical
profession is low and vulgar&mdash;a mischievous
and very common prejudice, which,
in the provinces of Spain, has made an irreparable
breach in the progress of the arts.
At Barcelona, admission into certain trades-corporations
has never been refused to the
members of other trades: in this city all the
trades are held in the same estimation. In a
word, neither Barcelona nor any other town in
Catalonia has ever entertained those vulgar
prejudices that are enough to prevent honorable
men from devoting themselves to the arts,
or to cause the son to forsake the art practised
by the father."<a name="FNanchor_N_14" id="FNanchor_N_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_N_14" class="fnanchor">[N]</a></p>

<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_36"></a>Note</span> 36, p. 361.</p>

<p>I have spoken of the numerous Councils
held by the Church at different epochs; why,
it will be asked, does she not hold them more
frequently now? I will answer this question
by quoting a judicious passage from Count de
Maistre, in his work <cite>On the Pope</cite>, book i. chap.
2:&mdash;</p>

<p>"In the first ages of Christianity," says he,
"it was more easy to assemble Councils, because
the Church was not so numerous as now,
and because the emperors possessed powers
that enabled a sufficient number of Bishops to
assemble, so that their decisions needed only
the assent of other Bishops. Yet these Councils
were not assembled without much difficulty
and embarrassment. But in modern times,
since the civilized world has been divided into
so many sovereignties, and immeasurably increased
by our intrepid navigators, an Œcumenical
Council has become a chimera.<a name="FNanchor_O_15" id="FNanchor_O_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_O_15" class="fnanchor">[O]</a> Sim<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_480b" id="Page_480b">[Pg 480b]</a></span>ply
to convoke all the Bishops, and to bring
legally together such a convocation, five or six
years would not suffice."</p>

<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_37"></a>Note</span> 37, p. 369.</p>

<p>That my readers may be convinced of the
truth and accuracy of what I here affirm, I
invite them to read the history of the heresies
that have afflicted the Church since the first
ages, but particularly from the tenth century
down to our own days.</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_38"></a>Note</span> 38, p. 373.</p>

<p>It was not, I have said, without prejudice to
the liberty of the people that the influence of
the clergy was withdrawn from the working of
the political machine. In order to ascertain
how far this is true, it may be well to remark,
that a great number of theologians were favorable
to tolerably liberal doctrines in political
matters, and that it was the clergy who exercised
the greatest freedom in speaking to
kings, even after the people had almost entirely
lost the right of intervention in political
affairs. Observe what opinions St. Thomas
held on forms of government.</p>


<p class="center">(Quest. cv. 1<sup>a</sup> 2<sup>æ</sup>.)</p>

<p><em>De ratione judicialium præceptorum art.</em> 1.
Respondeo dicendum, quod circa bonam ordinationem
principum in aliqua civitate, vel
gente, duo sunt attendenda, quorum unum est,
ut omnes aliquam partem habeant in principatu;
per hoc enim conservatur pax populi et
omnes talem ordinationem amant et custodiunt
ut dicitur (II. <cite>Polit.</cite>, cap. i.); aliud est quod
attenditur secundum speciem regiminis vel
ordinationis principatum, cujus cum sint diversæ
species, ut philosophus tradit in III. <cite>Polit.</cite>
cap. v., præcipue tamen unum regimen est, in
quo unus principatur secundum virtutem: et
aristocratia, id est potestas optimorum, in qua
aliqui pauci principantur secundum virtutem.
Unde optima ordinatio principum est in aliqua
civitate vel regno, in quo unus præficitur
secundum virtutem qui omnibus præsit et sub
ipso sunt aliqui principantes secundum virtutem,
et tamen talis principatus ad omnes pertinet,
tum quia ex omnibus eligi possunt, tum
quia etiam ab omnibus eliguntur. Talis vero
est omnis politia bene commixta ex regno in
quantam unus præest, et aristocratia in quantum
multi principantur secundum virtutem, et
ex democratia, id est potestate populi in quantum
ex popularibus possunt eligi principes, et
ad populum pertinet electio principum, et hoc
fuit institutum secundum legem divinam.</p>


<p class="center">Divus Thomas. (1<sup>a</sup> 2<sup>æ</sup> Q. 90, art. 4<sup>o</sup>.)</p>

<p>Et sic ex quatuor prædictis potest colligi
definitio legis quæ nihil est aliud quam quædam
rationis ordinatio ad bonum commune ab
eo qui curam communitatis habet promulgata.
Q. 95, art. 4.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_481" id="Page_481">[Pg 481a]</a></span></p>

<p>Tertio est de ratione legis humanæ ut instituatur
a gubernante communitatem civitatis:
sicut supra dictum est. (Quest. 90, art. 3.) Et
secundum hoc distinguuntur leges humanæ
secundum diversa regimina civitatum, quorum
unum, secundum philosophum in III. <cite>Polit.</cite>,
cap. xi., est regnum, quando scilicet civitas gubernatur
ab uno, et secundum hoc accipiuntur
constitutiones principum; aliud vero regimen
est aristocratia, id est principatus optimorum
vel optimatum, et secundum hoc sumuntur responsa
prudentum et etiam senatusconsulta.
Aliud regimen est oligarchia, id est principatus
paucorum divitum et potentum; et secundum
hoc sumitur jus prætorium, quod etiam honorarium
dicitur. Aliud autem regimen est populi,
quod nominatur democratia; et secundum hoc
sumuntur plebiscita. Aliud autem est tyrannicum,
quod est omnino corruptum unde ex hoc
non sumitur aliqua lex. Est etiam et aliquod
regimen ex istis commixtum, quod est optimum,
et secundum hoc sumitur lex quam
majores natu simul cum plebibus sanxerunt, ut
Isidorus dicit lib. 5, <cite>Etym. O.</cite> cap. x.</p>

<p>If certain declaimers are to be believed, it
would seem that the principle, that it is the law
which governs, and not the will of man, is
quite a recent discovery. But observe with
what solidity and perspicuity the angelic doctor
expounds this doctrine.</p>


<p class="center">(1<sup>a</sup> 2<sup>æ</sup> Q. 93, art. 1.)</p>

<p>Utrum fuerit utile aliquas leges poni ab hominibus.</p>

<p>Ad 2<sup>m</sup> dicendum, quod sicut Philosophus
dicit. 1. Rhetor. Melius est omnia ordinari
lege, quam dimittere judicum arbitrio, et hoc
propter tria. Primo quidem, quia facilius est
invenire paucos sapientes, qui sufficiant ad rectas
leges ponendas, quam multos; qui requirerentur
ad recte judicandum de singulis. Secundo,
quia illi qui leges ponunt, ex multo
tempore considerant quid lege ferendum sit:
sed judicia de singularibus factis fiunt ex casibus
subito exortis. Facilius autem ex multis
consideratis potest homo videre quid rectum
sit, quam solum ex aliquo uno facto. Tertio,
quia legislatores judicant in universali, et de
futuris: sed homines judiciis præsidentes judicant
de præsentibus; ad quæ afficientur amore
vel odio, aut aliqua cupiditate; et sic eorum
depravatur judicium. Quia ergo justitia animata
judicis non invenitur in multis, et quia
flexibilis est: ideo necessarium fuit in quibuscumque
est possibile, legem determinare quid
judicandum sit, et paucissima arbitrio hominum
committere.</p>

<p>In Spain, the <i lang="es">Procuradores</i> of the Cortes
dared not raise their voices against the excesses
of power; and their timidity drew down the
keen reproaches of P. Mariana. In the examination
to which he was subjected in the celebrated
suit commenced against him on the
subject of the <em>seven treatises</em>, he confesses
having applied to the <i lang="es">Procuradores</i> the epithets
of <em>vile, superficial, and utterly venal</em>, only
striving to obtain the favor of the prince, and
their own particular interests, without solicitude
for the public good. He added, that such
was the public cry, the general complaint, at
least at Toledo, where he was residing.</p>

<p>I will leave unnoticed his work intituled <cite>De
Rege et Regis institutione</cite>, of which I have<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_481b" id="Page_481b">[Pg 481b]</a></span>
spoken elsewhere. Confining myself to his
<cite>History of Spain</cite>, I will observe with what
liberty he expresses himself on the most delicate
points, without meeting with any opposition,
either from the civil or from the ecclesiastical
authority. In his 1st book, chap. 4,
speaking of the Aragonese, in his usual grave
and severe tone, he says: "The Aragonese
possess and enjoy laws and <i lang="es">fueros</i> very different
from those of the other people of Spain;
they possess every thing most adapted for preserving
liberty against the excessive power
of kings, for preventing this power from degenerating
and changing, by its natural tendency,
into tyranny; for they are not ignorant
of this truth, that the right of liberty is generally
lost by degrees."</p>

<p>It was precisely at this epoch that the clergy
expressed themselves with the greatest freedom
on the most delicate of all subjects, that of contributions.
The venerable Palafox, in his memorial
or petition to the king for ecclesiastical
immunity, said: "According to St. Augustine,
to the great Tostat, and other weighty authors,
the Son of God appointed that the children of
God&mdash;that is the ministers of the Church, his
priests&mdash;should not pay tribute to the pagan
princes. In fact, he addressed to St. Peter the
following question, already resolved by the eternal
wisdom of the Father: <i lang="la">Reges gentium a
quibus accipiunt tributum, a filiis, an ab alienis?</i>
St. Peter answered, <i lang="la">Ab alienis</i>; and our Lord
concluded with these words: <i lang="la">Ergo liberi sunt
filii</i>. I may be allowed, sire, to make this
delicate observation, that the Divine Majesty
does not say, <i lang="la">Reges gentium a quibus capiunt
tributum</i>, but <i lang="la">a quibus accipiunt</i>. By this word
accipiunt, we understand the mildness and
mansuetude with which the payment of a tribute
should always be exacted, in order to diminish
the bitterness and repugnance accompanying
a tribute.</p>

<p>"46. It is doubtless useful for the preservation
of the state, that, in the first place, subjects
should give, in order that princes may then
receive. It is proper that kings should receive,
and employ the tribute paid them, for on this
depends the safety of crowns; but it is well that
subjects should first give it voluntarily. It is
doubtless from this passage of Scripture, from
this expression of the Eternal Word, that the
Catholic Crown, always so pious, has received
the holy doctrine, by virtue of which neither
your majesty nor your illustrious predecessors
have ever permitted a tribute to be levied
without its having first received the consent of
the kingdoms themselves, and been offered by
them; and your majesty is incomparably more
exalted by limiting and moderating your power,
than by exercising it to its utmost extent.</p>

<p>"47. Sire, if laymen, who have no exemption
in matters of tribute, enjoy that which the
kindness of your majesty and of the most
Catholic kings grant them; if they do not pay
till they choose to make a voluntary offering;
if nothing is received from them except on this
condition, will religion, your majesty's renowned
piety, and the devoted zeal of the
Council, allow the clergy&mdash;the sons, the ministers
of God, the privileged, those who are
exempt by divine and human law in all the
nations of the world, and among the very
pagans&mdash;to enjoy less favor than strangers,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_482" id="Page_482">[Pg 482a]</a></span>
who are not, like them, either ministers of the
Church or priests of God? Is the word <i lang="la">capiunt</i>,
sire, to be applied exclusively to the ministers
of God, and the word <i lang="la">accipiunt</i> to men of the
world?"</p>

<p>In his work intituled <cite>Historia Real Sagrada</cite>,
the same writer raises his voice against tyranny
with extreme severity:</p>

<p>"12. <em>Such</em>," says he, "<em>is the law which the
king whom you wish for will maintain in your
regard</em>. The word law is here employed ironically,
as if God should say: 'You imagine,
without doubt, that this king of yours would
govern according to law; on this supposition
you asked for him, since you complained that
my tribunal did not govern you. Now, the
law which this king will exercise towards you
will be, to disregard all law; and his law will
eventually be tyranny respected.' The politician
who, relying upon this passage, should
attribute as a right to the monarch a power
which is merely pointed out by God to the
people as a chastisement, would be an uncivilized
being, unworthy of being treated as a
rational creature. The Lord, in this instance,
does not define what is the best; he does not
say what he is giving them; these words are
no appreciation of power; he merely declares
what would be the case, and what he condemns.
Who shall dare to found the origin of tyranny
on justice itself? God says, that he whom
they desire for a king will be a tyrant&mdash;not a
tyrant approved of by him, but a tyrant that he
reprobates and chastises. And subsequent
events clearly shewed it, since there were in
Israel wicked kings, by whom the prophecy
was fulfilled, and Saints who obtained on the
throne the mercy of God. The wicked kings
literally accomplished the divine threat, by
doing what they were forbidden; the good ones
established their dignity upon propriety and
justice within prescribed limits."</p>

<p>Father Marquez, in his <cite>Christian Prince or
Magistrate</cite> (<i lang="es">Gobernador Cristiano</i>), also enlarges
on the same question; he expounds his
opinion both theoretically and practically.</p>


<p class="center">(Chapter xvi. 53.)</p>

<p>"Thus far we have heard the words of Philo,
writing on this event. As these words afforded
me an opportunity of reasoning on the obligations
of Christian kings, I have taken care to
quote them at length. I will not expect these
kings to act like Moses; for they have not the
miraculous aid which the Hebrew legislator received
for the relief of the people, nor the rod
which God gave him to make water flow from
the rock at need. But I will recommend them
to reflect maturely on the additional services
they shall attempt to exact from their subjects,
and the burdens they shall impose on them.
Let them reflect that they are bound to justify
the motive of their request in all truth, and
without any false coloring; always and constantly
aware that they are in the presence of
God, that the eyes of God are fixed on their
hands, that He will require from them a strict
account of their actions. For, as the holy
doctor of Nazianzen says, the Son of God came
designedly into the world at the taking of a
census and a resettlement of the imposts, in
order to confound kings who would have appointed
them through caprice; so that kings<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_482b" id="Page_482b">[Pg 482b]</a></span>
may now know that the Son of God takes
account of every item, and weighs in the balance
of his strict justice things which we
should account of little moment.</p>

<p>"The above reflection will serve to dispel the
false ideas of certain flatterers, who, to obtain
the favor of princes, persuade them that they
are perfectly independent and the masters of
the lives and property of their subjects, free to
dispose of them as they may think proper. In
support of this pretended maxim, they allege,
as we have seen, the history of Samuel, who
answered the people on the part of God, when
they were demanding a king, 'You shall have
one, but on terrible conditions.' This king was
to take from them their fields, their vineyards,
their olive-yards, to give them to his servants;
he was to take their daughters for slaves, 'to
make him ointments, and to be his cooks and
bakers.' And they have not observed that, as
John Bodin says, this is the interpretation of
Philip Melancthon, which alone is sufficient to
render it suspicious. Moreover, as St. Gregory,
and after him other doctors, have observed,
this passage of Scripture does not establish the
just right of kings, but rather announces beforehand
the tyranny of a great number of
princes; in fine, these words do not explain
what good princes might do, but merely what
bad ones would usually do. Hence, when
Achab seized upon the vineyard of Naboth,
God was angry with him, and we know how
He treated him. When David, the elect of
God, demanded a spot whereon to set up the
altar of Jebusee, he only asked it on condition
of paying the value of the land.</p>

<p>"For this reason princes should examine
with scrupulous attention whether contributions
are just; for if they are not, doctors
decide that they cannot, without manifest injustice,
thus more or less infringe on the rights
of their subjects. This doctrine is so Catholic
and certain, that men holding sound doctrine
affirm that, in this case, princes cannot impose
fresh tributes, even though necessary, without
the consent of the nation. For, say they, the
prince not being (which he certainly is not)
the master of his subjects' property, cannot
make use of it without the consent of those
from whom he is to receive it. This custom
has been long in practice in the kingdom of
Castile, where the laws of royalty prohibit the
levying of any new impost without the intervention
of the Cortes: after having received
the sanction of the Cortes, the impost is submitted
to the vote of the towns; and the prince
does not consider his demand granted till it
has received the sanction of the majority of the
towns. Edward I. of England made a similar
law, according to many authors of weight; and
Philip of Commines says, that it was the same
in France till the time of Charles VII., who,
urged by an extreme necessity, suppressed
these formalities, and levied a tax without
waiting for the consent of the States, and this
inflicted on the kingdom so deep a wound, that
it will long continue unhealed. If we may
credit certain affirmations, this author reports,
that it was then asserted that the king had
escaped from the guardianship exercised by the
kingdom; but that his own opinion is, that
kings cannot, without the consent of their people,
exact a single farthing; princes acting<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_483" id="Page_483">[Pg 483a]</a></span>
otherwise, says he, fall under the Pope's excommunication;
no doubt that of the bull <cite>In
Cœna Domini</cite>. For my own part, I ought to
confess that I do not find this in Philip de
Commines.... With respect to this
second point, it is evident, that the prince cannot,
on his own authority, impose new tributes
without the consent of the nation, whenever
this nation shall have acquired by any of the
reasons mentioned a contrary right, which I
consider to be the case in Castile. No one, in
fact, will deny that kingdoms at their commencement
have a right to choose their kings
on this condition, or render them such services
as to obtain in return that no new imposts shall
be laid on them without their consent. Now,
in either case, there will be a compact made,
from which kings cannot depart; and it is of
no consequence, as some imagine it to be,
whether they have obtained their kingdoms
through the election of their subjects, or by
mere force of arms. Although it is probable,
indeed, that a State yielding itself of its own
accord, will obtain greater privileges and better
conditions than those acquired by a just war,
it would not, however, be impossible for a State,
in choosing a king, to confer upon him all its
power in an absolute manner, and without this
restriction, with a view to lay him under greater
obligations, and to testify to him a greater
degree of devotedness; and, on the other hand,
a king, who had subjected a kingdom by force
of arms, might nevertheless voluntarily grant
it this privilege, with a view to obtain its
gratitude, and more affectionate obedience on
its part. The positive rule, therefore, for this
particular right, will be the contract made,
whether virtually or expressly, between the
State and the prince; a contract which should be
inviolable, especially if it is sealed by an oath."</p>


