Part 12 (2/2)
The violent party, headed by Jurieu and the moderate by Bayle, found in the fall of James II. the occasion of fully publis.h.i.+ng their several systems of political theology. ”Formerly,” said Bayle, ”your writers, either in good or in bad faith, were careful not to approve of the pernicious teaching of Hubert Languet.... What are they thinking about now to publish so many books where, without circ.u.mlocution or reserve, they vent the same dogmas and push them still further?”[244] Under the same political necessities, the same doctrines, after an interval of a century, were reappearing.
Religious leaders are inclined to advise their followers not to attack the secular powers, but when the inevitable conflict breaks out, a wholly different sentiment prevails. The early Christians, who had heard Saint Paul teach them to obey the Roman Emperor, soon found the denunciations of the seer of Patmos against the tyrant better suited to their feelings. In spite of Calvin, the Huguenots, when persecution became violent, were prepared to listen to the _Vindiciae contra Tyrannos_. Circ.u.mstances favoured a revival of the ”republican” doctrines of the sixteenth century: the English Revolution needed apologists on the Continent; the Protestant hero, William III., although a King, held his t.i.tle by the will of the English people; for once Protestantism and a liberal doctrine were confronted and impugned by Catholicism and absolutism. Apologies were accordingly written, by which must be understood abler, less scurrilous works than the productions of the hired pamphleteers, but pamphlets nevertheless, because the furtherance of a political cause was their immediate pretext. For years already had Jurieu been engaged upon the task of answering the numerous controversial works issued in France, in _Pastoral Letters_, the circulation of which the French police were unable to stop. Together with the controversial argument, each letter contained some new information, the account of a dragonnade, the prophecy of a shepherdess, the testimony delivered by a preacher with the halter round his neck, or a galley-slave dying under the lash. With the year 1689 new tidings came every fortnight to the Huguenots who read these letters, tidings of hope after so much gloom; under the rubric _affaires d'Angleterre_, their spiritual comforter recounted them the wonderful fall of the popish tyrant and the triumph of the hero of Protestantism and liberty. Yet the joy of some was not unmixed with scruples; was not James, after all, the Lord's anointed, and William the usurper? Was the deliverance only a snare and a pitfall into which the Saints must be wary of stumbling? To all which questions Jurieu had a ready answer.[245]
In principle all men are free and equal, but their sins make authority needful. They have chosen kings and governors to whom they have yielded sovereignty their birthright; not without reservations, however. In all cases a contract, either avowed or tacit, intervenes between rulers and subjects, the former swearing to govern according to law, and the latter to obey their governors. If the rulers break their word, the contract becomes void, and, sovereignty reverting to the people, the king forfeits his crown. If the king dies, the contract is void also, and the people have to choose another ruler. Monarchy, and in particular the French Monarchy, is therefore in its essence elective.
The origin of kingly right is popular, not divine; but G.o.d sanctions the popular choice, and, as long as the contract stands, it is sinful to disobey the sovereign. ”The kings are the vice-regents of G.o.d, His vicars, His living images,” and he goes on to use the comparisons of man who, though made in the likeness of G.o.d, is the son of man; in the same manner the king inst.i.tuted by the people is G.o.d's representative upon earth.
Why, then, has James lost his crown? because he attempted to ”violate consciences,” usurping a power that no man could give him, since ”no man hath the right to do war unto G.o.d.”
With his usual impulsiveness, there is no doubt but Jurieu, had he not been chaplain to the Prince of Orange, would have become a republican. He is ever trying to give the kings with the one hand what he withholds with the other.
As early as 1682 Shaftesbury won his admiration: ”He has perhaps,” he said of him in an admirable character-portrait, ”a soul a little too republican to live in a monarchy, but we do not think him guilty of the cowardice which is imputed to him.”[246]
The _Soupirs de la France esclave_, published in 1690, attacks the absolute government of Louis XIV., whom he accuses of being a usurper, sovereignty belonging to the States-General. Historically such a position is untenable, but it is a significant fact that a little before the Revolution of 1789 the same book was reprinted under the t.i.tle _Voix d'un patriote_. Jurieu proved a century in advance of his time.
