this object they, for his personal ambition, were encouraged and courted by Henry, prince of Condé, then upon ill terms with the regent and the court; and him they would have adopted as their leader, but that he soon after abandoned his treasonable intentions.

The Protestants at this time amounted to little more than a million in France, so much had the edict of Nantes, peace and indifference, diminished their vivacity and numbers. Their general conventions had been regularly held, without any other difference with the state than such as the bickerings of their bigots about trifles might produce. They had made no complaint of injustice, of want of faith, or of good feeling on the part of the people or government; nor does there appear to have existed any grievance at all-none certainly which moderation and calmness on their side would not have dispelled. In the towns, there were occasional quarrels between the lower orders, who, perhaps, only made use of religion and party to indulge their natural pugnacity, and in these the government protected the Reformed-for even their own historian tells, that a cow belonging to a poor man named Colas, having ignorantly, and against its nature, forced a way into one of their conventicles during service, the indignant congregation, with a stern devotion to principle, condemning it to death, in a body arose and executed judgment, which event being commemorated in a satirical ballad called "Vache à Colas," or "The Cow of Colas," the singing of it in the streets in derision of the Reformed, produced so many bloody noses and cracked crowns that it was forbidden, by proclamation, under pain of capital punishment. Their own historian says that they appear, after this bucolical outrage, to have remained in the enjoyment of undisturbed repose. Privileges, over and above the rights secured by the edict, were certainly granted to them, in respect to the places of worship, and on one occasion at least the king was obliged to go at the head of his troops in person to suppress a tumult which the establishment of one of their churches had excited.

In 1619, the violence of religious discord

again broke out, not as heretofore, only and entirely because one man believed in one mystery and another in more, but upon other more worldly and visible causes. The edict of Nantes, as declared by the king, differed in one or two unimportant particulars from that promulgated and registered by the parliament, who had exercised the right which, then, undoubtedly belonged to them, of refusing to register except under such terms as they pleased. The differences, as stated by the Protestant historian, were first, that of assembling in a political assembly every two years, without or with the king's permission; and secondly, that of nominating two persons to reside at court to further their requests, instead of offering six from whom the king was to select two. These and other particulars evidently trifles, made of importance by certain men, the duke de Bouillon and others, whose object was by exciting the Huguenots to obtain so much power as might control the court, were first insisted on in 1611, and the demands repeated in every subsequent assembly. In 1619 the Huguenots refused to break up their political convention until their demands were granted, and as the quarrel grew, the sessions of the assembly were transferred from Loudun to La Rochelle. Here they repeated their requests, and upon reproaching to the king, Louis XIII, that he had curtailed privileges granted both by Henry III, and Henry IV, he answered that the first had granted them through fear, and the last through love, but for his part, he neither feared nor loved them. Upon which answer as refusing their demands, the Reformers declared war: gathered together an army of twenty thousand men guaranteed a payment of one hundred thousand crowns a month, and appointed as their leader one whose name is known-Les Diguieres, as among the ablest and most distinguished of the generals of that time, and whose military and political skill had given them most of the advantages which they possessedbut Les Diguieres had lately abjured the new religion for which conversion he is of course denounced as bribed, though he rejected the sword of constable which the king offered to him. The assembly then

offered the command of their army to the duke de Bouillon, who also declined it, and they finally chose a man who deserved their confidence for his ability, integrity and steadfastness-the duke de Rohan. The assembly reserved the superintendence of all concerns, military and political, for themselves, and in testimony of their intention to divide the kingdom, coined a seal, the legend upon which still puzzles antiquaries, whether it was "for Christ and for his flock," or "for Christ and for the king;" but, says their historian, it can scarcely be denied that the assembly in either case intended to disclaim the authority of the state.

Even after all this the king, though he published a declaration against the assembly, promised continued protection to all the Protestants who should remain unshaken in their allegiance. He even took part against delinquents engaged in outrages upon the reformed, and then proceeded to take possession of Saumur, one of the fortified towns then occupied and held by the Protestants.