<p class="center"><cite>The Prince, or Christian Magistrate.</cite></p>

<p class="center">(Liv. ii. ch. xxxix. § 2.)</p>

<p>"Princes, it is said, may compel their subjects
to sell at half-price, or to give gratuitously,
a part of their property. This opinion
is generally founded on the law which ordains
that, when a ship in a tempest has been saved
by throwing overboard a part of the cargo, the
proprietors of the remaining part are obliged to
make a proportionate contribution to indemnify
the sufferers for the loss they have sustained.
Bartholus and other authors have inferred from
this, that in a time of necessity and famine the
monarch may require his subjects to give gratuitously,
and <i lang="la">a fortiori</i> to sell at a lower price, a
portion of their property to those in need. The
monarch, say they, might, without any doubt,
render property common, as it was before the
establishment of social rights; he may consequently
take it from one of his subjects and
give it to another.</p>

<p>"It is certainly said in the laws of the kings
of Israel, that he who should be chosen by God
might seize upon the vineyards and property
of his subjects, to confer them on his own servants;
but the doctors do not support their
arguments on this text. In fact, as we have
said in chapter 16th, book i., the question does
not concern the rights of a good prince, but the
tyrannical acts of a bad one. Now, a careful
study of the Scriptures will shew, that this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_483b" id="Page_483b">[Pg 483b]</a></span>
passage must be favourable to one or other of
the two opinions; for, if it were intended to
establish that kings would possess in conscience
the authority set forth in this passage, they
would certainly have the right of seizing the
property of one of their subjects to give it to
another. If this passage is merely meant as a
declaration of the injustices, of the extortions,
and the tyrannies of wicked monarchs, it is no
less certain that in Scripture the deed is considered
unjust; for this deed is alleged as an
example of what tyrants would do; now if it
had been permitted to a good king, it would not
have been quoted as an example of tyranny, as
the Scriptures suppose it.</p>

<p>"Thus, this text alone, even were there no
other in support of this doctrine, would satisfy
me, that kings cannot lawfully compel their
subjects to relinquish their property for less
than its value, not even under pretext of the
public good. In fact, were this pretext valid,
it would not have been difficult for the kings
of Israel to find an excuse for their tyranny;
they might have alleged, that it was important
to the public good to reward servants whose
fidelity was so advantageous to the interests of
the kingdom. Further, King Achab might
have urged, that the amusements of the prince
formed a part of the public good, since the
people are so much interested in the health of
the prince; and under this pretext might have
deprived Naboth of his vineyard in order to
enlarge his gardens. We find, however, that
this pretext did not justify him in compelling
Naboth even to sell his vineyard; the king,
although grieved, was not offended by this
man's refusal, neither was it his intention to
seize the vineyard, had not the impious Jezabel
furnished him with the means of doing so.</p>

<p>"Reason is evidently in favour of this opinion.
Kings are the ministers of justice, and
have been appointed to administer and uphold
justice among the people. As St. Thomas
teaches, the contract in buying and selling is
only just in proportion as the price is equivalent
to the thing purchased. Public, it is true,
should be preferred to individual interest; in
case, therefore, that a State is in danger of
dissolution, the monarch might demand property
at a less price, or even for nothing, just
as he might compel the citizen to expose his
life, which is of still greater value, in defending
the common cause in a just war. This case,
however, as P. Molina observes, is impossible,
since the monarch would always be able to
indemnify the individual for the loss he sustained,
by levying for this purpose a general
tax, a just tribute, and one that the State would
be bound to pay. To prove this still more
clearly, let us imagine the most urgent case
possible; let us suppose that the king is besieged
in his capital by a tyrant; the tyrant
is about to enter sword and torch in hand; he
offers to raise the siege on condition of receiving
a statue of gold of great value, formerly
the property of his ancestors, which a subject
of the besieged king, the commander-in-chief
of his armies, had taken in the plunder of a
town, and made the inalienable property of the
eldest son of his family. To render the case
still more pressing, let us suppose that the
tyrant has a dearly-cherished relation in the
service of the besieged king, and that he will<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_484" id="Page_484">[Pg 484a]</a></span>
be satisfied if a rich lord of the kingdom,
possessing a great number of estates, be despoiled,
and his property conferred on his
relation. It cannot be doubted that, in order
to purchase the lives of all, this arrangement
might be entered into; and that the king
would be justified in acceding to the demand,
in taking the statue, or even the whole of this
property, to confer it on the tyrant's relation.
But no one will assert that the lord should
suffer the whole loss. The State would be
under the obligation of indemnifying him for
the loss, by taking upon itself the indemnification,
the lord merely contributing his quota;
for this reason, that it would be opposed to
natural justice for the burdens of the whole body
to fall upon a single member, which would be
the case according to the law proposed by the
opponents. If, in a case of shipwreck, all the
cargo were thrown overboard to save the ship
and the lives and fortunes of all, the obligation
being common to all, it would not be just that
it should fall exclusively upon the owners;
because the cargo could best be thrown overboard
and most endangered the ship's safety:
the loss should be borne by all, even by those
who had with them things only of little weight, as
jewels or diamonds, for instance; since neither
these latter proprietors nor the vessel herself
could be saved without lightening her by
throwing overboard the heavier portion of the
cargo.</p>

<p>"The law decrees also that the owner of the
vessel shall pay his quota. Not that he is obliged
to indemnify the owners of the merchandise
lost, because he sees them in need; it
may be supposed, indeed, that these parties are
rich, and, although their present loss is extreme,
they will nevertheless be under the obligation
of returning what would then have been lent
to them; for, as the doctors decide, there is no
obligation of giving to the rich man when he
suffers a heavy loss, when a loan will answer
the same end. But it is said that the obligation
of the master of a ship is founded on the
fact, that all the passengers and the proprietors
being interested in saving their lives and their
property, the risk and the loss of what was
thrown overboard ought to fall on all, and not
exclusively on the owners of what was lost. As
a proof that this is the correct interpretation, it
will be sufficient to notice the summary of the
title, and the very words of the law, which are:
<i lang="la">Eo quod id tributum servatæ mercedes deberent</i>.</p>

<p>"But, except in this case, or in others equally
pressing, if the ruin of the State would not
result from the mere fact of an individual
refusing to yield up his house to the prince,
the latter could not compel the proprietor to
give it up for a less price than its just value,
and still less for nothing; for so long as the
persons and the property of the State are safe,
it is of no importance to the body corporate
whether such or such persons are rich or poor;
no one, in fact, in the general community possesses
a fixed degree from which he can neither
descend nor rise. This instability observable
among the members of the same State, some
losing what others gain, and <i lang="la">vice versâ</i>, is inseparable
from the state of society, such is the
instability of temporal affairs; and the public
good, generally speaking, neither loses nor
gains by it."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_484b" id="Page_484b">[Pg 484b]</a></span></p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_39"></a>Note</span> 39, p. 382.</p>

<p>Some persons imagine, that in speaking of
the loss of liberty in Spain, the question may
be readily reduced to one point of view, as if
the kingdom had always possessed the unity
which it only acquired in the eighteenth century,
and only then in an incomplete manner.
A perusal of history, and especially of the
codes of the different provinces of which the
monarchy was composed, will convince us that
the central power has been created and fortified
among us very slowly; and that at the time
when this difficult task was nearly accomplished
in Castile, much still remained to be done in
Aragon and Catalonia. Our constitutions, our
customs, our manners, in the seventeenth century,
evidently prove that the monarchy of
Philip II., such as we conceive it, strong and
irresistible, was not yet established in the
crown of Aragon. I will abstain from adducing
here documents and quoting facts with which
every one is acquainted; the dimensions of
this volume require me to be brief.</p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_40"></a>Note</span> 40, p. 388.</p>

<p>The immortal work of Count de Maistre, in
which he so ably refutes the calumnies of the
enemies of the Apostolic See, is well known.
Among so many and such profound observations,
there is one deserving of particular attention:
that on the moderation of the Popes in
every thing relating to the extension of their
dominions, when he points out the difference
between the Roman and the other European
Courts. "It is," says he, "a very remarkable
circumstance, but either disregarded or not
sufficiently attended to, that the Popes have
never taken advantage of the great power in
their possession for the aggrandisement of their
States. What could have been more natural,
for instance, or more tempting to human nature,
than to reserve a portion of the provinces
conquered from the Saracens, and which they
gave up to the first occupant, to repel the
Turkish ascendency, always on the increase?
But this, however, they never did, not even
with regard to the adjacent countries, as in the
instance of the Two Sicilies, to which they had
incontestable rights, at least according to the
ideas then prevailing, and over which they
were nevertheless contented with an empty
sovereignty, which soon ended in the <i lang="f">haquenée</i>,
a slight tribute, and merely nominal, which
the bad taste of the age still disputes with
them.</p>

<p>"The Popes may have made too much, at the
time, of this universal sovereignty, which an
opinion equally universal allowed them. They
may have exacted homage; may indeed, if you
will, have too arbitrarily imposed taxes. I do
not wish to enter into these points here, but it
still remains certain that they have never
sought to increase their dominions at the expense
of justice, whilst all other governments
fell under this anathema; and, at the present
time even, with all our philosophy, our civilization,
and our fine books, there is not perhaps
one of the European powers in a condition to
justify all its possessions before God and reason."
(<cite>Du Pape</cite>, book ii. chap. 6.)</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_485" id="Page_485">[Pg 485a]</a></span></p>


<p class="centert"><span class="smcap"><a id="Note_41"></a>Note</span> 41, p. 350.</p>

<p>I will here insert some passages in which St.
Anselm explains the motives that induced him
to write, and the method which he intended to
follow in his writings.</p>

<p class="centert"><i>Præfatio beati Anselmi Episcopi Cantuariensis
in Monologuium.</i></p>

<p>Quidam fratres sæpe me studioseque precati
sunt, ut quædam de illis, quæ de meditanda divinitatis
essentia, et quibusdam aliis hujus
meditationi cohærentibus, usitato sermone colloquendo
protuleram, sub quodam eis meditationis
exemplo describerem. Cujus scilicet
scribendæ meditationis magis secundum suam
voluntatem quam secundum rei facilitatem aut
meam possibilitatem hanc mihi formam præstituerunt:
quatenus auctoritate scripturæ penitus
nihil in ea persuaderetur. Sed quidquid
per singulas investigationes finis assereret, id
ita esse plano stylo et vulgaribus argumentis
simplicique disputatione, et rationis necessitas
breviter cogeret, et veritatis claritas patenter
ostenderet. Voluerunt etiam ut nec simplicibus
peneque fatuis objectionibus mihi occurrentibus
obviare contemnerem, quod quidem diu tentare
recusavi, atque me cum re ipsa comparans,
multis me rationibus excusare tentavi. Quanto
enim id quod petebant, usu sibi optabant facilius:
tanto mihi illud actu injungebant difficilius.
Tandem tamen victus, tum precum
modesta importunitate, tum studii eorum non
contemnenda honestate, invitus quidem propter
rei difficultatem, et ingenii mei imbecillitatem,
quod precabantur incæpi, sed libenter propter
eorum caritatem, quantum potui secundum
ipsorum definitionem effeci. Ad quod cum ea
spe sim adductus, ut quidquid facerem illis
solis a quibus exigebatur, esset notum, et paulo
post idipsum ut vilem rem fastidientibus, contemptu
esset obruendum, scio enim me in eo
non tam precantibus satisfacere potuisse, quam
precibus me prosequentibus finem posuisse.
Nescio tamen quomodo sic præter spem evenit,
ut non solum prædicti fratres sed et plures alii
scripturam ipsam, quisque eam sibi transcribendo
in longum memoriæ commendare satagerent,
quam ego sæpe tractans nihil potui
invenire me in ea dixisse, quod non catholicorum
patrum, et maxime beati Augustini
scriptis cohæreat.</p>


<p class="centert">Idem. <i>Quod hoc licet inexplicabile sit, tamen
credendum sit.</i> (Cap. lxii.)</p>

<p>Videtur mihi hujus tam sublimis rei secretum
transcendere omnem intellectus aciem humani:
et idcirco conatum explicandi qualiter hoc sit,
continendum puto. Sufficere namque debere
existimo rem incomprehensibilem indaganti si
ad hoc rationando pervenerit, ut eam certissime
esse cognoscat, etiamsi penetrare nequeat intellectu
quomodo ita sit, nec idcirco minus his adhibendam
fidei certitudinem, quæ probationibus
necessariis nulla alia repugnante ratione asseruntur,
si suæ naturalis altitudinis incomprehensibilitate
explicari non patiantur. Quid
autem tam incomprehensibile, quam id quod
supra omnia est? Quapropter si ea quæ de
sua essentia hactenus disputata sunt necessariis<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_485b" id="Page_485b">[Pg 485b]</a></span>
rationibus sunt asserta, quamvis sic intellectu
penetrari non possint ut quæ verbis valeant
explicari: nullatenus tamen certitudinis eorum
nutat soliditas. Nam si superior consideratio
rationabiliter comprehendit incomprehensibile
esse, quomodo eadem summa sapientia sciat ea
quæ fecit de quibus tam multa non scire necesse
est; quis explicet quomodo sciat aut
dicat se ipsam, de qua aut nihil, aut vix aliquid
homini sciri possibile est?</p>

<p>Incipit proœmium in Prosologuion librum
Anselmi, Abbatis Beccensis, et Archiepiscopi
Cantuariensis.</p>

<p>Postquam opusculum quoddam velut exemplum
meditandi de ratione fidei, cogentibus
me precibus quorumdam fratrum in persona
alicujus tacite secum ratiocinando quæ nesciat
investigantis edidi, considerans illud esse multorum
concathenatione contextum argumentorum,
cœpi mecum quærere: si forte posset
invenire unum argumentum, quod nullo alio ad
se probandum, quam se solo indigeret, et solum
ad astruendum quia Deus vere est; et quia est
summum bonum nullo alio indigens, et quo
omnia indigent ut sint et bene sint, et quæcumque
credimus de divina substantia sufficeret.
Ad quod cum sæpe studioseque cogitationes
converterem, atque aliquando mihi
videretur jam capi posse quod quærebam, aliquando
mentis aciem omnino fugeret: tandem
desperans volui cessare, velut ab inquisitione
rei quam inveniri esset impossibile. Sed cum
illam cogitationem, ne mentem meam frustra
occupando ab aliis in quibus proficere possem
impediret, penitus a me vellem excludere, tunc
magis ac magis nolenti et defendenti, se cœpit
cum importunitate quadam ingerere. Quadam
igitur die cum vehementer ejus importunitati
resistendo fatigarer, in ipso cogitationum conflictu
sic se obtulit quod desperabam, ut studiose
cogitationem amplecterer, quam sollicitus
repellebam. Æstimans igitur quod me gaudebam
invenisse, si scriptum esset alicui, legenti
placiturum. De hoc ipso et quibusdam aliis
sub persona conantis erigere mentem suam ad
contemplandum Deum, et quærentis intelligere
quod credit, subditum scripsi opusculum. Et
quoniam nec istud nec illud cujus supra memini,
dignum libri nomine, aut cui auctoris præponeretur
nomen judicabam: nec tamen sine aliquo
titulo, quo aliquem in cujus manus venirent,
quodammodo ad se legendum invitarent, dimittenda
putabam, unicuique dedi titulum: ut
prius exemplum meditandi de ratione fidei, et
sequens fides quærens intellectum diceretur.
Sed cum jam a pluribus et his titulis utrumque
transumptum esset, coegerunt me plures et
maxime reverendus Archiepiscopus Lugdunensis
Hugo nomine, fungens in Gallia legatione
apostolica, prœcepit auctoritate, ut nomen
meum illis præscriberem. Quod ut aptius fieret
illud quidem Monologuium, id est Soliloquium,
istud vero Prosologuion, id est Alloquium
nominavi.</p>

<hr class="tb" />

<p>I have said that St. Anselm excelled Descartes
in his manner of proving the existence
of God: let the reader, indeed, peruse the following
passages. I do not, however, intend to
pronounce an opinion on the merits of this
demonstration; my business is, to notice the
progress of the human mind, and not to resolve
philosophical questions.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_486" id="Page_486">[Pg 486a]</a></span></p>


