REVOLUTION OF 1688.

445

in itself a violent stretch of prerogative. But it was recognized as a part of a scheme, which, if accomplished, would bring upon Nonconformists and Churchmen alike a renewal of persecution in the most unrelenting form. The combination of parties, which was produced by the plot of James for subverting the Protestant religion and establishing Popery, gave rise to the Revolution of 1688, and the establishment of William of Orange upon the throne, who had married the eldest daughter of James, and had defended Holland and Protestantism against the assaults of Louis XIV. At the accession of William and Mary, says Hallam, "the Act of Toleration was passed with little difficulty, though not without murmurs of the bigoted Churchmen. It exempts from the penalties of existing statutes against separate conventicles, or absence from the established worship, such as should take the oath of allegiance and subscribe to the Declaration against Popery, and such ministers of separate congregations as should subscribe the thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, except three, and a part of a fourth. It gives, also, an indulgence to Quakers, without this condition. Meeting-houses are required to be registered, and are protected from insult by a penalty. No part of this toleration is extended to Papists, or such as deny the Trinity.". The subscription to the Articles of Faith was practically dispensed with; "though,” adds Hallam, "such a genuine toleration as Christianity and philosophy alike demand, had no place in our statute book before the reign of George III."

The ministry of William III., when they introduced the Toleration Act, introduced, also, a Comprehension Bill, which released Nonconformists from the necessity of subscribing the Articles and Homilies, and delivered them from the obligation to fulfill certain ceremonies that were most obnoxious. Had this scheme been adopted, Presbyterians would have been admitted to the charge

of parishes without re-ordination. It failed by the force of the opposition to it in Convocation, to which it was referred. Moderate churchmen, like Tillotson, Burnet, Stillingfleet, Patrick, and Beveridge, were outnumbered by those who were resolutely averse to any modifications of the Prayer-book. The measure was lost, partly from the strength of this Anti-Puritan feeling, partly from the fact that Independents, Baptists, and Quakers were left out of the arrangement, which was shaped for the benefit of the Presbyterian ministers exclusively. The fear of strengthening the Church too much, which was apt to be an ally of arbitrary government, influenced, in some degree, the minds of certain statesmen. The great danger connected with this measure, a danger that was better appreciated afterwards, was that of giving a great augmentation of strength to the party of non-jurors, who had forfeited their benefices rather than acknowledge the new dynasty, and who, had the Liturgy been remodeled, might have grown into a powerful sect. It is stated, also, by Hallam and Macaulay, that the Presbyterian ministers, who at the head of large churches in London, had a much higher and more comfortable station than fell to the lot of the degenerate and often ill-treated parish clergy, were lukewarm in favoring the adoption of the scheme, if not decidedly opposed to it. That they took this position is, however, questioned by other wellinformed writers.1

The Revolution of 1688 led to the permanent establishment of the Presbyterian as the national Church of Scotland.2 Under Charles II., Episcopacy was established by law in Scotland, although some latitude was granted, under the name of Indulgence, with regard to the forms of public worship. A fierce resistance was made 1 Vaughan, p. 461. The character of the scheme and the proceedings of Convocation are fully described by Macaulay, iii. 424 seq.

2 See Hallam, Const. Hist., ch. xvii. Macaulay, Hist. of England (Harpers' Am. ed.). i. 172; ii. 103 seq.; 115 seq., 192; iii. 225, 622.

FRANCE AFTER THE DEATH OF HENRY IV.

447

by adherents of the Covenant during this reign and in the reign of James II., at whose instance it was made a capital offense to preach in a Presbyterian conventicle, or to attend such a meeting in the open air. James wanted to have the Roman Catholics delivered from the operation of penal laws, but to allow no favor to the Covenanters. The concessions which he was at last compelled to make to them were reduced to the narrowest compass. But they stood by their cause with stubborn bravery, through all those troubled

"times,

Whose echo rings through Scotland to this hour."

In 1690, the system which was obnoxious to the body of the Scottish people was abolished, and the synodical polity established in its place. In the course of this revolution, the vindictive fury of the populace was expressed in outrages upon the Episcopal clergy, who suffered numerous indignities. In the language of the time, they were "rabbled."