From this time began a war which terminated with the siege of Rochelle and its capture in 1628, by the king's forces under the instruction of that most capable of all great men, the Cardinal de Richelieu. It began and was ended as a war evidently between political parties, the one striving to throw off the royal authority, and to establish its own form of government, the other to preserve its accustomed rights, and secure what it of course preferred, the constitutional and established political and religious system of France. It was a contest strictly and purely political, and with which religion had nothing to do, except to embitter its current. Nothing is more false or more mistaken, than the tales which are told of this contest, as a persecution for religion and against conscience. The same persecution that is, military opposition, would and must have taken place if both parties had been Catholics, or both Protestants, and that it was purely a political contest—a contest just preceding, and wonderfully resembling the great rebellion which took place about ten years afterwards in England, is proved by the meagreness of the religious grievances which the Huguenots set forth.

With the fall of La Rochelle began the decline of the Huguenots. Almost all their principal leaders in war or politics had abandoned them for the ancient faith. The lenity with which all were treated by the government, after their subjugation, deprived them of the character of martyrs, and they could not, at that day, with any power of face, allege persecution. The duke de Rohan, and the prince de Soubise his brother, were both permitted to escape, and both returned to France. The great mass was left in the possession of all the civil rights, which the edict of Nantes secured to them; but the political assemblies being forbidden, and the great political error of Henry IV, the leaving in their hands armed and fortified towns being corrected, they were deprived of all the qualities which had enabled them to threaten to become a distinct and independent body in the state. Neither cruelties nor murders were committed, nor attempts made to change their faith, and they soon, in the absence of their political leaders, by the genius of Richelieu, and the dexterity of Mazarin, sunk, with the full enjoyment of their conscience and their annual synods, into an honest and ill-tempered insignificance, from which they only occasionally emerged to take part in the quarrels and commotions which beset the minority of Louis XIV. From this time until 1685, when it was finally repealed, the edict of Nantes remained in force. The revocation of it was gradual, and at first gentle, and the final decree was directed against those who gave no kind of security for their qualities as good subjects. The principle of the revocation was professed to be the desire to unite all persons, living under the same government, in one faith, and one bond of opinion, seeing that the differences of religion led in those times and countries, when its doctrines entered into every thing, and every thing into its doctrines-to political combinations and ideas totally inconsis tent with internal peace and security. The first means of obtaining this object adopted by Louis XIV, immediately after he took upon himself in 1641 the government of his kingdom, were famous; such as the release of new converts from certain taxes and contributions-even preference in admitting them

to the posts and employments in the army, in finances, in commerce, and in the courts. This was said to be bribery, but it was at least humanity and kindness—a better spirit than the faggot or the fine of other nationsbetter even than the denunciations of modern days. The government also took advantage of such disturbances as the inconsiderateness and often wanton zeal of the Huguenots provoked, to diminish or recall the particular privileges granted to the congregation. Gradually the admissibility of the obstinate Protestants to public office was rendered difficult, and finally impossible. Those who had been preferred were desired to retire. The bar was shut to them-the business of the government was not intrusted to them, and many, even of the private pursuits of life, were forbidden, and at last, in the course of twenty-five years from the accession of Louis, or rather the death of Mazarin, the revocation was resolved upon, ordained and promulgated without creating any public war, commotion or rebellion.

The policy of Richelieu after the reduction of La Rochelle-which policy was continued by Mazarin and prevailed for many years with Louis XIV-was to treat the Huguenots kindly, to secure them in their rights, and to take all the measures which might tend to their conversion. For this purpose the successive governments were particular to select for the Protestant districts bishops and civil officers who possessed in their different characters, learning, eloquence, mildness, discretion, and firmness. The consequence of this prudence and charity was the gradual conversion of the Protestants in all the middle and more populous districts of the country, by dispelling the prejudices of their ignorance, soothing their animosity, and elevating their feelings. In the course of about forty years few were found, except in the recesses of France, where they lived in a sort of primitive condition, much like the Vendeans of later days, obeying and reverencing their pastor in the guilelessness of their hearts, just as their ancestors and descendants reverenced their priest or curate; and, though in the want of temptation the most innocent of men,-knowing little or nothing beyond

their own daily life, and its monotonous concerns, yet just by their position and circumstances possessed of those characteristics by which their leaders would most easily excite them to rush into any rebellion or public tumult. There were, indeed, rich and influential Protestants in some of the towns, but these were not often the objects of attack, as their habits of commerce had taught them worldly prudence, and they for the most part remained in France, steadfast in their faith, but not for that disorderly or dangerous subjects.