<p class="centert">PROSOLOGUIUM D. ANSELMI.</p>

<p class="center"><i>Quod Deus non possit cogitari non esse.</i></p>

<p>Quod utique sic vere est, ut nec cogitari
possit non esse. Nam potest cogitari esse
aliquid, quod non possit cogitari non esse, quod
majus est quam quod non esse cogitari potest.
Quare si id, quo majus nequit cogitari, potest
cogitari non esse: id ipsum, quo majus cogitari
nequit, non est id quo majus cogitari nequit;
quod convenire non potest. Sic ergo vere est
aliquid, quo majus cogitari non potest, ut nec
cogitari possit non esse. Et hoc es tu, Domine
Deus noster. Sic ergo vere es, Domine Deus
meus, ut nec cogitari possis non esse. Et merito.
Si enim aliqua mens posset cogitare aliquid
melius te, ascenderet creatura super Creatorem;
et judicaret de Creatore, quod valde
est absurdum. Et quidem quidquid est aliud
præter solum te, potest cogitari non esse.
Solus igitur verissime omnium, et ideo maxime
omnium habes esse, quia quidquid aliud est
non sic vere est, et idcirco minus habet esse.
Cur itaque, <em>dixit insipiens in corde suo non est
Deus?</em> Cum causa in promptu sit rationali
menti, te maxime omnium esse? Cur, nisi
stultus et insipiens?</p>

<p class="centert"><i>Quomodo insipiens dixit in corde suo quod cogitari
non potest.</i> (Cap. iv.)</p>

<p>Verum quomodo dixit insipiens in corde suo
quod cogitare non potuit, aut quomodo cogitare
non potuit quod dixit in corde, cum idem sit
dicere in corde, et cogitare. Quod si vere, imo
quia vere, et cogitavit: quia dixit in corde et
non dixit in corde, quia cogitare non potuit;
non uno tantum modo dicitur aliquid in corde
vel cogitatur. Aliter enim cogitatur res, cum
vox eam significans cogitatur: aliter cum
idipsum, quod res est, intelligitur. Illo itaque
modo, potest cogitari Deus non esse: isto vero,
minime. Nullus quippe intelligens id quod
Deus est, potest cogitare quia Deus non est;
licet hæc verba dicat in corde, aut sine ulla,
aut cum aliqua extranea significatione. Deus
enim, est id quo majus cogitari non potest.
Quod qui bene intelligit, utique intelligit id
ipsum sic esse, ut nec cogitatione queat non
esse. Qui ergo intelligit sic esse Deum, nequit
eum non esse cogitare. Gratias tibi, bone
Domine, gratias tibi, quia quod prius credidi
te donante, jam sic intelligo te illuminante;
ut si te esse nolim credere, non possim non
intelligere.</p>


<p class="centert"><i>Ejusdem beati Anselmi liber pro insipiente
incipit.</i></p>

<p>Dubitanti, utrum sit; vel neganti quod sit
aliqua talis natura, qua nihil majus cogitari
possit; tamen esse illam, huic dicitur primo
probari; quod ipse negans vel ambigens de
illa, jam habeat eam in intellectu, cum audiens
illam dici, id quod dicitur intelligit: deinde,
quia quod intelligit necesse est, ut non in solo
intellectu, sed etiam in re sit. Et hoc ita probatur;
quia majus est esse in intellectu et in
re, quam in solo intellectu. Et si illud in solo
est intellectu, majus illo erit quidquid etiam
fuerit in re, at si majus omnibus, minus erit
aliquo, et non erit majus omnibus quod utique
repugnat. Et ideo necesse est ut, majus omnibus,
quod est jam probatum esse in intellectu,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_486b" id="Page_486b">[Pg 486b]</a></span>
et in re sit; quoniam aliter majus omnibus esse
non poterit. Responderi potest, quod hoc jam
esse dicitur in intellectu meo, non ob aliud,
nisi quia id quod dicitur intelligo.</p>

<p>The passages I have just quoted will have
shewn to my readers that thought was not oppressed
in the Catholic Church. The most
eminent doctors were accustomed to reason on
the most important subjects with a just and
reasonable independence; and although with
profound respect for the teaching of the Catholic
Church, they nevertheless surveyed, as well
as Abelard and better, the field of true philosophy.
We cannot expect from human intelligence
at this epoch more than is to be
found in St. Anselm. How is it, therefore,
that such eulogiums have been passed upon
Roscelin and Abelard, without ever mentioning
this holy doctor? Why present a picture of
the intellectual movement so incomplete, and
not insert in it so noble and beautiful a figure?</p>

<p>If you would know how incorrect it is that
Abelard, as M. Guizot affirms, abstained from
attacking the doctrines of the Church&mdash;how incorrect
M. Guizot is in his statement of the
causes which excited the zeal of the pastors of
the Church against Abelard, read the letter of
the Bishops of Gaul to Pope Innocent, in which
you will find a complete recital of the origin
and cause of this important affair. Here is the
letter:</p>


<p class="center">EPISTOLA CCCLXX.</p>


<p class="hang"><i>Reverendissimo Patri et Domino, <span class="smcap">Innocentio</span>,
Dei gratia summo Pontifici, Henricus Senonensium
Archiepiscopus, Carnotensis Episcopus,
Sanctæ Sedis Apostolicæ famulus, Aurelianensis,
Antissiodorensis, Trecensis, Meldensis
Episcopi, devotas orationes et debitam
obedientiam.</i></p>

<p>Nulli dubium est quod ea quæ Apostolica firmantur
auctoritate, rata semper existunt; nec
alicujus possunt deinceps mutilari cavillatione,
vel invidia depravari. Ea propter ad vestram
Apostolicam Sedem, Beatissime Pater, referre
dignum censuimus quædam quæ nuper in nostra
contigit tractari præsentia. Quæ quoniam
et nobis, et multis religiosis ac sapientibus viris
rationabiliter acta visa sunt, vestræ serenitatis
expectant comprobari judicio, simul et auctoritate
perpetuo roborari. Itaque cum per totam
fere Galliam in civitatibus, vicis, et castellis, a
Scholaribus non solum intra Scholas, sed etiam
triviatim: nec a litteratis, aut provectis tantum,
sed a pueris et simplicibus, aut certe stultis, de
Sancta Trinitate, quæ Deus est, disputaretur:
insuper alia multa ab eisdem, absona prorsus et
absurda, et plane fidei catholicæ, sanctorumque
Patrum auctoritatibus obviantia proferrentur;
cumque ab his qui sane sentiebant, et eas ineptias
rejiciendas esse censebant, sæpius admoniti
corriperentur, vehementius convalescebant,
et auctoritate magistri sui Petri Abailardi, et
cujusdam ipsius libri, cui <cite>Theologiæ</cite> indiderat
nomen; nec non et aliorum ejusdem opusculorum
freti ad astruendas profanas adinventiones
illas, non sine multarum animarum dispendio,
sese magis ac magis armabant. Quæ enim et
nos, et alios plures non parum moverant ac
læserant; inde tamen quæstionem facere verebantur.</p>

<p>Verum Dominus Abbas Claræ-vallis, his a di<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_487" id="Page_487">[Pg 487a]</a></span>versis
et sæpius auditis, immo certe in prætaxato
magistri Petri <cite>Theologiæ</cite> libro, nec non
et aliis ejusdem libris, in quorum forte lectionem
inciderat, diligenter inspectis; secreto prius;
ac deinde secum duobus aut tribus adhibitis
testibus, juxta Evangelicum præceptum, hominem
convenit: Et ut auditores suos a talibus
compesceret, librosque suos corrigeret, amicabiliter
satis ac familiariter illum admonuit. Plures
etiam Scholarium adhortatus est, ut et libros
venenis plenos repudiarent et rejicerent: et a
doctrina, quæ fidem lædebat Catholicam, caverent
et abstinerent. Quod magister Petrus minus
patienter et nimium ægre ferens, crebro nos
pulsare cœpit, nec ante voluit desistere, quoad
Dominum Clara-vellensem Abbatem super hoc
scribentes, assignato die, scilicet octavo Pentecostes,
Senonis ante nostram submonuimus venire
præsentiam: quo se vocabat et offerebat
paratum magister Petrus ad probandas et defendendas
de quibus illum Dominus Abbas Clara-vallensis,
quomodo prætaxatum est, reprehenderat
sententias. Cæterum Dominus Abbas, nec
ad assignatum diem se venturum, nec contra
Petrum sese disceptaturum nobis remandavit.
Sed quia magister Petrus interim suos nihilominus
cœpit undequaque convocare discipulos;
et obsecrare, ut ad futuram inter se, Dominumque
Abbatem Clara-vallensem disputationem,
una cum illo suam sententiam simul et scientiam
defensuri venirent; Et hoc Dominum Clara-vallensem
minime lateret; veritus ipse, ne propter
occasionem absentiæ suæ tot profanæ, non
sententiæ sed insaniæ, tam apud minus intelligentes,
quam earumdem defensores majore
dignæ viderentur auctoritate, prædicto quem sibi
designaveramus die, licet eum minime suscepisset,
tactus zelo pii fervoris, imo certe Sancti
Spiritus igne succensus, sese nobis ultro Senonis
præsentavit. Illa vero die, scilicet octava Pentecostes,
convenerant ad nos Senonis Fratres et
Suffraganei nostri Episcopi, ob honorem et reverentiam
sanctarum, quas in Ecclesia nostra populo
revelaturos nos indixeramus, Reliquiarum.</p>

<p>Itaque præsente glorioso Rege Francorum
Ludovico cum Wilhelmo religioso Nivernis Comite,
Domino quoque Rhemensi Archiepiscopo,
cum quibusdam suis suffraganeis Episcopis nobis
etiam, et suffraganeis nostris, exceptis Parisiis
et Nivernis, Episcopis præsentibus, cum
multis religiosis Abbatibus et sapientibus, valdeque
litteratis clericis adfuit Dominus Abbas
Clara-vallensis; adfuit magister Petrus cum
fautoribus suis. Quid multa? Dominus Abbas
cum librum Theologiæ magistri Petri proferret
in medium, et quæ annotaverat absurda, imo
hæretica plane capitula de libro eodem proponeret,
ut ea magister Petrus vel a se scripta negaret,
vel si sua fateretur, aut probaret, aut
corrigeret: visus est diffidere magister Petrus
Abailardus, et subterfugere, respondere noluit,
sed quamvis libera sibi daretur audientia, tutumque
locum, et æquos haberet judices, ad
vestram tamen, sanctissime Pater, appellans
præsentiam, cum suis a conventu discessit.</p>

<p>Nos autem licet appellatio ista, minus Canonica
videretur, Sedi tamen Apostolicæ deferentes,
in personam hominis nullam voluimus
proferre sententiam: Cæterum sententias pravi
dogmatis ipsius, quia multo infecerant, et sui
contagione adusque cordium intima penetraverant,
sæpe in audientia publica lectas et relectas,
et tam verissimis rationibus, quam Beati
Augustini, aliorumque Sanctorum Patrum in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_487b" id="Page_487b">[Pg 487b]</a></span>ductis
a Domino Clara-vallensi auctoritatibus,
non solum falsas, sed et hæreticas esse evidentissime
comprobatas, pridie ante factam ad
vos appellationem damnavimus. Et quia multos
in errorem perniciosissimum et plane damnabilem
pertrahunt, eas auctoritate vestra, dilectissime
Domine, perpetua damnatione notari;
et omnes qui pervicaciter et contentiose illas
defenderint, a vobis, æquissime Pater, juxta
pœna mulctari unanimiter et multa precum
instantia postulamus.</p>

<p>Sæpe dicto vero Petro, si Reverentia vestra
silentium imponeret, et tam legendi, quam scribendi
prorsus interrumperet facultatem, et libros
ejus perverso sine dubio dogmate respersos
condemnaret, avulsis spinis et tribulis ab Ecclesia
Dei, prevaleret adhuc læta Christi seges succrescere,
florere, fructificare. Quædam autem
de condemnatis a nobis capitulis vobis, Reverende
Pater, conscripta transmisimus, ut per
hæc audita reliqui corpus operis facilius æstimetis.</p>

<p>Observe how St Bernard explains the system
and errors of the celebrated Abelard. In chapter
1 of the treatise which he wrote, <cite>De erroribus
Petri Abailardi</cite>, he says:</p>

<p>"Habemus in Francia novum de veteri magistro
Theologum, qui ab ineunte ætate sua in
arte dialectica lusit; et nunc in scripturis sanctis
insanit. Olim damnata et sopita dogmata, tam
sua videlicet quam aliena suscitare conatur, insuper
et nova addit. Qui dum omnium quæ
sunt cœlo sursum, et quæ in terra deorsum,
nihil præter solum Nescio nescire dignatur;
ponit in cœlum os suum, et scrutatur alta Dei,
rediensque ad nos refert verba ineffabilia, quæ
non licet homini loqui. Et dum paratus est de
omnibus reddere rationem, etiam quæ sunt
supra rationem, et contra rationem præsumit,
et contra fidem. Quid enim magis contra rationem,
quam ratione rationem conari transcendere?
Et quid magis contra fidem; quam credere
nolle, quidquid non possit ratione attingere?"</p>

<p>In chapter 4, he sums up, in a few words,
the aberrations of the dialectician:</p>

<p>"Sed advertite cætera. Omitto quod dicit
spiritum timoris Domini non fuisse in Domino:
timorem Domini castum in future seculo non
futurum: post consecrationem panis et calicis
priora accidentia quæ remanent pendere in aere:
dæmonum in nobis suggestiones contactu fieri
lapidum et herbarum, prout illorum sagax malitia
novit; harum rerum vires diversas, diversis
incitandis et incendendis vitiis, convenire:
Spiritum Sanctum esse animam mundi: mundum
juxta Platonem tanto excellentius animal
esse, quanto meliorem animam habet Spiritum
Sanctum. Ubi dum multum sudat quomodo
Platonem faciat Christianum, se probat ethnicum.
Hæc inquam omnia, aliasque istiusmodi
nænias ejus non paucas prætereo, venio ad
graviora. Non quod vel ad ipsa cuncta respondeam,
magnis enim opus voluminibus esset.
Illa loquor quæ tacere non possum.</p>

<p>"Cum de Trinitate loquitur," says he in his
letter 192, "sapit Arium, cum de Gratia sapit
Pelagium, cum de persona Christi sapit Nestorium."</p>

<p>Pope Innocent, condemning the doctrines of
Abelard, says: "In Petri Abailardi perniciosa
doctrina, et prædictorum hæreses, et alia perversa
dogmata catholicæ fidei obviantia pullulare
cœperunt."</p>

<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_488" id="Page_488">[Pg 488a]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="APPENDIX" id="APPENDIX">APPENDIX.</a></h2>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="a"></a>(a), p. 289.</p>

<p>Quod necesse est homines simul viventes ab
aliquo diligenter regi.</p>

<p>Et siquidem homini conveniret singulariter
vivere, sicut multis animalium, nullo alio dirigente
indigeret ad finem, sed ipse sibi unusquisque
esset rex sub Deo summo rege, in
quantum per lumen rationis divinitus datum
sibi, in suis actibus seipsum dirigeret. Naturale
autem est homini ut sit animal sociale, et
politicum, in multitudine vivens, magis etiam
quam omnia alia animalia; quod quidem naturalis
necessitas declarat. Aliis enim animalibus
natura præparavit cibum, tegumenta pilorum,
defensionem, ut dentes, cornua, ungues, vel
saltem velocitatem ad fugam. Homo autem
institutus est nullo horum sibi a natura præparato,
sed loco omnium data est ei ratio, per
quam sibi hæc omnia officio manuum posset præparare,
ad quæ omnia præparanda unus homo
non sufficit. Nam unus homo per se sufficienter
vitam transigere non posset. Est igitur homini
naturale, quod in societate multorum vivat.
Amplius, aliis animalibus insita est naturalis
industria ad omnia ea quæ sunt eis utilia vel
nociva, sicut ovis naturaliter extimet lupum
inimicum. Quædam etiam animalia ex naturali
industria cognoscunt aliquas herbas medicinales,
et alia eorum vitæ necessaria. Homo
autem horum, quæ sunt suæ vitæ necessaria,
naturalem cognitionem habet solum in communi,
quasi eo per rationem valente ex universalibus
principiis ad cognitionem singulorum,
quæ necessaria sunt humanæ vitæ, pervenire.
Non est autem possibile, quod unus
homo ad omnia hujusmodi per suam rationem
pertingat. Est igitur necessarium homini, quod
in multitudine vivat, et unus ab alio adjuvetur,
et diversi diversis inveniendis per rationem
occuparentur, puta, unus in medicina, alius in
hoc, alius in alio. Hoc etiam evidentissime
declaratur per hoc, quod est proprium hominis
locutione uti, per quam unus homo aliis suum
conceptum totaliter potest exprimere. Alia
quidem animalia exprimunt mutuo passiones
suas, in communi, ut canis in latratu iram, et
alia animalia passiones suas diversis modis.
Magis igitur homo est communicativus alteri,
quam quodcumque aliud animal, quod gregale
videtur, ut grus, formica, et apis. Hoc ergo
considerans Salomon in Ecclesiaste ait: "Melius
est esse duos, quam unum. Habent enim
emolumentum mutuæ societatis." Si ergo naturale
est homini quod in societate multorum
vivat, necesse est in hominibus esse, per quod
multitudo regatur. Multis enim existentibus
hominibus et uno quoque id quod est sibi congruum
providente, multitudo in diversa dispergeretur,
nisi etiam esset aliquis de eo quod ad
bonum multitudinis pertinet, curam habens,
sicut et corpus hominis, et cujuslibet animalis
deflueret, nisi esset aliqua vis regitiva communis
in corpore, quæ ad bonum commune omnium
membrorum intenderet. Quod considerans<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_488b" id="Page_488b">[Pg 488b]</a></span>
Salomon dicit: "Ubi non est gubernator, dissipabitur
populus." Hoc autem rationabiliter
accidit: non enim idem est quod proprium, et
quod commune. Secundum propria quidem
differunt, secundum autem commune uniuntur:
diversorum autem diversæ sunt causæ. Oportet
igitur præter id quod movet ad proprium bonum
uniuscujusque, esse aliquid, quod movet ad
bonum commune multorum. Propter quod et
in omnibus quæ in unum ordinantur, aliquid
invenitur alterius regitivum. In universitate
enim corporum, per primum corpus, scilicet
celeste, alia corpora ordine quodam divinæ providentiæ
reguntur, omniaque corpora, per creaturam
rationalem. In uno etiam homine anima
regit corpus, atque inter animæ partes irascibilis
et concupiscibilis ratione reguntur. Itemque
inter membra corporis unum est principale,
quod omnia movet, ut cor, aut caput. Oportet
igitur esse in omni multitudine aliquod regitivum.
(D. Th., Opusc. de Regimine Principum,
l. i. cap. 1.)</p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="b"></a>(b), p. 290.</p>

