part ii. pp. 327, 332, 352, 363; _Stäudlin_, _Geschichte der

theologischen Wissenschaften_, vol. i. p. 263; _Tennemann_, _Gesch. der Philos._ vol. x. pp. 285 seq.; _Huetius de Rebus ad eum pertinentibus_, pp. 35, 295, 296, 385-389; _Mosheim's Eccles. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 258; _Dacier_, _Rapport Historique_, p. 334; _Leslie's Nat. Philos._ p. 121; _Eloges_, in _[OE]uvres de Fontenelle_, Paris, 1766, vol. v. pp. 94, 106, 137, 197, 234, 392, vol. vi. pp. 157, 318, 449; _Thomson's Hist. of Chemistry_, vol. i. p. 195; _Quérard_, _France Lit._ vol. iii. p. 273.

A few months after the death of Richelieu, Louis XIII. also died, and the crown was inherited by Louis XIV., who was then a child, and who for many years had no influence in public affairs. During his minority, the government was administered, avowedly by his mother, but in reality by Mazarin: a man who, though in every point inferior to Richelieu, had imbibed something of his spirit, and who, so far as he was able, adopted the policy of that great statesman, to whom he owed his promotion.[249] He, influenced partly by the example of his predecessor, partly by his own character, and partly by the spirit of his age, showed no desire to persecute the Protestants, or to disturb them in any of the rights they then exercised.[250] His first act was to confirm the Edict of Nantes;[251] and, towards the close of his life, he even allowed the Protestants again to hold those synods which their own violence had been the means of interrupting.[252] Between the death of Richelieu and the accession to power of Louis XIV., there elapsed a period of nearly twenty years, during which Mazarin, with the exception of a few intervals, was at the head of the state; and in the whole of that time, I have found no instance of any Frenchman being punished for his religion. Indeed, the new government, so far from protecting the church by repressing heresy, displayed that indifference to ecclesiastical interests which was now becoming a settled maxim of French policy. Richelieu, as we have already seen, had taken the bold step of placing Protestants at the head of the royal armies; and this he had done upon the simple principle, that one of the first duties of a statesman is to employ for the benefit of the country the ablest men he can find, without regard to their theological opinions, with which, as he well knew, no government has any concern. But Louis XIII., whose personal feelings were always opposed to the enlightened measures of his great minister, was offended by this magnanimous disregard of ancient prejudices; his piety was shocked at the idea of Catholic soldiers being commanded by heretics; and, as we are assured by a well-informed contemporary, he determined to put an end to this scandal to the church, and, for the future, allow no Protestant to receive the staff of marshal of France.[253] Whether the king, if he had lived, would have carried his point, is doubtful;[254] but what is certain is, that, only four months after his death, this appointment of marshal was bestowed upon Turenne, the most able of all the Protestant generals.[255] And in the very next year, Gassion, another Protestant, was raised to the same dignity; thus affording the strange spectacle of the highest military power in a great Catholic country wielded by two men against whose religion the church was never weary of directing her anathemas.[256] In a similar spirit, Mazarin, on mere grounds of political expediency, concluded an intimate alliance with Cromwell; an usurper who, in the opinion of the theologians, was doomed to perdition, since he was soiled by the triple crime of rebellion, of heresy, and of regicide.[257] Finally, one of the last acts of this pupil of Richelieu's[258] was to sign the celebrated treaty of the Pyrenees, by which ecclesiastical interests were seriously weakened, and great injury inflicted on him who was still considered to be the head of the church.[259]

[249] On the connexion between Richelieu and Mazarin, see _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiii. pp. 400, 530; and a curious, though perhaps apocryphal anecdote in _Tallemant des Réaux_, _Historiettes_, vol. ii. pp. 231, 232. In 1636 there was noticed 'l'étroite union' between Richelieu and Mazarin. _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. viii. part ii. p. 187.