In these Protestant rural districts the power and majesty of the simple and yet dangerous pastor far outshone that of Louis XIV. Yet his inferiority among them might not have provoked his anger and jealousy, but for the demonstrations so often and, considering their means and ability, so injudiciously and even insolently made, of their resistance to his edicts, of their preference for other countries, for other forms and principles of government, and their construction of the edict of Nantes as a treaty of peace. It was among these innocent people that the past idea of a republic in the midst of France, and that of their being an equal body in the state, were still cherished. And it was the suspicion of their disposition to public tumult and disorder which drew the attention of the government towards them. Thus D'Aguesseau who cannot be suspected of falsehood or mistake, says that in 1683 the sixteen directors of the synod had made a secret resolution, to refuse any longer to obey the laws that had been imposed upon them in respect to management of their meetinghouses. This resolution was known by risings of the Huguenots in three or four places. The Catholics at once took to arms, and the civil war began, on a small scale indeed, but still began.

This event appears to have been the immediate cause of the revocation; and if all the letters and memoirs of the time that have come down to us are evidence of the state of public feeling and opinion in France, they prove that this measure was demanded by the public voice, if that can justify it, and that it was, as promulgated, one of

the most popular acts in the long reign of Louis XIV.

The cruelties, indeed, were not popular; but it is difficult to find in these letters or memoirs any thing to lead one to believe that such horrors and atrocities, as are related to have occurred, did take place without some specific or extenuating cause, or for the most part did take place at all. On the other hand the Protestants who left France filled all Protestant Europe with the complaint that they were the most hardly used of men; and their representations, aided by the fancy of English and Protestant writers (who, however, deserve no credit when France or the Catholic religion is their subject) have filled one's imagination with horrors and tragedies which it is almost mortifying to find are probably poetical. But whether true or false, it is still to be observed that Louvois was then the war minister of Louis XIV, a politician notorious in the history of those times for his cruelty and recklessness, which he carried beyond the bounds of legitimate hostility, even in respect to the national enemy. It was by his orders that bands of brutal soldiers, who are never, as all annals show, so ferocious as against an undisciplined peasantry, were sent into the disaffected and disobedient districts, and though Louis in his great account with posterity, must rightly bear the blame of his minister's folly or wickedness, yet in analysing the event, its causes, and character, it may be doubted whether these cruelties were dictated by religious bigotry, or difference of religious faith, and whether they would not have been equally severe if the rebellion had been composed of disaffected Catholics.

This edict ordered the pastors to quit France, or to conform in two months. To the great body of the Protestants it promised peace, and protection in their business, persons and estate, without question of their religion, of which it prohibited the public worship. The great mass of the sect did remain. The edict forbade any to go, and many escaped, just as if they had been ordered to go, many would have remained. Those who remained were principally the inhabitants of the towns, and to their honor

be it said, they continued equally faithful to their religion and their country,—not abandoning the first, nor offending against the laws of the last, and proving the good faith with which the promise of security was kept. The Protestant historians of the event differ much in the numbers of those who left the country. Basnage says from three to four hundred thousand; Martiniere, three hundred thousand; Larry, two hundred thousand; and Rhulieres, the same. But when, after the revocation, the duke of Burgundy caused the proper researches and returns to be made, the highest number was fixed, after all allowances, at about sixty-seven thousand.