<p>Ubi considerandum est, quod dominium, vel
prælatio introducta sunt ex jure humano: distinctio
autem fidelium et infidelium est ex jure
divino. Jus autem divinum quod est ex gratia,
non tollit jus humanum quod est ex naturali
ratione; ideo distinctio fidelium et infidelium
secundum se considerata, non tollit dominium,
et prælationem infidelium supra fideles. (2. 2.
quest. 10, art. 10.)</p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="c"></a>(c), p. 290.</p>

<p>Respondeo dicendum quod sicut supra dictum
est (quest. 10, art. 10), infidelitas secundum se
ipsam non repugnat dominio, eo quod dominium
introductum est de jure gentium, quod
est jus humanum. Distinctio autem fidelium
et infidelium est secundum jus divinum, per
quod non tollitur jus humanum. (2. 2. quest.
12, art. 2.)</p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="d"></a>(d), p. 290.</p>

<p>Respondeo dicendum quod sicut actiones
rerum naturalium procedunt ex potentiis naturalibus:
ita etiam operationes humanæ procedunt
ex humana voluntate. Oportuit autem in
rebus naturalibus, ut superiora moverent inferiora
ad suas actiones per excellentiam naturalis
virtutis collatæ divinitus. Unde et oportet
in rebus humanis, quod superiores moveant inferiores
per suam voluntatem ex vi auctoritatis
divinitus ordinatæ. Movere autem per rationem
et voluntatem est præcipere; et ideo sicut ex
ipso ordine naturali divinitus instituto inferiora
in rebus naturalibus necesse habent subjici
motioni superiorum, ita etiam in rebus humanis
ex ordine juris naturalis et divini, tenentur
inferiores suis superioribus obedire. (2. 2.
quest. 105, art. 1.)</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_489" id="Page_489">[Pg 489a]</a></span></p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="e"></a>(e), p. 291.</p>

<p>Obedire autem superiori debitum est secundum
divinum ordinem rebus inditum ut ostensum
est. (2. 2. quest. 104, art. 2.)</p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="f"></a>(f), p. 291.</p>

<p>Respondeo dicendum quod fides Christi est
justitiæ principium, et causa, secundum illud
Rom. iii. "Justitia Dei per fidem Jesu Christi;"
et ideo per fidem Christi non tollitur ordo justitiæ
sed magis firmatur. Ordo autem justitiæ
requirit, ut inferiores suis superioribus obediant:
aliter enim non posset humanarum rerum status
conservari. Et ideo per fidem Christi non excusantur
fideles, quin principibus secularibus
obedire teneantur. (2. 2. quest. 105, art. 6.)</p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="g"></a>(g), p. 291.</p>

<p>Certum est politicam potestatem a Deo esse a
quo non nisi res bonæ et licitæ procedunt, et
quod probat Aug. in toto fere 4 et 5 libr. de
Civit. Dei. Nam sapientia Dei clamat, Proverb.
viii.: Per me reges regnant; et infra:
Per me principes imperant. Et Daniel ii.:
Deus cœli regnum et imperium dedit tibi, &amp;c.;
et Daniel iv.: Cum bestiis ferisque erit habitatio
tua, et fenum, ut bos comedes, et rore cœli
infunderis: septem quoque tempora mutabuntur
super te, donec scias quod dominetur Excelsus
super regnum hominum, et cuicumque voluerit,
det illud. (Bell. de Laicis, l. iii. c. 6.)</p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="h"></a>(h), p. 291.</p>

<p>Sed hic observanda sunt aliqua. Primo politicam
potestatem in universum consideratam,
non descendendo in particulari ad monarchiam,
aristocratiam, vel democratiam immediate esse
a solo Deo; nam consequitur necessario naturam
hominis, proinde esse ab illo, qui fecit
naturam hominis; præterea hæc potestas est
de jure naturæ, non enim pendet ex consensu
hominum, nam velint, nolint, debent regi ab
aliquo, nisi velint perire humanum genus, quod
est contra naturæ inclinationem. At jus naturæ
est jus divinum, jure igitur divino introducta
est gubernatio, et hoc videtur proprie velle
Apostolus, cum dicit Rom. xiii: Qui potestati
resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit. (Ib.)</p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="i"></a>(i), p. 292.</p>

<p>Secundo nota, hanc potestatem immediate
esse tanquam in subjecto, in tota multitudine,
nam hæc potestas est de jure divino. At jus
divinum nulli homini particulari dedit hanc
potestatem, ergo dedit multitudini; præterea
sublato jure positivo, non est major ratio cur
ex multis æqualibus unus potius, quam alius
dominetur: igitur potestas totius est multitudinis.
Denique humana societas debet esse
perfecta respublica, ergo debet habere potestatem
se ipsam conservandi, et proinde puniendi
perturbatores pacis, &amp;c. (Ib.)</p>

<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="k"></a>(k), p. 293.</p>

<p>Tertio nota, hanc potestatem transferri a multitudine
in unum vel plures eodem jure naturæ:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_489b" id="Page_489b">[Pg 489b]</a></span>
nam Respub. non potest per seipsam exercere
hanc potestatem, ergo tenetur eam transferre in
aliquem unum vel aliquos paucos; et hoc modo
potestas principum in genere considerata, est
etiam de jure naturæ, et divino; nec posset
genus humanum, etiamsi totum simul conveniret,
contrarium statuere, nimirum, ut nulli essent
principes vel rectores. (Ib.)</p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="l"></a>(l), p. 293.</p>

<p>Quarto nota, in particulari singulas species
regiminis esse de jure gentium, non de jure
naturæ; nam pendet a consensu multitudinis,
constituere super se regem vel consules, vel
alios magistratus, ut patet: et si causa legitima
adsit, potest multitudo mutare regnum in aristocratiam,
aut democratiam, et e contrario ut
Romæ factum legimus.</p>

<p>Quinto nota, ex dictis sequi, hanc potestatem
in particulari esse quidem a Deo, sed mediante
consilio, et electione humana, ut alia omnia,
quæ ad jus gentium pertinent, jus enim gentium
est quasi conclusio deducta ex jure naturæ per
humanum discursum. Ex quo colliguntur duæ
differentiæ inter potestatem politicam, et ecclesiasticam:
una ex parte subjecti, nam politica
est in multitudine, ecclesiastica in uno homine
tanquam in subjecto immediate; altera ex
parte efficientis, quod politica universe considerata
est de jure divino, in particulari considerata
est de jure gentium; ecclesiastica omnibus
modis est de jure divino, et immediate
a Deo. (Ib.)</p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="m"></a>(m), p. 294.</p>

<p>In hac re communis sententia videtur esse,
hanc potestatem dari immediate a Deo ut auctore
naturæ, ita ut homines quasi disponant
materiam et efficiant subjectum capax hujus
potestatis; Deus autem quasi tribuat formam
dando hanc potestatem. Cita a Cajet. Covar.
Victor. y Soto. (De Leg. l. iii. c. 3.)</p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="n"></a>(n), p. 294.</p>

<p>Secundo sequitur ex edictis, potestatem civilem,
quoties in uno homine, vel principe reperitur,
legitimo, ac ordinario jure, a populo, et
communitate manasse, vel proxime vel remote,
nec posse aliter haberi, ut justa sit. (Ibid.
cap. 4.)</p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="o"></a>(o), p. 294.</p>

<p>Defensio Fidei Catholicæ et Apostolicæ adversus
Anglicanæ sectæ errores, cum responsione
ad apologiam pro juramento fidelitatis et
præfationem monitoriam serenissimi Jacobi
Angliæ Regis, Authore P. D. Francisco Suario
Gratanensi, e Societate Jesu, Sacræ Theologiæ
in celebri Conimbricensi Academia Primario
Professore, ad serenissimos totius Christiani
orbis Catholicos Reges ac Principes.</p>

<p>Lib. 3. De Primatu Summi Pontificis, cap. 2.
Utrum Principatus politicus sit immediate a
Deo, seu ex divina institutione.</p>

<p>..... In qua rex serenissimus non solum
novo, et singulari modo opinatur, sed etiam
acriter invehitur in Cardinalem Bellarminum,
eo quod asseruerit, non regibus authoritatem a
Deo <em>immediate</em>, perinde ac pontificibus esse<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_490a" id="Page_490a">[Pg 490a]</a></span>
concessam. Asserit ergo ipse, regem non a
populo, sed <em>immediate</em> a Deo suam potestatem
habere; suam vero sententiam quibusdam argumentis,
et exemplis suadere conatur, quorum
efficaciam in sequenti capite expendemus.</p>

<p><em>Sed quamquam controversia hæc ad fidei dogmata
directe non pertineat</em> (<em>nihil enim ex divina
Scriptura, aut Patrum traditione in illa definitum
ostendi potest</em>), nihilominus diligenter tractanda,
et explicanda est. Tum quia potest esse
occasio errandi in aliis dogmatibus; tum etiam
quia prædicta regis sententia, prout ab ipso
asseritur et intenditur, nova et singularis est, et
ad exaggerandam temporalem potestatem, et
spiritualem extenuandam videtur inventa. Tum
denique quia sententiam illustrissimi Bellarmini
<em>antiquam, receptam, veram, ac necessariam
esse censemus</em>.</p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="p"></a>(p), p. 295.</p>

<p>R. P. Hermanni Busembaum Societatis Jesu
Theologia Moralis, nunc pluribus partibus aucta
a R. P. D. Alphonso de Ligorio Rectore majore
congregationis SS. Redemptoris; adjuncta in
calce operis, præter indicem rerum, et verborum
locupletissimum, perutili instructione ad praxim
confessariorium Latine reddita.</p>

<p>Lib. 1, Tract. 2. De legibus, cap. 1. De natura,
et obligatione legis. Dub. 2.</p>

<p>104. Certum est dari in hominibus potestatem
ferendi leges; sed potestas hæc quoad leges
civiles a natura nemini competit, nisi communitati
hominum, et ab hac transfertur in unum,
vel in plures, a quibus communitas regatur.</p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="q"></a>(q), p. 295.</p>

<p>Theologia Christiana Dogmatico-Moralis Auctore
P. F. Daniele Concina ordinis Prædicatorum.
Editio novissima, tomus sextus, de Jure
nat. et gent., &amp;c. Romæ, 1768.</p>

<p>Lib. 1. De Jure natur. et gent., &amp;c. Dissertatio
4, De leg. hum. C. 2.</p>

<p>Summæ potestatis originem a Deo communiter
arcessunt scriptores omnes. Idque declaravit
Salomon, Prov. viii. "Per me reges regnant,
et legum conditores justa decernunt." Et profecto
quemadmodum inferiores principes a
summa majestate, ita summa majestas terrena a
supremo Rege, Dominoque dominantium pendeat
necesse est. Illud in disputationem vocant
tum theologi, tum jurisconsulti, sit ne a Deo
proxime, an tantum remote hæc potestas summa?
Immediate a Deo haberi contendunt
plures, quod ab hominibus neque conjunctim,
neque sigillatim acceptis haberi possit. Omnes
enim patres familias æquales sunt, solaque
œconomica in propias familias potestate fruuntur.
Ergo civilem politicamque potestatem,
qua ipsi carent, conferre aliis nequeunt. Tum
si potestas summa a communitate, tanquam
a superiore, uni, aut pluribus collata esset, revocari
ad nutum ejusdem communitatis posset;
cum superior pro arbitrio retractare communicatam
potestatem valeat; quod in magnum societatis
detrimentum recideret.</p>

<p>Contra disputant alii, et <em>quidem probabilius
ac verius</em>, advertentes omnem quidem potestatem
a Deo esse; sed addunt, non transferri in
particulares homines immediate, sed mediante
societatis civilis consensu. Quod hæc potestas
sit immediate, non in aliquo singulari, sed in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_490b" id="Page_490b">[Pg 490b]</a></span>
tota hominum collectione, docet conceptis verbis
S. Thomas 1. 2. qu. 90. art. 3 ad 2. et qu. 97.
art. 3 ad 3 quem sequuntur Dominicus Soto,
lib. 1. qu. 1. art. 3. Ledesma 2. Part. qu. 18. art.
3. Covarruvias in pract. cap. 1. Ratio evidens
est: quia omnes homines nascuntur liberi,
respectu civilis imperii; ergo nemo in alterum
civili potestate potitur. Neque ergo in singulis,
neque in aliquo determinato potestas hæc
reperitur. Consequitur ergo in tota hominum
collectione eamdem extare. Quæ potestas non
confertur a Deo per aliquam actionem peculiarem
a creatione distinctam; sed est veluti
proprietas ipsam rectam rationem consequens,
quatenus recta ratio præscribit ut homines in
unum moraliter congregati, expresso aut tacito
concensu modum dirigendæ, conservandæ, propugnandæque
societatis præscribant.</p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="r"></a>(r), p. 296.</p>

<p>Hinc infertur, potestatem residentem in principe,
rege, vel in pluribus, aut optimatibus, aut
plebeiis, ab ipsa communitate aut proxime, aut
remote proficisci. Nam potestas hæc a Deo
immediate non est. Id enim nobis constare
peculiari revelatione deberet; quemadmodum
scimus, Saulem et Davidem electos a Deo
fuisse. Ab ipsa ergo communitate dimanet
oportet.</p>

<p>Falsam itaque reputamus opinionem illam
quæ asserit, potestatem hanc immediate et
proxime a Deo conferri regi, principi, et cuique
supremæ potestati, excluso Reipublicæ tacito,
aut expresso consensu. Quamquam lis hæc
verborum potius quam rei est. Nam potestas
hæc a Deo auctore naturæ est, quatenus disposuit,
et ordinavit ut ipsa Respublica pro societatis
conservatione, et defensione, uni, aut pluribus
supremam regiminis potestatem conferret.
Immo facta designatione imperantis, aut imperantium,
potestas hæc a Deo manare dicitur,
quatenus jure naturali, et divino tenetur, societas
ipsa parere imperanti. Quoniam reipsa
Deus ordinavit ut per unum, aut per plures
hominum societas regatur. Et hac via omnia
conciliantur placita: et oracula Scripturarum
vero in sensu exponuntur. Qui resistit potestati,
Dei ordinationi resistit. Et iterum: Non
est potestas nisi a Deo: ad Rom. viii. Et Petrus
Epist. 1, cap. ii. Subjecti igitur estote
omni humanæ creaturæ propter Deum: sive
Regi, &amp;c. Item Joan. xix. Non haberes potestatem
adversum me ullam, nisi tibi datum
esset desuper. Quæ, alia testimonia evincunt,
omnia a Deo, supremo rerum omnium moderatore,
disponi, et ordinari. At non propterea
humana consilia, et operationes excluduntur;
ut sapienter interpretantur S. Augustinus tract.
6, in Joan. et lib. 22. cont. Faustum, cap. 47,
et S. Joannes Chrysostomus Hom. 23, in Epist.
ad Rom.</p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="s"></a>(s), p. 296.</p>

<p>Quinam possint ferre leges? Dico 1. Potestas
legislativa competit communitati vel illi,
qui curam communitatis gerit. (Ibid. art. 3. 0.)</p>

<p>Prob. 1. Ex Isidoro L. 5. Etymol. C. 10 et
refertur C. Lex, Dist. 4. ubi dicit: Lex est constitutio
populi, secundum quam majores natu
simul cum plebibus aliquid sanxerunt. (Ibid.
in art. 1. 0.)</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_491a" id="Page_491a">[Pg 491a]</a></span></p>