[250] 'Mazarin n'avoit ni fanatisme ni esprit persécuteur,' _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiv. p. 531. That he did not persecute the Protestants is grudgingly confessed in _Felice's Hist. of the Protestants of France_, p. 292. See also _Smedley's Reformed Religion in France_, vol. iii. p. 222.

[251] He confirmed it in July, 1643. See _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. iii. appendix, p. 3; and _Quick's Synodicon in Gallia_, vol. i. p. ciii.

[252] In 1659, there was assembled the Synod of Loudon, the moderator of which said, 'It is now fifteen years since we had a national synod.' _Quick's Synodicon in Gallia_, vol. ii. p. 517.

[253] Brienne records the determination of the king, 'que cette dignité ne seroit plus accordée à des Protestans.' _Sismondi_, _Histoire des Français_, vol. xxiv. p. 65.

[254] He was so uneasy about the sin he had committed, that before his death he intreated the Protestant marshals to change their creed: 'Il ne voulut pas mourir sans avoir exhorté de sa propre bouche les maréchaux de la Force et de Chatillon à se faire Catholiques.' _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. p. 612. The same circumstance is mentioned by Le Vassor, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. x. part ii. p. 785.

[255] Louis XIII. died in May 1643; and Turenne was made marshal in the September following. _Lavallée_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. iii. pp. 148, 151.

[256] Sismondi (_Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiv. p. 65) makes the appointment of Gassion in 1644; according to Montglat (_Mémoires_, vol. i. p. 437) it was at the end of 1643. There are some singular anecdotes of Gassion in _Les Historiettes de Tallemant des Réaux_, vol. v. pp. 167-180; and an account of his death in _Mém. de Motteville_, vol. ii. p. 290, from which it appears that he remained a Protestant to the last.

[257] The Pope especially was offended by this alliance (_Ranke_, _die Päpste_, vol. iii. p. 158, compared with _Vaughan's Cromwell_, vol. i. p. 343, vol. ii. p. 124); and, judging from the language of Clarendon, the orthodox party in England was irritated by it. _Clarendon's Hist. of the Rebellion_, pp. 699, 700. Contemporary notices of this union between the cardinal and the regicide, will be found in _Mém. de Retz_, vol. i. p. 349; _Mém. de Montglat_, vol. ii. p. 478, vol. iii. p. 23; _Lettres de Patin_, vol. ii. pp. 183, 302, 426; _Marchand_, _Dict. Historique_, vol. ii. p. 56; _Mem. of Sir Philip Warwick_, p. 377; _Harris's Lives of the Stuarts_, vol. iii. p. 393.

[258] De Retz (_Mémoires_, vol. i. p. 59), who knew Richelieu, calls Mazarin 'son disciple.' And at p. 65 he adds, 'comme il marchoit sur les pas du cardinal de Richelieu, qui avoit achevé de détruire toutes les anciennes maximes de l'état.' Compare _Mém. de Motteville_, vol. ii. p. 18; and _Mém. de la Rochefoucauld_, vol. i. p. 444.

[259] On the open affront to the Pope by this treaty, see _Ranke_, _die Päpste_, vol. iii. p. 159: 'An dem pyrenäischen Frieden nahm er auch nicht einmal mehr einen scheinbaren Antheil: man vermied es seine Abgeordneten zuzulassen: kaum wurde seiner noch darin gedacht.' The consequences and the meaning of all this are well noticed by M. Ranke.