It is usual to wind up all declamation upon the subject of this revocation, with lamentations of the injury it inflicted upon France, her commerce, arts, and manufac tures, by withdrawing so many artisans, and so much wealth from their country. That they departed with their wealth is certainly no reflection upon the Catholic government. But in truth, of all who left, the artisans formed the smallest proportion, and the arts and advance of France suffered no delay. That other countries were improved by such skill as the French carried into them, is possible, considering the great comparative superiority of France; but if the loss had been infinitely greater than it was, it would not have equalled what she saved in blood, money and happiness, in the event of another civil and religious war. And but for the cruelties which a rude soldiery committed, the event might have happened, without exciting the sympathy of after times, and without leaving upon memory of Louis XIV, the stain which it is now perhaps impossible to efface, but which the hand of severe and intelligent justice would not have placed there.

the

For it would not be difficult to show, that, as the edict of Nantes was the first and for two centuries the only European act of liberality in respect to different religious creeds, so the revocation of it, if the principles and practice of the suffering party, in those countries where they formed a majority, are to regulate our opinions, as they are not, was a wise, just, and politic

measure.

The revocation is indeed to be deeply regretted-the rather as it appears at this day, that if not made an act of the government, the absorption of the Protestants into the national religion, must soon have effected the desires of the monarch and the people. It is in some sense to be regretted as an act of intolerance, which humanity and Christianity might have interfered to prevent, even at the risk of political disorder and turbulence, and also as an act partly justifying or extenuating the like intolerance and persecution in other countries, of which the party dominant in France supplied the objects, and it is still more deeply to be deplored, because of the sufferings which men of humble life and narrow means, experienced from those who, though sincere in their sense of duty, might have waited for the changes of time, or borne with the temporary aberrations of their adversaries, in the hope of a less painful condition of uniformity of faith.

But in judging of this event, our present sentiments are not the criterion which any rule of justice supplies. The authors of this measure must be judged, so far as we may judge at all, according to the lights which they possessed, and the then state of the human mind. In this respect, mere human justice will not draw from the revocation of the edict of Nantes much reason for accusation and condemnation; for if it were, at that time, a political principle universally agreed upon, as a rule in all nations of whatever faith, that different religions should not be tolerated under the same government, and if it were a principle of all religious sects, that one's religious adversary was not a Christian, which it so clearly was, that in all public proceedings of the Huguenots, the Catholics were denounced as the followers of Antichrist, and if it were also a principle of universal law, that one whose opinions were not Christian was not entitled to live in the social compact, nor to enjoy its protection and advantages: all of which principles were so well and universally established by decrees, confessions, synods and councils, as to expose the advocate of tolerance himself to the suspicion and punishment of treason and heresy-then certainly no

VOL. II.-No. 7.

thing can be more unjust or narrow than to visit upon any one nation, person, or act of those times, the blame which was then due to all, and would now be deserved by any who should be guilty of intolerance or persecution for religious opinions. And if any difference should be made between the intolerance of one party and of the other in those days, mere justice again would teach us that that body was least deserving of censure, and better entitled to excuse, which never having changed nor innovated upon its ancient faith complained that their own confidence in it was weakened, and their peace, security and happiness invaded and destroyed by the professors of new opinions, who in their zeal to spread them, looked upon human beings and human comforts, and human rights, as the least considerable of all impediments.

For it was no part of the duty of the reformer to leave men in the possession of their original sentiments, or even of their right to retain them. It was his sincere and conscientious conviction and still is, that his duty was to preach the gospel as he understood it, to all men blinded and benighted, to use his own cant, by the delusions which had so long enervated their minds, and which still remain to beguile and endanger at least five-sixths of the Christian world. It was his duty to sacrifice himself, and well, and faithfully he often did it; and not only himself, but all princes, people, and commonwealth—to expose them-to plunge them into dissensions, violence, bloodshed, and civil war, in his efforts to convert them to his truth. For this purpose neither political nor civil rights, nor even morals, as all were understood and had been established, were safe from his inroads and conscientious zeal, and with this energy and revolution, were also mixed much of that self-love, that innate conviction of superiority, that confidence in his own election to do the work of the Lord, which while it fortified, also embittered him, and finally led him to the belief that his enemies and opposers were also those of the Almighty, and unfit, therefore, as vessels of wrath and perdition, to be trusted with themselves, or their own religious faith. To be ever wakeful, strenuous

55