<p>Prob. 1. Ratione. (Ibid. 0.) Illius est condere
legem, cujus est prospicere bono communi;
quia, ut dictum est, leges feruntur propter bonum
commune: atqui est communis, vel illius,
cui curam communitatis habet, prospicere bono
communi: sicut enim bonum particulare est
finis proportionatus agenti particulari, ita bonum
commune est finis proportionatus communitati,
vel ejus vices gerenti; ergo. Confirmatur:
(Ibid. ad 2.) lex habet vim imperandi et
coercendi; atqui nemo privatus habet vim imperandi
multitudini et eam coercendi, sed sola
ipsa multitudo, vel ejus Rector: Ergo. (Tract.
de Legi. Art. 4.)</p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="t"></a>(t), p. 296.</p>

<p>Dices: Superioris est imperare et coercere;
atqui communitas non est sibi superior: Ergo
R. D. Min. Communitas, sub eodem respectu
considerata, non est sibi superior, C. Sub diverso
respectu, N. Potest itaque communitas
considerari collective, per modum unius corporis
moralis, et sic considerata est superior sibi
consideratæ distributive in singulis membris.
Item potest considerari vel ut gerit vices Dei, a
quo omnis potestas legislativa descendit, juxta
illud Proverb. Per me reges regnant, et legum
conditores justa decernunt; vel ut est gubernabilis
in ordine ad bonum commune: primo
modo considerata est superior et legislativa;
secundo modo considerata est inferior et legis
susceptiva.</p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="u"></a>(u), p. 297.</p>

<p>Quod ut clarius percipiatur, observandum
est hominem inter animalia nasci maxime destitutum
pluribus tum corporis cum animæ necessariis,
pro quibus indiget aliorum consortio
et adjutorio, consequenter eum ipsapte natura
nasci animal sociale: societas autem quam
natura, naturalisve ratio dictat ipsi necessariam,
diu subsistere non potest, nisi aliqua publica
potestate gubernetur; juxta illud Proverb. Ubi
non est gubernator, populus corruet. Ex quo
sequitur, quod Deus, qui dedit talem naturam,
simul ei dederit potestatem gubernativam et
legislativam, qui enim dat formam, dat etiam
ea, quæ hæc forma necessario exigit. Verum,
quia hæc potestas gubernativa et legislativa
non potest exerceri a tota multitudine; difficile
namque foret, omnes et singulos simul convenire
toties quoties providendum est de necessariis
bono communi, et de legibus ferendis; ideo
solet multitudo transferre suum jus seu potestatem
gubernativam, vel in aliquos de populo ex
omni conditione, et dicitur Democratia; vel in
paucos optimates, et dicitur Aristocratia; vel in
unum tantum, sive pro se solo, sive pro successoribus
jure hæreditario, et dicitur Monarchia.
Ex quo sequitur, omnem potestatem esse a Deo,
ut dicit Apost. Rom. xiii. immediate quidem et
jure naturæ in communitate, mediate autem
tantum et jure humano in Regibus et aliis
Rectoribus: nisi Deus ipse immediate aliquibus<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_491b" id="Page_491b">[Pg 491b]</a></span>
hanc potestatem conferat, ut contulit Moysi in
populum Israel, et Christus SS. Pontifici in totam
Ecclesiam.</p>

<p><em>Hanc potestatem legislativam</em> in Christianos,
<em>maxime justos, non agnoscunt, Lutherani et Calvinistæ,
secuti in hoc Valdenses, Wicleffum, et
Joan. Hus damnatos in Conc. Constant. sess. 6.
can. 15. Et quamvis Joannes Hus eam agnosceret
in principibus bonis, eam tamen denegabat
malis, pariter ideo damnatus in eodem
Concil. sess. 8.</em></p>


<p class="noteh"><span class="smcap">Note</span> <a id="x"></a>(x), p. 297.</p>

<p>Compendium Salmatic. authore R. P. F. R.
Antonio a S. Joseph olim Lectore, priore ac examinatore
Synodali in suo collegio Burgensi,
nunc procuratore generali in Romana Curia pro
Carmelitarum Discalceatorum Hispanica Congregatione.
Romæ, 1779. Superiorum permissu.
Tractatus 3, De Legibus, cap. 2. De
potestate ferendi leges.</p>

<p>Punctum 1. De potestate legislativa civili.</p>

<p>Inq. 1. An detur in hominibus potestas condendi
leges civiles? R. Affirm. constat ex illo
Prov. viii. Per me reges regnant, et legum conditores
justa decernunt. Idem patet ex Apost.
ad Rom. xiii. et tanquam de fide est definitum
in Conc. Const. sess. 8, et ultima. Prob. ration.
quia ad conservationem boni communis requiritur
publica potestas, qua communitas gubernetur:
nam ubi non est gubernator, corruet populus,
sed nequid gubernator communitatem nisi
mediis legibus gubernare: ergo certum est dari
in hominibus potestatem condendi leges, quibus
populus possit gubernari. Ita D. Th. lib. i. de
regim. princip. c. 1 et 2.</p>

<p>Inq. 2. An potestas legislativa civilis conveniat
principi immediate a Deo? R. omnes asserunt
dictam potestatem habere principes a Deo.
Verius tamen dicitur, non <em>immediate</em> sed <em>mediante</em>
populi consensu illam eos a Deo recipere.
Nam omnes homines sunt in natura æquales,
nec unus est superior, nec alius inferior ex natura,
nulli enim dedit natura supra alterum
potestatem, sed hæc a Deo data est hominum
communitati, quæ judicans rectius fore gubernandum
per unam vel per plures personas
determinatas, suam transtulit potestatem in
unam, vel plures, a quibus regeretur, ut ait D.
Th. 1. 2. q. 90. a. 3. ad. 2.</p>

<p>Ex hoc naturali principio oritur discrimen
regiminis civilis. Nam si Respublica transtulit
omnem suam potestatem in unum solum, appellatur
Regimen Monarchicum; si illam contulit
Optimatibus populi, nuncupatur Regimen Aristocraticum;
si vero populus, aut Respublica
sibi retineat talem potestatem, dicitur Regimen
Democraticum. Habent igitur Principes regendi
potestatem a Deo, quia supposita electione
a Republica facta, Deus illam potestatem,
quæ in communitate erat, Principi confert.
Unde ipse nomine Dei regit, et gubernat, et qui
illi resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit, ut dicit
Apost. loco supra laudato.</p>

<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_492" id="Page_492">[Pg 492]</a><br /><a name="Page_493a" id="Page_493a">[Pg 493a]</a></span></p>




<h2><a name="INDEX" id="INDEX">INDEX.</a></h2>

<div class="index">
<ul class="index">
<li class="ifrst">Abbon, a monk&mdash;his poem on the siege of Paris, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Abelard, account of, <a href='#Page_401'>401</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">error of M. Guizot with regard to him, <a href='#Page_402'>402</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">document proving this, <a href='#Page_486'>486</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Abuses, checked by the Church, <a href='#Page_422'>422</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Adhemar, his chronicle, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Adon, Archbishop of Vienne&mdash;his work on universal history, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Adrian (Pope) protects the marriages of slaves, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his doctrine on the right of slaves to marry, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Agde, Councils of, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">ibid. decree against those who refused to be reconciled, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Aix-la-Chapelle, Council of, enjoins bishops to found hospitals to contain all the poor that their revenues can support, <a href='#Page_188'>188</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Albigenses described, <a href='#Page_252'>252</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Alphonsus (of Ligouri), on power of making laws, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Amat (Don Felix), his false political theory, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">ibid. on resistance to government, <a href='#Page_471'>471</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Ambrose (St.), conduct of towards the Emperor Theodosius, <a href='#Page_178'>178</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">sells the sacred vessels to redeem slaves, <a href='#Page_432'>432</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Anabaptists, excesses committed by, in Germany in the <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>th century, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Angers, Council of, its decree against acts of violence, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Anselm (St.), writings of, <a href='#Page_403'>403</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">ibid. on St. Paul to the Romans, <a href='#Page_459'>459</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">extracts from, showing his way of viewing religious matters, <a href='#Page_485'>485</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">intellectual movement in the Church within the limits of faith, <a href='#Page_486'>486</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">he anticipates Descartes' demonstration of the existence of a God, <a href='#Page_485'>485</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Arabians, their civilization described, <a href='#Page_237'>237</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">probability that they were indebted to the eastern monasteries for much of their knowledge, <a href='#Page_237'>237</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">the connexion between their science and that of antiquity may yet be found, <a href='#Page_237'>237</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Arbogen, Council of, forbids church burial to be given to pirates, ravishers, &amp;c., <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Aristocracy in the <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>th century, consisted of the nobles and clergy, <a href='#Page_348'>348</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">differences between them, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">intermediate class between the throne and the people, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Aristotle, immoral doctrine of, <a href='#Page_443'>443</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his views on public education, <a href='#Page_443'>443</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his absurd interference of the State in domestic matters, <a href='#Page_443'>443</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his doctrines reformed by Christianity, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Arles, Council of, its decree against feuds, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Armagh, Council of, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">ibid. frees all the English slaves, <a href='#Page_437'>437</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Association, a favorite principle of Catholicity, <a href='#Page_189'>189</a>.</li>

<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_493b" id="Page_493b">[Pg 493b]</a></span>Atheism, tendency towards, in the <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>th century, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Augustin (St.), his description of paganism, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his noble sentiments on slavery, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">remarkable passages from, on political forms, <a href='#Page_390'>390</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">on the name Catholic being given to the true Church only, <a href='#Page_422'>422</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Author, declaration of, <a href='#Page_419'>419</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Authority in religion, tendency towards, in the <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>th century, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Avignon, Council of, its decree in favor of the truce of God, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Aymon (of Aquitaine), writes the history of the French, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Barbarians, those who invaded the Roman Empire described, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their real condition, <a href='#Page_444'>444</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their laws and manners, <a href='#Page_447'>447</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Barcelona, councillors of, their bold language to the king of Spain, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its trades-associations described by Capmany, <a href='#Page_477'>477</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Bayle, dictionary of, described, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>; its effects, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Bellarmine, doctrine of, on the divine law, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">on the civil power, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">on the distinction between political and ecclesiastical power, <a href='#Page_293'>293</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">vindication of, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Benedict (St.), described, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his monastic institute, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Beneficence, public, unknown to the ancients, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">was the work of Christianity, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">it required permanent institutions, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">they were conceived and founded by the Church, <a href='#Page_185'>185</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">institutions of, founded by Catholicity, <a href='#Page_185'>185</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">they require the support of Christian charity, <a href='#Page_189'>189</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Bernard (St.), observations on, <a href='#Page_409'>409</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Beza, evidence of, against Protestantism, <a href='#Page_423'>423</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Bible, why forbidden in the vulgar tongue in Spain, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Bible Societies, effects of, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Billuart, F., on the right of making laws, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">on the origin of society and the civil power, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Bishops, slaves of, set free at their death by decree of Council, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Bonald, on the Esprit des Lois, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his doctrines, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Boneuil, Council of, described, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Bossuet, his negotiations with Leibnitz to re-unite the Churches, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">school of, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his Universal History the first great work on the philosophy of history, <a href='#Page_418'>418</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Brentzen, testimony of, to the incredulity prevailing among the early reformers, <a href='#Page_429'>429</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Brescia, Arnauld of, troubles excited by, <a href='#Page_251'>251</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Bruis (Pierre de), his iconoclastic fanaticism, <a href='#Page_251'>251</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Buchanan, his remark on the degradation of women wherever Christianity does not prevail, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>.</li>

<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_494a" id="Page_494a">[Pg494a]</a></span>Bull-fights, those of Spain discussed, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Busenbaum, on the power of making laws, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Bull (Cœna Domini) containing an excommunication against those who levy excessive taxes, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Cæsar (J.), on the manners of the Germans and Britons, <a href='#Page_153'>153</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Calmet, on St. Paul to the Romans, <a href='#Page_461'>461</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Calvin, intolerance of, <a href='#Page_421'>421</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his vulgar abuse, <a href='#Page_421'>421</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">evidence of, in favor of the Pope, <a href='#Page_423'>423</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Calvinism, as connected with democracy, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Capmany on the trades-corporations of Barcelona, <a href='#Page_477'>477</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Carranza, trial of, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its duration, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">carried to Rome, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his dying declaration, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">conduct of Philip II. towards him, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">causes of his trial, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">nature of his writings, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his reason why the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue were forbidden in Spain, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Cassian, his account of the origin of religious institutions, <a href='#Page_223'>223</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Cathari, the, described, <a href='#Page_251'>251</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Catholicity, its doctrines always the same, <a href='#Page_65'>65</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its past services to society, and what may be expected from it for the future, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its progress in several countries of Europe, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">not opposed to the true spirit of liberty, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its effects on European civilization, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">was strong in the west and weak in the east, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">importance of the unity produced by it for the safety of Europe amid perils, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">degraded condition of society when it appeared, <a href='#Page_90'>90</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">not opposed to the feeling of individuality, but promotes it, <a href='#Page_131'>131</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">the elevation of woman due to it alo ne, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a>, <a href='#Page_155'>155</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">places women on an equality with men, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">mistake of its opponents, <a href='#Page_149'>149</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its institutions falsely assailed by Protestants and philosophers, <a href='#Page_147'>147</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its exertion in favor of beneficence impeded by Protestantism, which compelled it to stand on its defence, <a href='#Page_188'>188</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">unfairly treated with regard to tolerance, <a href='#Page_190'>190</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its doctrine with respect to errors of the mind, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">was the work of God, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its fertility in resources, <a href='#Page_257'>257</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its charity, <a href='#Page_257'>257</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its true doctrines with regard to the civil power, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its relations with the people, <a href='#Page_353'>353</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its relations with liberty, <a href='#Page_357'>357</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its effects on the development of the intellect, <a href='#Page_392'>392</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">effects of its principle of submission to authority, <a href='#Page_393'>393</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">effects of the same on the sciences, <a href='#Page_393'>393</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">ancient and modern philosophy compared with it, <a href='#Page_395'>395</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its morality, <a href='#Page_397'>397</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its revealed dogmas, <a href='#Page_397'>397</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">is not opposed to true philosophy, <a href='#Page_397'>397</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">compared with Protestantism with respect to learning, universities, &amp;c., <a href='#Page_412'>412</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its unity and concert, <a href='#Page_423'>423</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its services against slavery.&mdash;(See <i>Slavery</i>.)</li>

<li class="indx">Celchite, Council of, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Celibacy, influence of that of the clergy in preventing an hereditary succession, according to Guizot, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">what would have happened without it, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Censors, among the ancients, they took the place of religious authority, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Chalons, Council of, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Chalons-sur-Saone, Council of, excommunicates those who fight within the precincts of churches, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Chanoinesses, enjoined by the Council of Aix to keep an hospital for poor women, <a href='#Page_188'>188</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Charity, its effects on toleration, <a href='#Page_192'>192</a>.</li>

<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_494b" id="Page_494b">[Pg 494b]</a></span>Charles V., why released from his oath by the Pope, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Chateaubriand, writings of, described, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">describes Zachary as selling himself as a slave to buy the liberty of a husband for his wife and children, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">extract from, on the effects of Catholicity and Protestantism, <a href='#Page_415'>415</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Chivalry, its relations with women, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">did not elevate them, but found them elevated by Christianity, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Christ, all his miracles beneficent, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his whole life spent in doing good, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Christians, the early, their constancy in martyrdom, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">they seek asylums for retirement and prayer in the deserts, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Christianity, effects of, on society, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">effects produced by its appearance, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">opposes slavery, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">could not endure the savage heroism of the Romans, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">development of the moral life by means of, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">was unknown to the ancients, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">the effects which would have followed from the loss of its influence on Europe, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">ideas of some modern philosophers with regard to it, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">how it is embodied in Catholicity, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its progress in the early ages described, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its effects on the invading barbarians, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Church, the Catholic, services of, to society, in combating the fatalist doctrines of the Reformation, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">her opposition to slavery, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">she protects the freedom of newly emancipated slaves, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">consecrates manumission by having it performed in the churches, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">protects slaves recommended to her by will, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">allows her sacred vessels to be sold to redeem slaves, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">gives letters of recommendation to emancipated slaves, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">causes tending to promote slavery with which she had to contend, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">she makes a law enabling those who had been compelled to sell themselves as slaves to recover their liberty by paying back the price, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">she allows her ministers to give their liberty to slaves belonging to her, while she forbids other property to be alienated, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">summary of her measures for the abolition of slavery, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a>&mdash;(see <i>Councils</i>);</li>
<li class="isub1">its abolition due to her alone, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">reforms marriage, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">preserves its sanctity, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">great evils thereby prevented, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">her unity in doctrines and fixity in conduct not inconsistent with progress, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">her struggles with the corrupted Romans and savage barbarians, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">decrees of her Councils against animosities, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">her persevering efforts, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">treats kings and great men as severely as the lowly, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">her boldness in checking the crimes of kings, <a href='#Page_178'>178</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">her interference in civil affairs of old justified by the circumstances of the times, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">her Councils protect the weak&mdash;viz. clergy, monks, women, merchants and pilgrims&mdash;against the strong, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">her exertions in favor of the vanquished in war, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">she preserves unity of faith, and founds institutions for doing good, <a href='#Page_185'>185</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">what she would have done for the cure of pauperism if the Reformation had not plunged Europe into revolutions and reactions, <a href='#Page_188'>188</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">encourages the aristocracy of talent, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">service which she did to the human mind by opposing the spirit of subtlety of the innovators, <a href='#Page_407'>407</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">her interference in the management of hospitals, <a href='#Page_449'>449</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Churches, the Protestant, only the instruments of the civil power, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a>.</li>