Henry IV., at the time of his death, was just ready to intervene in the affairs of Germany, in pursuance of the traditional French policy, which looked to the reduction of the power of Austria, and the enlargement of the boundaries of France. In the ten years that followed his death, after Sully had retired from office, when the government was in the hands of Mary de Medici, the factions which had been held in restraint, were once more let loose, and the path which Henry had entered was for the time abandoned.

To maintain an alliance with Spain, which was to be cemented by a double matrimonial connection, was the purpose of the Queen. Nobles who were disaffected with the government, courted the support of the Huguenots, from interested motives. These influences, in conjunction with the various sorts of persecution to which they

were constantly subject, by the permission, if not at the instigation of the government, and through the hostile preaching of the Jesuits, kept the Huguenot churches in a state of perpetual alarm and discontent. Their counsels were divided, some advising a resort to arms, and others, like the aged Du Plessis Mornay, advising patience. The invasion of Lower Navarre and Bearn by the King, in 1620, the seizure of Church property, which had long been in the hands of the Protestants, and the infliction of atrocious cruelties upon them, moved the National Synod, in 1621, by a small majority, to decide upon war. The Huguenots, a great part of whom remained passive and neutral, were worsted, but the successful resistance of Montauban, and, in the next year, of Montpellier, led to a treaty in which the Protestants were confirmed in the possession of their religious rights, and Montauban and Rochelle were still left in their hands. Their peculiar circumstances gave them more and more the character of a political party, with which malcontents of all shades would naturally ally themselves within the kingdom, and which would borrow strength by a connection with the Protestants of other countries. A spirit of hostility to the Crown and a love of independence would naturally grow in the Huguenot ranks; and this took place at the very time when the Crown was entering upon the work of fully subjugating feudalism.1

With the reign of Louis XIII., and the administration of Richelieu, there was a return, as regards foreign affairs, to the policy of Henry IV. The aim of Richelieu (1624– 42), as far as the government of France was concerned, was to consolidate the monarchy, by bringing the aristocracy into thorough subjection to the King, and by inflicting a deadly blow on the old spirit of feudal independence. Under him began the process of centralization, of officers

1 De Félice, Hist. d. Prot. d. France, p. 307.

THE CHARACTER AND POLICY OF RICHELIEU.

449

appointed and paid by the government, which was fully developed in France after the great Revolution. His policy involved the annihilation of the Huguenot party, as a distinct political organization, a state within the state; and this he accomplished when La Rochelle, the last of their towns, fell into his hands (1628).

The foreign policy of Richelieu receives the general applause of Frenchmen; not so his domestic rule. The interests of the State must prevail over every other consideration. This was his first maxim. To this end, absolute obedience must be exacted of all orders of men, and disobedience be punished with unrelenting severity. The Prince must allow no interference of the Church or the Pope with the rights of the civil authority. Nobles must be prevented from oppressing the people, and must serve the State in war. The Judges in Parliament must be kept from interfering with the prerogatives of the Crown. The people must be kept in absolute subjection, and be subject to burdens not so heavy as to crush them, nor so light as to induce them to forget their subordination. Care should rather be had for the culture and instruction of a part of the nation, than of the whole, which might be mischievous.1 Richelieu abolished anarchy, but he made it possible for the selfish and ruinous despotism of Louis XIV. to arise in its place. His destruction of the political power of the Huguenots left them open to the deadly assaults of rulers more fanatical than himself. Had he been inclined, or if inclined, had he been able, to draw the Huguenot power on his side, and to use it against Spain, the final result might have been happier for France.2 In truth, the capture of La Rochelle gave an impulse to the emigration of Protestants, and France

1 Richelieu's political Testament is well epitomized by Häusser, p. 586. Of the part taken by Richelieu in the composition of the Testament and Memoirs, see Ranke, v. 137 seq., Martin, xi. 591 seq.

2 Martin says of the Huguenot party, that it retarded the encroaching wave of despotism. "Mieux eût valu lancer les Rochelois sur l'Espagne que