But, the circumstance for which the administration of Mazarin is most remarkable, is the breaking out of that great civil war called the Fronde, in which the people attempted to carry into politics the insubordinate spirit which had already displayed itself in literature and in religion. Here we cannot fail to note the similarity between this struggle and that which, at the same time, was taking place in England. It would, indeed, be far from accurate to say that the two events were the counterpart of each other; but there can be no doubt that the analogy between them is very striking. In both countries, the civil war was the first popular expression of what had hitherto been rather a speculative, and, so to say, a literary scepticism. In both countries, incredulity was followed by rebellion, and the abasement of the clergy preceded the humiliation of the crown; for Richelieu was to the French church what Elizabeth had been to the English church. In both countries there now first arose that great product of civilization, a free press, which showed its liberty by pouring forth those fearless and innumerable works which mark the activity of the age.[260] In both countries, the struggle was between retrogression and progress; between those who clung to tradition, and those who longed for innovation; while, in both, the contest assumed the external form of a war between king and parliament, the king being the organ of the past, the parliament the representative of the present. And, not to mention inferior similarities, there was one other point of vast importance in which these two great events coincide. This is, that both of them were eminently secular, and arose from the desire, not of propagating religious opinions, but of securing civil liberty. The temporal character of the English rebellion I have already noticed, and, indeed, it must be obvious to whoever has studied the evidence in its original sources. In France, not only do we find the same result, but we can even mark the stages of the progress. In the middle of the sixteenth century, and immediately after the death of Henry III., the French civil wars were caused by religious disputes, and were carried on with the fervour of a crusade. Early in the seventeenth century, hostilities again broke out; but though the efforts of the government were directed against the Protestants, this was not because they were heretics, but because they were rebels: the object being, not to punish an opinion, but to control a faction. This was the first great stage in the history of toleration; and it was accomplished, as we have already seen, during the reign of Louis XIII. That generation passing away, there arose, in the next age, the wars of the Fronde; and in this, which may be called the second stage of the French intellect, the alteration was still more remarkable. For, in the mean time, the principles of the great sceptical thinkers, from Montaigne to Descartes, had produced their natural fruit, and, becoming diffused among the educated classes, had influenced, as they always will do, not only those by whom they were received, but also those by whom they were rejected. Indeed, a mere knowledge of the fact, that the most eminent men have thrown doubt on the popular opinions of an age, can never fail, in some degree, to disturb the convictions even of those by whom the doubts are ridiculed.[261] In such cases, none are entirely safe: the firmest belief is apt to become slightly unsettled; those who outwardly preserve the appearance of orthodoxy, often unconsciously waver; they cannot entirely resist the influence of superior minds, nor can they always avoid an unwelcome suspicion, that when ability is on one side, and ignorance on the other, it is barely possible that the ability may be right, and the ignorance may be wrong.

[260] 'La presse jouissait d'une entière liberté pendant les troubles de la Fronde, et le public prenait un tel intérêt aux débats politiques, que les pamphlets se débitaient quelquefois au nombre de huit et dix mille exemplaires.' _Sainte-Aulaire_, _Hist. de la Fronde_, vol. i. p. 299. Tallemant des Réaux, who wrote immediately after the Fronde, says (_Historiettes_, vol. iv. p. 74), 'Durant la Fronde, qu'on imprimoit tout.' And Omer Talon, with the indignation natural to a magistrate, mentions, that in 1649, 'toutes sortes de libelles et de diffamations se publioient hautement par la ville sans permission du magistrat.' _Mém. d'Omer Talon_, vol. ii. p. 466. For further evidence of the great importance of the press in France in the middle of the seventeenth century, see _Mém. de Lenet_, vol. i. p. 162; _Mém. de Motteville_, vol. iii. pp. 288, 289; _Lettres de Patin_, vol. i. p. 432, vol. ii. p. 517; _Monteil_, _Hist. des divers Etats_, vol. vii. p. 175.

In England, the Long Parliament succeeded to the licensing authority of the Star-chamber (_Blackstone's Commentaries_, vol. iv. p. 152); but it is evident from the literature of that time, that for a considerable period the power was in reality in abeyance. Both parties attacked each other freely through the press; and it is said that between the breaking out of the civil war and the restoration, there were published from 30,000 to 50,000 pamphlets. _Morgan's Ph[oe]nix Britannicus_, 1731, 4to. pp. iii. 557; _Carlyle's Cromwell_, vol. i. p. 4; _Southey's Commonplace Book_, third series, p. 449. See also on this great movement of the press, _Bates's Account of the Late Troubles_,