<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_495a" id="Page_495a">[Pg 495a]</a></span>Cicero, on the necessity of religion to the State, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Civilization, that of Europe during the <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>th century not owing to Protestantism, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">characteristics of that of modern Europe described, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">compared with ancient and modern non-Christian civilization, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its superiority owing to Catholicity, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">may be reduced to three elements&mdash;the individual, the family, and society, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its universal progress impeded, and unity broken, by Protestantism, <a href='#Page_260'>260</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Clement, St. (Pope), passage from, on Christians selling themselves as slaves to redeem their brethren, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Clergy, the effects on society of their power and influence, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">fatal effects of the diminution of their political influence in the <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>th century, <a href='#Page_370'>370</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">advantages which might have resulted from it to popular institutions, <a href='#Page_373'>373</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their relations with all the powers and classes of society, <a href='#Page_373'>373</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Clermont, Council of, its decree in favor of the truce of God, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Coblentz, Council of, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Concina (P.), on the origin of power, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">how it exists in governments, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Conduct, firmness of, its powerful effects in the world, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Conscience, the public, described, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">that of Europe contrasted with that of ancient times, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">how influenced by the Church, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">both illustrated by the story of Scipio, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">the former was formed by Catholicity alone, <a href='#Page_166'>166</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Conscience, the individual, described, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Constance, Council of, its doctrine on the murder of kings, <a href='#Page_336'>336</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Cornelius a Lapide, on St. Paul to the Romans, <a href='#Page_460'>460</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Cortes, severe measures of that of Toledo against the Jews, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">decline of, in Spain, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Cottereaux, excesses of, <a href='#Page_252'>252</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Councils of the Church, their influence on political laws and customs, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">canons of, which improve the condition of slaves, <a href='#Page_430'>430</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">check all attempts against the liberty of the enfranchised slaves of the Church, or who had been recommended to her by will, <a href='#Page_431'>431</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">undertake that the Church will defend the liberty and property of the freed who have been recommended to her, <a href='#Page_431'>431</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">make the redemption of captives the first care of the Church, and give their interests precedence over her own, <a href='#Page_432'>432</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">excommunicate those who attempt to reduce men into slavery, <a href='#Page_433'>433</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">declare those who make Christians slaves to be guilty of homicide, <a href='#Page_434'>434</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">ordain that those who have sold themselves as slaves shall recover their liberty by repaying the price, <a href='#Page_434'>434</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">protect the slaves belonging to Jews, <a href='#Page_434'>434</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">provide means for their becoming free, <a href='#Page_434'>434</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">forbid Jews to acquire new Christian slaves, <a href='#Page_435'>435</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">ordain that if a master gives meat to a slave on a fasting day, the latter becomes free, <a href='#Page_435'>435</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">forbid Jews to hold Christian slaves at all, <a href='#Page_435'>435</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">forbid Christian slaves to be sold to Jews or pagans, <a href='#Page_435'>435</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">or to be sold out of the kingdom of Clovis, <a href='#Page_436'>436</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">severely condemn clerics who sell their slaves to Jews, <a href='#Page_436'>436</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">command bishops to respect the liberty of those freed by their predecessors, <a href='#Page_436'>436</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">they mention the power given to bishops to free deserving slaves, and fix the sum which they may give them to live on, <a href='#Page_436'>436</a>;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_495b" id="Page_495b">[Pg 495b]</a></span></li>
<li class="isub1">exempt them from the general rule, that alienations made by bishops who leave nothing of their own must be restored, <a href='#Page_436'>436</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">ordain that when a bishop dies, all his slaves shall be set at liberty, and that at the funeral each bishop or abbot may set three slaves free, giving them three solidi each, <a href='#Page_436'>436</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">free all the English slaves in Ireland, <a href='#Page_437'>437</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">forbid slaves of the Church to be exchanged for others, <a href='#Page_437'>437</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">grant liberty to slaves who wish to embrace the monastic life, with proper precautions to prevent abuses, <a href='#Page_437'>437</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">check the abuse of ordaining slaves without the consent of their masters, <a href='#Page_437'>437</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">allow parish priests to select some clerics from the slaves of the Church, <a href='#Page_438'>438</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">allow slaves to be ordained, having been first freed, <a href='#Page_438'>438</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Crusades vindicated, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Cyprian (St.), on the redemption of captives, <a href='#Page_432'>432</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">De Maistre on the word "catholic," <a href='#Page_422'>422</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">on general Councils, <a href='#Page_480'>480</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">compares the conduct of the Popes with that of other rulers, <a href='#Page_484'>484</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Democrats, difference between ancient and modern, <a href='#Page_130'>130</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Democracy, its alliance with kings against the aristocracy, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">notion formed of, in the <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>th century, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">two kinds of, <a href='#Page_364'>364</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their progress in the history of Europe, <a href='#Page_365'>365</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their characters, <a href='#Page_366'>366</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their causes and effects, <a href='#Page_366'>366</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">historical facts with regard to, in France, England, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany, <a href='#Page_367'>367</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Descartes, his demonstration of the existence of God anticipated by St. Anselm, <a href='#Page_486'>486</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Divorce, consequences of the facility of, in Germany, according to M. de Staël, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Divines, spirit of the writings of the old Catholic, compared with that of modern writers, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Doctrines, their effects on society, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">those prevalent in the <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>th century with regard to democracy, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">those prevalent in political matters in Europe before the appearance of Protestantism compared with those of the school of the <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>th century and those of modern publicists, <a href='#Page_374'>374</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Dominicans, their exertions in favor of the native Americans, as stated by Robertson, <a href='#Page_441'>441</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">East, the, injury caused there by breaking unity in religion, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Elvira, Council of, its decree in favor of slaves, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">England, policy of, towards Spain, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Eon, his fanatical delusion, <a href='#Page_251'>251</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Epaone, Council of, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Erigena, account of, <a href='#Page_400'>400</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Errors, those of the mind not always innocent, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Error described, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Europe, characteristics of her civilization, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">condition of, in the <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>th century, <a href='#Page_245'>245</a> et seq.;</li>
<li class="isub1">singular contrasts therein, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">struggle between barbarism and Christianity there, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">instances of great and good principles sometimes abused in practice, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">barbarism therein improved by religion, and religion disfigured by barbarism, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">effects of the crusades, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">increasing power of the commonalty, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">decline of the feudal system, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">power of great ideas, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">critical epochs, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a>;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_496a" id="Page_496a">[Pg 496a]</a></span></li>
<li class="isub1">great agitation prevailing, and horrible doctrines spread, among the people at that time, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a>
&mdash;(see <i>Tanchème</i>, <i>Eon</i>, <i>Cathari</i>, <i>Vaudois</i>, <i>Albigenses</i>);</li>
<li class="isub1">what she would have done for civilization if she had not been impeded by Protestantism, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">her condition when it appeared, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">great increase of power and development of mind, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">divisions occasioned by it, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">the nations thereof require religious institutions for organizing beneficence and education on a large scale, <a href='#Page_277'>277</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">state of, at the end of the <a href='#Page_15'>15</a>th century, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">social movement at that time, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its causes, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its effects and object, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">development of the industrial classes there, <a href='#Page_354'>354</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">this took place under the influence of Catholicity alone, <a href='#Page_385'>385</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">picture of, from the <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>th century to the <a href='#Page_14'>14</a>th, <a href='#Page_382'>382</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">religion and the human mind there, <a href='#Page_404'>404</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">intellectual condition of the nations of modern, distinguished from that of those of antiquity, <a href='#Page_405'>405</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">causes which have accelerated it among the former, <a href='#Page_406'>406</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Eximeno, letter of, on the sciences, <a href='#Page_425'>425</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Facts, consummated, how they are to be treated, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Faith, unity of, not adverse to political liberty, <a href='#Page_388'>388</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Forms, political, their value, <a href='#Page_357'>357</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Francis I. (of France), his opinion on the necessity of expelling the Moors from Spain, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Francis, St. (de Sales), his list of titles given to the Popes, <a href='#Page_423'>423</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Franks, their custom of going armed to church forbidden by Councils, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Free-will, its denial discarded by Protestants themselves, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its effects, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its noble results, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">supported by Catholicity against the Reformation, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Gambling, passion of, described, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Games, public, those of the Romans prohibited by the Christian Church, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Gerbet (l'Abbé), his excellent refutation of Lammenais' doctrines, <a href='#Page_338'>338</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Germans, manners of the ancient, described by Tacitus, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a>; why embellished by him, <a href='#Page_153'>153</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">are but little known to us, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their struggles with the Romans, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Gibbon, testimony of, to the merits of Bossuet's History of the Variations, <a href='#Page_421'>421</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Gilles (St.), Council of, its decree in favor of the truce of God, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Gironne, Council of, in favor of the truce of God, <a href='#Page_180'>180</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Glaber (Monk), of Cluny, his history of France, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Gotti (Cardinal), doctrines of, on the origin of power, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Gouget (l'Abbé), on Catholic Hebrew studies, <a href='#Page_413'>413</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Government, three principles of&mdash;monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Governments, revolutionary ones are cruel in self-defence, not being based on right, <a href='#Page_128'>128</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">right of resistance to <i lang="la">de facto</i> ones, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">falsehood of the theory which imposes the obligation of obeying them merely as such <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">difficulties on this point explained, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Grace, effects of the Catholic doctrine of, <a href='#Page_234'>234</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Gratian, merit of his literary labors, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Gregory (Pope), passage from, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">frees two slaves of the Roman Church, <a href='#Page_436'>436</a>;</li>
<li class="indx">his reason why Christians liberated their slaves, <a href='#Page_436'>436</a>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_496b" id="Page_496b">[Pg 496b]</a></span></li>

<li class="indx">Gregory III. (Pope), on selling slaves to the pagans for sacrifice, <a href='#Page_435'>435</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Gregory IX. (Pope), his decretals on slavery, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">against the hereditary succession of the clergy, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Gregory XVI. (Pope), his apostolic letters against the slave trade, <a href='#Page_438'>438</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Grotius, his servile doctrine on the civil power, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his evidence in favor of Catholicity, <a href='#Page_424'>424</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Gruet, his incredulity and execution, <a href='#Page_429'>429</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Guibert, historical labors of, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Guizot, on the effects of the Church upon slavery, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his doctrine of the personal independence of individuals among the barbarians stated and discussed, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">true theory thereon, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">incoherence of his own doctrines, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">cause of his error, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his acknowledgment with regard to the reformation and liberty, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">extract from, shewing that the clergy were not a caste, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">an opinion of, refuted, <a href='#Page_399'>399</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">extract from, shewing the immense superiority of the Church to the barbarians in legislation, <a href='#Page_447'>447</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">documents shewing his error with respect to Abelard, <a href='#Page_486'>486</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Hacket, fanaticism of, <a href='#Page_427'>427</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Harlem, Mathias, mad fanaticism of, <a href='#Page_426'>426</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Heresy, held a sin by the Catholic Church, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Heretics, characteristics of those of the early ages, <a href='#Page_425'>425</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Herman, preaches the murder of all priests and magistrates, <a href='#Page_426'>426</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Hermandad, charter of, between the kingdoms of Leon and Castile, for the preservation of their liberties, <a href='#Page_475'>475</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">History, difficulties in its study, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">necessity&nbsp; of taking into account times and circumstances of events therein, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Hobbes, his false theory of society, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his&nbsp; servile doctrine, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Honor, principle of, in monarchies, according to Montesquieu, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Horace, on the origin of society, <a href='#Page_462'>462</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Hospitals, destroyed by Henry VIII. in England, <a href='#Page_185'>185</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">Catholic bishops the protectors and inspectors of, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">laws made respecting them by the Church, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">attached to monasteries and colleges in the middle ages, <a href='#Page_449'>449</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">superintended by the bishops, <a href='#Page_449'>449</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their property protected by being considered as belonging to the Church, <a href='#Page_449'>449</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Hugh of St. Victor, historical labors of, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Humility, its effects with regard to toleration, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Ideas, irreligious ones cannot be confined to theory, but enter on the field of practice, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">destroy themselves, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">power of, <a href='#Page_169'>169</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">they are divided into those that flatter the passions, and those that check them, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">they require an institution to preserve and enforce them, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">how they became corrupted among mankind before Christianity, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">how effected by the press, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their natural progress, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their rapid succession in modern times, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Impiety allies itself with liberty or despotism to suit its purpose, <a href='#Page_388'>388</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Incredulity in Europe the fruit of Protestantism, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>;</li>
<li class="indx">spirit of, has lost much of its strength, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_497a" id="Page_497a">[Pg 497a]</a></span></li>

<li class="indx">Independence, personal, feeling of, existed among the Greeks and Romans, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Indifference, religious, in Europe, the fruit of Protestantism, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Individual, the, how absorbed by the state among the ancients, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">fatal effects of the complete annihilation of the feelings of respect for, in society, <a href='#Page_129'>129</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">witnessed among nations not Christians, <a href='#Page_129'>129</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Individuals, how the freedom of, was fettered among the ancient republics, <a href='#Page_130'>130</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">every thing ruled by the state, <a href='#Page_130'>130</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Inquisition, the, misrepresentations with regard to that of Spain, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its duration may be divided into three periods, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">appeals from it to Rome, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">indulgence of the latter, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">interference of the Popes to soften the rigours of, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">mildness of that of Rome, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">no case of capital sentence pronounced by it, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">rigours of that of Spain in the time of Philip II. caused by the Protestants themselves, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">compels a preacher to retract who, in the presence of Philip II., had maintained that kings have absolute power over their subjects, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">became milder with the spirit of the age, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">remarks thereon, <a href='#Page_452'>452</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">appellants to Rome from, forbidden to return to Spain under pain of death by pragmatic sanction of Ferdinand and Isabella, <a href='#Page_454'>454</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">how affected by the policy of the Spanish kings, <a href='#Page_455'>455</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">the latter earnestly endeavoured to have the judgment in Spain made final, without appeal, which the Popes refused, <a href='#Page_455'>455</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">affected impartiality of writers with regard to it, <a href='#Page_455'>455</a>.</li>
<li class="isub1">See <i>Perez</i>, <i>Puigblanch</i>, <i>Villanueva</i>, <i>Llorente</i>, and <i>Jomtob</i>.</li>

<li class="indx">Institutions, religious, opposed by Protestantism and philosophers, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their importance and connexion with religion herself, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">have survived the attempts made to destroy them, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their nature described, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their object, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">are perfectly conformable to the spirit of the Christian religion, <a href='#Page_223'>223</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their commencement, according to Cassian, <a href='#Page_223'>223</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">have always existed in the Church from the time of Constantine, <a href='#Page_223'>223</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">conduct of the Popes towards them, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their accordance with the Gospel precepts, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their effects on the human mind, <a href='#Page_226'>226</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their services and necessity, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their necessity for the salvation of society, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">not inconsistent with the improvements of modern times, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">historical view of them, <a href='#Page_458'>458</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1"><i lang="fr">coup d'œil</i> at their origin and development, <a href='#Page_458'>458</a>-9.</li>

<li class="indx">Institutions, free, injured by Protestantism, <a href='#Page_363'>363</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Institutions, their study, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">necessity of understanding the times when they existed, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Intellect, the, its development, how affected by Catholicity, <a href='#Page_392'>392</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">influence thereof upon, historically examined, <a href='#Page_393'>393</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its relations with religion, <a href='#Page_404'>404</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its development among the nations of Europe different from that of those of antiquity, <a href='#Page_405'>405</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">causes that have hastened its development in Europe, <a href='#Page_405'>405</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">origin of the spirit of subtlety, <a href='#Page_406'>406</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">service rendered to it by the Church in opposing the subtleties of the innovators, <a href='#Page_403'>403</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its progress from the eleventh century to our times, <a href='#Page_412'>412</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">different phases, <a href='#Page_412'>412</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Intolerance, that of some irreligious men, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">of the Romans, <a href='#Page_196'>196</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">of the pagan emperors, <a href='#Page_196'>196</a>;</li>
<li class="indx">has continued from the establishment of Christianity by the state, in various forms, down to the present time, <a href='#Page_196'>196</a>;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_497b" id="Page_497b">[Pg 497b]</a></span></li>
<li class="isub1">recent instances of it, <a href='#Page_196'>196</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">case of France examined, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">doctrine which condemns all intolerance with regard to doctrines and actions discussed and refuted, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">consequences which would flow from it, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">would produce impunity for crimes, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">civil and religious, distinguished, <a href='#Page_450'>450</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">mistaken by Rousseau, <a href='#Page_450'>450</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its existence in ancient and modern times held by some Protestants, <a href='#Page_451'>451</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Irreligion, spirit of, has lost much of its strength, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Isabella, part taken by, in the establishment of the Inquisition in Spain, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Jansenists, the, described, <a href='#Page_62'>62</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Jerome, (St.), on the name Catholic not being given to heretics, <a href='#Page_422'>422</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Jesuits, importance of, in the history of civilization, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their eminent services, <a href='#Page_269'>269</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">error and contradiction of M. Guizot in their regard, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">false charges against, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Jews, the slaves of, protected by decrees of Councils, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">struggle between truth and error among, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">how the truth was preserved, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their avarice, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">popular hatred against, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">atrocities charged against them by the people, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">pragmatic sanction of Ferdinand and Isabella with regard to, <a href='#Page_454'>454</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">law of Philip II. against, <a href='#Page_455'>455</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">John de Ste. Marie, extracts from, on Christian politics, <a href='#Page_463'>463</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Jomtob, Nathaniel, his work called <i>The Inquisition Unveiled</i>, <a href='#Page_456'>456</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his prejudice and vulgar abuse, <a href='#Page_456'>456</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Judaizers pursued by the Inquisition, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Justin, on martyrdom, <a href='#Page_132'>132</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his <i>Apology</i>, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Justinian gives bishops the control of hospitals, <a href='#Page_450'>450</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Kings, inviolability of, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">greatest increase of the power of, in Europe, dates from the appearance of Protestantism, <a href='#Page_363'>363</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Knowledge, state of, when Christianity appeared, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">sterility of, in creating social institutions, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Laborers, protected by the Council of Rheims, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Lacordaire (l'Abbé) on the Spanish Inquisition, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Lamennais (l'Abbé), his attempt to ally Catholicity with extreme democracy, <a href='#Page_131'>131</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his doctrines on government compared with those of St. Thomas, <a href='#Page_338'>338</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Las Casas, exertions of, in favor of the native Americans related by Robertson, <a href='#Page_442'>442</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Lateran, general Council of, confirms the truce of God, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">eleventh general Council of, forbids the maltreatment of monks, clergy, pilgrims, merchants, peasants, and the shipwrecked, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Law, the divine, false interpretation of, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">St. John Chrysostom on, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">according to Bellarmine, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a>.</li>
<li class="isub1">&mdash;See <i>St. Thomas</i>, <i>Suarez</i>, <i>Gotti</i>, <i>Busenbaum</i>, <i>Liguori</i>, <i>Billuart</i>, <i>and the Compendium Salmaticense</i>.</li>

<li class="indx">Law.&mdash;See <i>St. Thomas</i>.</li>

<li class="indx">League, the Hanseatic, described, <a href='#Page_354'>354</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Legislation, that of Rome described, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">was probably influenced by Christianity, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Leibnitz, his negotiations with Bossuet to re-unite the Churches, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>;</li>
<li class="indx">his theological system contains the chief dogmas of Catholicity, <a href='#Page_424'>424</a>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_498a" id="Page_498a">[Pg 498a]</a></span></li>

<li class="indx">Lepers, ordered to be maintained at the expense of the Church, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Lerida, Council of, excludes those at variance from the body and blood of Christ, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">decrees seven years' penance against infanticide, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Leyden, John of, his excesses at Munster, <a href='#Page_426'>426</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Liberty, a word ill understood, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">examples of, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">how limited, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">Catholicity favorable to its true spirit, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">true nature of, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">according to Catholic doctors, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">political freedom owes nothing to Protestantism, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">Catholicity favorable to it, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">why it has fallen into bad repute with some, <a href='#Page_362'>362</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">considered in relation to religious intolerance, <a href='#Page_382'>382</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">cannot subsist without morality, <a href='#Page_389'>389</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">remarkable passage from Augustin on the subject, <a href='#Page_390'>390</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Lillebonne, Council of, enforces the truce of God, <a href='#Page_180'>180</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Llandaff, Council of, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Llorente, his History of the Inquisition, <a href='#Page_457'>457</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his attempt to introduce schism and heresy into Spain, <a href='#Page_457'>457</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his misrepresentation, <a href='#Page_457'>457</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">burns a portion of the documents belonging to the Inquisition of Madrid, <a href='#Page_457'>457</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">London, Council of, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Louis of Bavaria, the doctrine that the imperial power comes immediately from God maintained by the princes of the empire in his time, <a href='#Page_462'>462</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Love, passion of, its effects, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">how treated by Catholicity and Protestantism, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">advantages of the course pursued by the former, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Luther, his opinion on polygamy, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">effects which his doctrines would have had, had they been proclaimed sooner, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his intolerance towards the Jews, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">specimens of his violence, grossness, and intolerance, <a href='#Page_421'>421</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his evidence against Catholicity, <a href='#Page_423'>423</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his interview with the Devil, <a href='#Page_425'>425</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">infidel passages from his writings, <a href='#Page_428'>428</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Lyons, Council of, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">Council of, see <i>Lepers</i>;</li>
<li class="isub1">poor men of, described, <a href='#Page_251'>251</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Mâcon, Councils of, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Manichees, unusual severities exercised towards, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">description of, <a href='#Page_252'>252</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Manners, gentleness of, one of the characteristics of European civilization, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">wherein it consists, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">exists in advanced societies, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">not found in young nations, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">did not exist among the Greeks and Romans, <a href='#Page_173'>173</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">causes of this, <a href='#Page_173'>173</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their excessive corruption among the ancients, <a href='#Page_445'>445</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Mariana, his popular doctrines, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">on the liberties of Spain, <a href='#Page_481'>481</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Marquez, P., on the disputes between rulers and their subjects, <a href='#Page_482'>482</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">on the levying of taxes, and the right of rulers over the property of their subjects, <a href='#Page_483'>483</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Marriage, doctrines of Catholicity and Protestantism with regard to, compared, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">importance of guarding the sanctity of, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">not admitted as a sacrament by Protestantism, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">different conduct of Catholicity and Protestantism with regard to, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Martyrs, heroism of the Christian, <a href='#Page_132'>132</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Matha, John of, one of the founders of the Order of the most holy Trinity for the Redemption of Captives, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>.</li>

<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_498b" id="Page_498b">[Pg 498b]</a></span>Mathematics, obscurity of their first principles, <a href='#Page_425'>425</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Melancthon, his complaints against the other Reformers, <a href='#Page_421'>421</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">superstitions of, <a href='#Page_426'>426</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Merchants protected by Councils, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Merida, Council of, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Missions, their unity broken by Protestantism, <a href='#Page_260'>260</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">injury thereby done to them, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">what they might have effected had it not appeared, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">what united efforts effected in earlier times, <a href='#Page_264'>264</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">need of, on a large scale, for the conversion of the heathen, <a href='#Page_265'>265</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">zeal displayed by the Church in the promotion of, in latter times, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">powerful means for promoting at the command of Rome before unity was broken, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Monarchy, why hereditary is preferable, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">idea formed of, in the sixteenth century, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">application thereof, <a href='#Page_347'>347</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">in what it differed from despotism, <a href='#Page_347'>347</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">what it was in the sixteenth century, <a href='#Page_347'>347</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its relations with the Church, <a href='#Page_348'>348</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">when necessary in Europe, <a href='#Page_356'>356</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">different character of, in Europe and Asia, <a href='#Page_357'>357</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">passage from De Maistre on, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">institutions for limiting it, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">it acquired strength in the sixteenth century, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">prevailed over free institutions, <a href='#Page_362'>362</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">causes of this, <a href='#Page_370'>370</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Monasteries, those in the east established in imitation of the solitaries, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">causes of their decline, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">services they might have rendered to literature, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">what they did for knowledge, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">those of the west established, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their effects, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">property rendered sacred, <a href='#Page_239'>239</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their property, <a href='#Page_239'>239</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their claims thereto, <a href='#Page_239'>239</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their improvements, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">encouragement given to the country life, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their services to Germany, France, Spain, and England, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">great men they produced, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their services to science and letters, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their civilizing effects, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">new forms assumed by them in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their objects, <a href='#Page_243'>243</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">benefits they conferred on mankind, <a href='#Page_243'>243</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Monks, protected by Councils, <a href='#Page_180'>180</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Monogamy not owing to climate, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Montaigne on the Reformation, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his infidel sentiments changed at his death, <a href='#Page_429'>429</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Montanus, Arias, employed by Philip II. to collect books and MSS., <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Montesquieu on the principle of honor in monarchies, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">that of virtue in republics, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">he is bound by his theory, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">on the destruction of monasteries and hospitals in England by Henry VIII., <a href='#Page_185'>185</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his doctrine with regard to the latter, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Montpellier, Council of, its decrees to secure peace, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Moors, the, dread of their power in Spain, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">papal bull in favor of, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">law of Philip III., expelling them, <a href='#Page_454'>454</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Napoleon and the Spanish nation, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Narbonne, Council of, its decree in favor of</li>
<li class="indx">the truce of God, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Nationality, importance of, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Nicholas, a fanatic who taught that it was good to continue in sin that grace might the more abound, <a href='#Page_427'>427</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Nuns, protected by the Council of Rouen, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Obedience, motives of, founded on the will of God, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Olive trees, why protected by the Council of  Narbonne, <a href='#Page_180'>180</a>.</li>

<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_499a" id="Page_499a">[Pg 499a]</a></span>Opinions, the rapid succession of, in modern times, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Opinion, public, influence of, on morals, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Orange, Council of, its decree in favor of slaves, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Orders, the religious-military described, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">the mendicant ditto, <a href='#Page_252'>252</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">the necessity for the latter, <a href='#Page_253'>253</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their popular nature, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their influence, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">were the work of God, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their relations with the Pontiffs, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">those for the redemption of captives, <a href='#Page_257'>257</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">visions inspiring them, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their founders, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Orleans, Council of, its decree in favor of slaves, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">forbids any one to be armed at church, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">protects hospitals, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">the poor and prisoners, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Oxford, Council of, its decree against robbers, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Pacts, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Paganism described by St. Augustin, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Palafox, on the duties of kings, princes, and magistrates, <a href='#Page_321'>321</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">on taxes and tyranny, <a href='#Page_483'>483</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Palentia, Council of, protects the defenceless, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Papin, evidence of, in favor of Catholicity, <a href='#Page_424'>424</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Paris, trades-union of, <a href='#Page_354'>354</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Passions, the, differently treated by Catholicity and by Protestantism, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">why so active in times of public disturbance, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Patrick, (St.), Council of, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Paul, (St.), his Epistle to the Romans, <a href='#Page_459'>459</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Peasants.&mdash;See <i>Lateran</i>.</li>

<li class="indx">Penance, efficacy of the sacrament of, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Perez, on the condemnation of a preacher for absolutist doctrines by the Inquisition of Spain, <a href='#Page_455'>455</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Peter, (St.), of Arbues, his murder by the Jews not a proof of the unpopularity of the Inquisition, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">tumult occasioned thereby, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Peter, (St.), Nolasco, founds the Order of Mercy for the Redemption of Captives, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Philanthropy, inadequate for works of beneficence without Christian Charity, <a href='#Page_189'>189</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Philosophers, the irreligions of the last century preferred pagan to Christian institutions, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Philosophy, schools of, can destroy but not create, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Philip II. of Spain did not institute the Inquisition, but continued it, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">why so much attacked by Protestants, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">probability that the attempts made to introduce Protestantism into Spain in his time would succeed, owing to the circumstances of the times, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his conduct to Carranza, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his services to Catholicity, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">general feeling in his reign with regard to cruel punishments very different from the present, <a href='#Page_217'>217</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his patronage of literature, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his letter to Arias Montanus, <a href='#Page_456'>456</a>.&mdash;See <i>Inquisition</i>.</li>

<li class="indx">Pilgrims protected by Councils, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Pitt, anecdote of, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Pius II. (Pope), his apostolic letters against slavery, <a href='#Page_439'>439</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Pius VII. (Pope), interposes to abolish the slave trade, <a href='#Page_441'>441</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Plato, immoral doctrines of, <a href='#Page_422'>422</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Polygamy, not the effect of climate, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Poor, the, regulations of Councils in favor of, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Popes, the, services they rendered to society by preserving the sanctity of marriage, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">support the truce of God, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their attempts to mitigate the rigour of the Spanish Inquisition, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">appoint judges of appeal, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_499b" id="Page_499b">[Pg 499b]</a></span></li>
<li class="isub1">their intolerance compared with the tolerance of Protestantism, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their temporal powers, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">doctrines of theologians with regard to them in case they should fall into heresy, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">nature, origin, and effects of their temporal power, <a href='#Page_386'>386</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">list of titles given to, in ancient times, <a href='#Page_423'>423</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Power, origin of, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">the paternal, considered with regard to the civil, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">the latter, according to Bellarmine, resides <i>immediately</i> in the people, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">divine origin of, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">violence of, when illegitimate, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1"><i>mediate</i> and <i>immediate</i> transmission of, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">this distinction important in some respects and unimportant in others, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">why Catholic divines have so zealously supported the <i>mediate</i>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">faculties of the civil, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">calumnies of the opponents of the Church on this point, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">resistance to the civil, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">comparison between Catholicity and Protestantism on this point, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">vain timidity of some minds on this point, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">obedience to the civil, taught by Catholicity when legitimate, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">civil distinguished from spiritual, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">conduct of Catholicity and Protestantism with respect to the separation of the two, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">the independence of the spiritual, a guarantee for the liberty of the people, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">doctrines of St. Thomas on obedience to the civil, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">doctrines of St. Thomas, Bellarmine, Suarez, &amp;c. on resistance to the civil, in extreme cases, <a href='#Page_338'>338</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Preaching, that of Protestantism without authority, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a>.</li>
<li class="isub1">&mdash;See <i>Protestantism</i>.</li>

<li class="indx">Prebendaries, bound to give a tenth of their fruits to an hospital, <a href='#Page_188'>188</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Press, the effects of, on opinions, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Prisoners, exertions of the Church in favor of, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Protestantism, present condition of, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">attempts to preserve itself by violating its fundamental principle, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">causes of its continuance, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">has almost entirely disappeared as a fixed creed, but remains as a body of sects, <a href='#Page_65'>65</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its positive doctrines repugnant to the instinct of civilization, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its essential principle one of destruction, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">can boast only of its ruins, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">was the work of human passions, and not of God, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">effects which even its partial introduction into Spain would produce, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">advantages of the practice of preaching preserved by, <a href='#Page_90'>90</a>, <a href='#Page_166'>166</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its preaching is without authority, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its doctrine with respect to errors of the mind, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">effects which its introduction into Spain would have produced, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">would have broken the unity of the Spanish monarchy, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">is opposed to vows and celibacy, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its appearance, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its effects in breaking the unity of European civilization, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">divided the missionaries among themselves, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">disastrous effects of, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">exalts the temporal power at the expense of the spiritual, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its relations with liberty, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">real state of the case on this point, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its origin aristocratic, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">not favorable to the poor, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">has contributed to destroy free institutions, <a href='#Page_363'>363</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">fearful state of Europe after it appeared, <a href='#Page_369'>369</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">political doctrines prevailing in Europe before its appearance compared with those of modern publicists and the school of the eighteenth century, <a href='#Page_374'>374</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">has prevented the homogeneity of European civilization, <a href='#Page_375'>375</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">historical proofs, <a href='#Page_376'>376</a>;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_500a" id="Page_500a">[Pg 500a]</a></span></li>
<li class="indx">compared with Catholicity with regard to learning, criticism, the learned languages, the foundation of universities, the progress of literature and the arts, mysticism, high philosophy, metaphysics, morals, religious philosophy, and the philosophy of history, <a href='#Page_412'>412</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">evidences against, from Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Papin, Puffendorf, and Leibnitz, <a href='#Page_423'>423</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its superstition and fanaticism, <a href='#Page_425'>425</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">bad faith of its founders, <a href='#Page_428'>428</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">passages proving this, <a href='#Page_428'>428</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">progress of infidelity soon after its appearance proved from Luther, Brentzen, Gruet, and Montaigne, <a href='#Page_428'>428</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Puffendorf, his false theory of society, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">evidence of, against Protestantism, <a href='#Page_423'>423</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Puigblanch.&mdash;See <i>Jomtob</i>.</li>

<li class="indx">Punishments, right of inflicting capital, derived from God, <a href='#Page_300'>300</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">cannot come from pacts, <a href='#Page_300'>300</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">mildness of, among barbarian nations not a proof of civilization but of indifference to crime, <a href='#Page_447'>447</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">immense superiority of the legislation of the Church with respect to, according to M. Guizot, <a href='#Page_447'>447</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Regulus, virtue bordering on ferocity, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Religion, always existed in some shape among the greater part of mankind, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">power of, in Spain, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">condition of, when Christianity appeared, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">atrocities committed in the name of, by Catholics and Protestants, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">importance of, to the civil power, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">corruption of, among the ancients, <a href='#Page_445'>445</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Revolutions, those of modern times, <a href='#Page_389'>389</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">difference between that of the United States of America and that of France, <a href='#Page_389'>389</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Rheims, Councils of, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">commands that the clergy, monks, women, travellers, laborers, and vine-dressers shall be respected during war, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">protects the poor, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Robertson.&mdash;See <i>Dominicans</i> and <i>Las Casas</i>.</li>

<li class="indx">Romans, the, their savage heroism not tolerated by the mild spirit of Christianity, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">futile attempts made to imitate them, <a href='#Page_128'>128</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their manners effeminate without being gentle, <a href='#Page_173'>173</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Rome, legislation of, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">how affected by Christianity, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">vice of her political organization, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">Council of, its decrees in favor of slaves, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">the court of, endeavors to mitigate the severity of the Spanish Inquisition, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">mildness of the Inquisition at Rome compared with that in other places, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">no instance of a capital sentence having been pronounced thereby, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">the decline and fall of the empire of, <a href='#Page_229'>229</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Roscelin described, <a href='#Page_400'>400</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">compared with St. Anselm, <a href='#Page_407'>407</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Rouen, Council of, its decree in favor of the truce of God, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Rousseau, doctrines of, <a href='#Page_282'>282</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his appeal to the passions, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his <cite>Contrat Social</cite>, <a href='#Page_299'>299</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his misrepresentation of Catholicity, <a href='#Page_450'>450</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">doctrines of his <cite>Contrat Social</cite>, <a href='#Page_451'>451</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his intolerance, <a href='#Page_451'>451</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Saavedra, his popular doctrines, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Salamanca, Compendium of, on the transmission of power by the people's consent, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Sciences, the natural and social compared, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Scipio, story of, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Self-defence, right of, alleged as a plea for the intolerance of governments, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Seneca, on the worship of the gods, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Sigebert, historical labors of, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Slaves, their large numbers among the ancients, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their numbers at Athens, Sparta, Rome, and in the eastern countries, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_500b" id="Page_500b">[Pg 500b]</a></span></li>
<li class="isub1">opinions of Plato and Aristotle regarding them, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their treatment, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">dangers from their numbers, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their rebellions, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their immediate emancipation impracticable, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">the Church did all that could be done in their favor, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">difficulties she had to contend with in their emancipation, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">conduct, designs, and tendencies of the Church favorable to them, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their natural inferiority to freemen proclaimed by the heathen philosophers, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their natural equality with them inculcated by the Scriptures and the Church, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">motives for their obedience, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>; their ill-treatment, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">spirit of hatred and revolts thereby caused, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">St. Paul's instructions to them, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">power of life and death possessed over them by their masters, and cruelties exercised, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">scene from Tacitus, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">St. Paul intercedes for one of them, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">ill-treatment of them forbidden by Councils of the Church, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">she substitutes public trial for private vengeance in their regard, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">the clergy forbidden to mutilate them, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">she condemns to penance those who put them to death of their own authority, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">she protects those newly emancipated, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">those of the Church not allowed to be sold or exchanged, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">those who embrace the monastic state are freed by decree of the Council of Rome, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">abuse thereof, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">were raised to the priesthood, but not until they had been freed, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">prevalence of the abuse of ordaining slaves without the consent of their masters, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">the Church protects their marriages, and forbids them to be dissolved by their masters, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>.&mdash;See <i>Councils</i>.</li>

<li class="indx">Slavery, the offspring of sin, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Society, will always be either religious or superstitious, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">modern, described, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its progress, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">condition of, when Christianity appeared, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">present state of, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">administration alone not adequate to its wants <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">principle of charity required, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">physical means of restraining the masses of, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">moral means required, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">origin of, according to St. Thomas, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">not the work of man, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">not to be saved by strict political doctrines, without religion and morality, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">why modern conservative schools are powerless in preserving it, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">struggle therein between the three elements, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, <a href='#Page_369'>369</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Solitaries, the early, described, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">numbers of, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">influence of, in spiritualising ideas and improving morals, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">overcome the difficulties of the luxurious and enervating climate, <a href='#Page_234'>234</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">great men who received their inspirations from them, <a href='#Page_234'>234</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Spain, effects which the partial introduction of Protestantism would have produced there, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">power of religious ideas there, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">peculiar manner in which revolutionary ideas have come into operation there, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">has not yet obtained the government which she requires, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">effects of the loss of her national unity, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">her intolerance in religious matters not so great as it has been represented, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">bold language used there with regard to politics, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">industrial progress therein, <a href='#Page_354'>354</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">Catholicity and politics there, <a href='#Page_377'>377</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">real state of the question, <a href='#Page_377'>377</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">causes of the ruin of her free institutions, <a href='#Page_378'>378</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">ancient and modern freedom, <a href='#Page_378'>378</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1"><i lang="es">Communeros</i> of Castile, <a href='#Page_379'>379</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">policy of her rulers, <a href='#Page_380'>380</a>;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_501a" id="Page_501a">[Pg 501a]</a></span></li>
<li class="isub1">Ferdinand, Ximenes, Charles V., and Philip II., <a href='#Page_381'>381</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Stephen, (Abbot), his account of the excesses committed by the Manichees in France, <a href='#Page_252'>252</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Suarez, on the origin of power, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his reply to King James I. of England, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">on the disputes between subjects and their rulers, <a href='#Page_473'>473</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Subtlety, spirit of, in the middle ages, its causes, <a href='#Page_406'>406</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Tacitus, scene from, of cruelty to slaves, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">on the ancient Germans with regard to women, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his description of their manners, why embellished, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Tact, value of, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Tanchème, excesses of, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Telugis, Council of, ordains the truce of God, <a href='#Page_180'>180</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Tertullian, apology of, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Theodosius, the emperor, excluded from the Church by St. Ambrose, for the slaughter at Thessalonica, <a href='#Page_178'>178</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Theories, rapid succession of, in modern times, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Theresa, St., extracts from the visions of, <a href='#Page_427'>427</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Thierry, M., his history of the Conquest of England by the Normans, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Thomas, St., of Aquin, extract from, on the origin of society, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">on the Divine law, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his definition of law, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his doctrines with regard to laws and royal power, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">on obedience to laws, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">utility of his dictatorship in the schools in the middle ages to the human mind, <a href='#Page_411'>411</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">passages from, on the duties of rulers and subjects, <a href='#Page_470'>470</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">his doctrines on the forms of government, <a href='#Page_480'>480</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Times, superiority of the primitive, has been exaggerated, <a href='#Page_422'>422</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Toledo, Councils of, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Toleration, how misunderstood and misrepresented, <a href='#Page_190'>190</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">prejudices against Catholicity with regard to, <a href='#Page_190'>190</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">principle of, considered, <a href='#Page_191'>191</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">in religious men is the produce of two principles, charity and humility, <a href='#Page_191'>191</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">illustrations, shewing how they are affected by intercourse with the world on this point, <a href='#Page_192'>192</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">that of some irreligious men, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">considered in society and governments, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its existence in society not owing to the philosophers, <a href='#Page_195'>195</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its causes, <a href='#Page_195'>195</a>; principle of universal, discussed, <a href='#Page_196'>196</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Tours, Council of, ordains that the poor shall be supported in their own town or parish, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Trades-corporations, origin and salutary effects of, <a href='#Page_477'>477</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Trades-union.&mdash;See <i>Paris</i>.</li>

<li class="indx">Trajan, the emperor, 6000 gladiators slain at his games, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>.</li>

<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_501b" id="Page_501b">[Pg 501b]</a></span>Transubstantiation, discussion with regard to, in consequence of the philosophy of Descartes, <a href='#Page_397'>397</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Trent, Council of, gives bishops the power of visiting hospitals, <a href='#Page_449'>449</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Troja, Councils of, promote the truce of God, <a href='#Page_180'>180</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Truce of God described, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">established by Church Councils, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">supported by Popes, <a href='#Page_180'>180</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Truth, described, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Tubuza, Council of, establishes the truce of God, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Unbelievers, doctrines of, with regard to errors of the mind, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Universities, those founded by Catholicity, <a href='#Page_414'>414</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Vaison, Council of, decree of, in favor of foundlings and against infanticide, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Valois, Felix of, one of the founders of the Order of the Most Holy Trinity for the Redemption of Captives, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Vaudois, described, <a href='#Page_252'>252</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Verneul, Council of, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Villanueva, prejudice and egotism of, <a href='#Page_457'>457</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Vine-dressers, protected by the Council of Rheims, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Virginity, respected by the ancients, &amp;c., but not by Protestantism, <a href='#Page_146'>146</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">how important that it should be respected, <a href='#Page_146'>146</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">not injurious to the state, <a href='#Page_147'>147</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">its effects on the female character, <a href='#Page_149'>149</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Visions, (see <i>Orders</i>);</li>
<li class="isub1">effects of, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">those of Catholics, <a href='#Page_427'>427</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Vives, Louis, on human knowledge, <a href='#Page_424'>424</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Voltaire described, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">extract from, on the importance of the morals of courts to society, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Vows, vindication of religious, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">those of chastity in the early ages of the Church, <a href='#Page_458'>458</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Widows, their vows of chastity in the early ages of the Church, <a href='#Page_458'>458</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Witmar, a German monk, his chronicles much esteemed <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">used by Leibnitz, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Women, degraded condition of, among the ancients, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>, <a href='#Page_441'>441</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their elevation due entirely to Catholicity, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">how affected by chivalry, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">their elevation falsely ascribed to the ancient Germans, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>;</li>
<li class="isub1">protected by Councils, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Worms, Council of, excommunicates those who refuse to be reconciled, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a>.</li>


<li class="ifrst">Zeballos, P., on Christian politics and Naboth's vineyard, <a href='#Page_467'>467</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Ziegler, a Lutheran, an ardent defender of the immediate communication of temporal power, <a href='#Page_463'>463</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Zonarus, on charitable establishments, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>.</li>

<li class="indx">Zuinglius, his phantom, <a href='#Page_426'>426</a>.</li>
</ul></div>

<p class="center">THE END.</p>

<hr class="chap" /><div class="chapter"></div>

<div class="footnotes">
<h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>
<div class="footnote">


<p><a name="Footnote_A_1" id="Footnote_A_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_A_1"><span class="label">[A]</span></a> This subject is so important, so delicate, that I shall not be satisfied with giving a translation
of the passages which I quote, however careful I may be to render them exact and literal, at the
risk of irregularity of style and violation of the idiom of our language. I wish, therefore, to set
before the reader the original texts themselves, desiring him to judge from them and not from
my version. [They will be found in the Appendix.]</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_B_2" id="Footnote_B_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_B_2"><span class="label">[B]</span></a> Crown attorneys, charged with the prosecution of criminal and other causes.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_C_3" id="Footnote_C_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_C_3"><span class="label">[C]</span></a> When this was written.&mdash;Tr.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_D_4" id="Footnote_D_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_D_4"><span class="label">[D]</span></a> <i>Aug.</i> Quid ipsi homines et populi, ejusne generis rerum sunt, ut interire mutarive non possint,
æternique omnino sint?&mdash;<i>Evod.</i> Mutabile plane atque tempori obnoxium hoc genus esse
quis dubitet?&mdash;<i>Aug.</i> Ergo, si populus sit bene moderatus et gravis, communisque utilitatis diligentissimus
custos, in quo unusquisque minoris rem privatam quam publicam pendat, nonne
recte lex fertur, qua huic ipsi populo liceat creare sibi magistratus, per quos sua res, id est publica,
administretur?&mdash;<i>Evod.</i> Recte prorsus.&mdash;<i>Aug.</i> Porro, si paulatim depravatus idem populus
rem privatam reipublicæ præferat, atque habeat venale suffragium, corruptusque ab eis qui
honores amant, regimen in se flagitiosis consceleratisque committat, nonne item recte, si quis
tunc extiterit vir bonus, qui plurimum possit, adimat huic populo potestatem dandi honores, et
in paucorum bonorum vel etiam unius redigat arbitrium?&mdash;<i>Evod.</i> Et id recte.&mdash;<i>Aug.</i> Cum
ergo duæ istæ leges ita sibi videantur esse contrariæ, ut una earum honorum dandorum populo
tribuat potestatem, auferat altera, et cum ista secunda ita lata sit, ut nullo modo ambæ in una
civitate simul esse possint, num dicemus aliquam earum injustam esse et ferri minime debuisse?&mdash;<i>Evod.</i>
Nullo modo.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_E_5" id="Footnote_E_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_E_5"><span class="label">[E]</span></a> An extract from Bellarmine de Romano Pont.
is here omitted.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_F_6" id="Footnote_F_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_F_6"><span class="label">[F]</span></a> Tribute that was paid on St. Martin's day.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_G_7" id="Footnote_G_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_G_7"><span class="label">[G]</span></a> Another tribute.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_H_8" id="Footnote_H_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_H_8"><span class="label">[H]</span></a> A tribute for the king's repast during his journeys.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_I_9" id="Footnote_I_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_I_9"><span class="label">[I]</span></a> Tribute for maintaining the ditches of the castles
in Castile, and the armies.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_J_10" id="Footnote_J_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_J_10"><span class="label">[J]</span></a> "It is extremely difficult to ascertain the origin
of the trades-corporations, even in those towns which
have been the longest and the best disciplined.&mdash;Sandi,
in his <cite>Civil History of Venice</cite> (t. ii. part 1, lib.
iv. p. 767), after having reckoned sixty-one trades-corporations
existing in that capital at the beginning
of his century, declares that it is impossible to assign
to each of these corporations the date of its origin,
or that of its first statutes. This historian nevertheless
consulted all the archives of the republic; he
contents himself with observing, that none of the
corporations are anterior to the fourteenth century."
(<i>The notes which accompany this chapter are those of
Capmany himself.</i>)</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_K_11" id="Footnote_K_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_K_11"><span class="label">[K]</span></a> We here recognise many ideas taken from a
work which saw the light in 1774, from the press of
Sancha, under the title of <cite>Discours économique-politique
pour la defense du travail mécanique des ouvriers,
par D. Ramon Miguel Palacio</cite>. The author of these
memoirs, fearing to be accused of a gross plagiarism,
observes that, being obliged here to treat of this same
matter, he was forced to adopt many of the ideas contained
in this work, which at that time he thought it
proper to publish without affixing his real name.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_L_12" id="Footnote_L_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_L_12"><span class="label">[L]</span></a> "Consult the Appendix of Notes, Nos. 28 and 30.
You will there see what respect and power the town
of Barcelona enjoyed at another period, by means of
the municipal magistrates, who represented it under
the ordinary name of councillors."</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_M_13" id="Footnote_M_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_M_13"><span class="label">[M]</span></a> "In the diplomatic collection of these memoirs,
we find a multitude of letters and other documents
proving the direct and mutual relations which existed
between the city of Barcelona and the emperors
of the East, of Germany, the sultans of Egypt, the
kings of Tunis, of Morocco, and various monarchs
and states, or other great powers of Europe."</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_N_14" id="Footnote_N_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_N_14"><span class="label">[N]</span></a> See the remarks of his Excellency M. Campomanes
on these abuses and false principles of policy,
in his <cite>Discourse on the Popular Education of Artisans</cite>,
from page 119 to 160.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_O_15" id="Footnote_O_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_O_15"><span class="label">[O]</span></a> We ordinarily call a chimera, or an impossibility,
that which offers great difficulties. On this occasion
we cannot help observing to sincere persons,
that, from these great difficulties, they may judge of
the lawfulness and sincerity of the desires manifested
by the <i lang="fr">soi-disant</i> reformers and appellants to Councils.
They do not wish for Councils; but, under the
shadow of this word, they wish to escape the authority
of their legitimate superiors. (Note by the authors
of the <cite>Bibliothèque de Religion</cite>, published in
Spain.)</p></div>
</div>

<div class="transnote">
<h3>Transcriber's Notes</h3>

<p>Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected.</p>

<p>Hyphenation and accents have been standardised.</p>

<p>Apart from the items mentioned below all other spellings and
punctuation are as in the original.</p>

<p>Develop and develope, idealog(y/ist) and ideolog(y/ist) are used
interchangeably in the book. They have been standardised to the
standard modern spelling of develop and ideology.</p>

<p>Variations in the use/spelling of derivatives of the Latin propius
(pages 473a, 474a and 490a), while possibly incorrect, have been left
as published as they seem unlikely to be typographical errors.</p>

<p>Zuinglius/Zwinglius. The former spelling is used in the body of the
book and the latter in the notes. This has not been changed.</p>

<p>The reference to note 1 in the original reads '(See note at the
end of the vol.)' the [1] has been added to improve clarity and
uniformity.</p>

<p> The quotation on page <a href="#Page_313">313</a>: 'What absolute monarch in Europe would
approve of one of his high functionaries expressing the origin of power
after the manner of our immortal Saavedra? "It is from the centre
of justice," says he, "that the circumference of the crown has been
drawn. The latter would not be necessary, if we could dispense with the
former.' is missing a closing quote. as it may be absent from 'drawn.'
or 'former.' it has not been corrected.</p>

<p>Entries for NOTES, APPENDIX and INDEX have been added to the table of contents.</p>

</div>

<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 50436 ***</div>
</body>
</html>
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2026-06-16 07:17:25 +0000