Behind the chief press a band of lesser officers. Jacques Abbadie, after preaching up pa.s.sive obedience in Prussia, wrote at the desire, it appears, of William III., an apology of the Revolution. ”Kings,” he began, ”are the lieutenants of G.o.d ... to offend them is to show no respect for the glory of G.o.d whose image they are, and for the majesty of the people in which they are clothed.”[247] A subordinate's authority can never extend to a chief's. Unlike G.o.d's power, that of the king is limited. Even a conqueror, becoming the king of a conquered nation, enters upon a treaty by which he undertakes to protect their lives and property. The compact gives the king only the rights possessed by the individual free man, and these are by no means absolute. The people choose their kings, but G.o.d deposes them if they betray their trust. The desertion and abdication of James was brought about by G.o.d's Providence, and the English people freely accepting William for king, William's t.i.tle is even better than that of his predecessor. Several restrictions are brought to bear upon the exercise of the right of insurrection, the most important being the denial of that right in cases of individual injustice. Limited monarchy is proclaimed the best and most perfect of governments.
The theories on which the political writers in the seventeenth century founded limited monarchy rapidly became popular among the refugees,[248]
the dissentients being in small numbers. The most famous of these is Pierre Bayle, the author of the _Dictionary_. The development of his political theory is characteristic of his whole enigmatic mental nature. Brought up by the French Jesuits, as Voltaire was to be a few years later, afterwards a student of divinity in Geneva, and a Professor in the very orthodox Academy of Sedan, with Jurieu for colleague and friend, he accepted a chair of philosophy in a small Dutch college in Rotterdam (the _schola ill.u.s.tris_). The greater part of his life was thus spent among republicans, and under republican government; in Holland his best friends were the few republicans that piously venerated the memory of the unfortunate De Witts, so much so that the Prince of Orange suspected his loyalty. Yet his faith in absolutism remained unshaken. With the aversion of the man of letters for the mob, an incapacity of sharing the general enthusiasm for William, and a very great and genuine affection for his country, he could not sympathise with the violent party. Some imperfectly known private resentment urged him to contradict Jurieu, a leader that had the completest faith in his own infallibility. Lastly, Bayle's cast of mind lent flavour to the design of exposing the error ever lurking in accepted truths, insomuch that for any one who has carefully read Bayle, the authors.h.i.+p of the _Avis aux refugies_ is not doubtful. The famous answer to the political doctrine of the _Pastoral Letters_, the last able defence of absolutism, was penned by Bayle and no other. In the number of the _Nouvelles de la Republique des Lettres_ for September 1684, some words about the fiction of the decision of the majority standing for that of the whole contains in germ an important argument of the _Avis aux refugies_.[249] An English dissenter is supposed to be the author of the _Philosophical Commentary_, yet when speaking of sovereignty he leaves it an open question whether its origin is divine or popular; for, even under his disguise, Bayle did not care to renounce entirely his personal convictions.
The _Avis aux refugies_ falls into two divisions: in the former, the refugees are reproached with writing libellous pamphlets against the French King; in the latter, the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, ”that pet chimera,” is confronted with some weighty arguments. From the doctrine must be inferred the right of the people to revolt against their Prince, the individual being in all cases ent.i.tled to criticise the decisions of the executive. Anarchy must necessarily ensue: ”If the people reserved unto themselves the right of free inquiry and the liberty of obeying or not, according as they found just or unjust the orders of those that commanded, it would not be possible to preserve the public peace.”[250] The right of the majority to overrule the minority cannot obtain if the people are sovereign; should the majority use coercion, they act unjustly; nothing can be reproached the minority if they call foreign soldiers to their aid. The oath of allegiance is a farce, since the safety of the people is the supreme law. No one can deny the force of these arguments. The liberal doctrines are two-edged swords striking the tyrant down, it is true, but not without inflicting wounds on the people. France in the nineteenth century experienced some of the evils resulting from the continual presence in the minds of the people of their right to remedy sometimes slight evil by insurrection. It remained, of course, to the Anglo-Saxon race to contradict the too general statement of Bayle by showing how ma.s.ses under favourable circ.u.mstances could be taught the exercise of self-government.
Next to the general argument are some minor arguments drawn from the immediate events. Jeremy Collier, the non-juror, would have used them with great effect had he known them. Are the Irish Jacobites rebels or no? The refugees under Schomberg treat them as such, and yet the King of England is at their head. The answer, of course, is that Ireland, being a country added to England by conquest, is bound to acknowledge the sovereign chosen by England. If the Emperor in becoming a Calvinist were deposed by the Electors, would not the Protestants throughout Europe once again preach up pa.s.sive obedience? History justifies the charges of this remarkable little book, to which there only lacks the proposition that large sections of mankind are constantly reshaping their political doctrines to meet the pressure of unforeseen events. As the expected advent to the throne of France of Henri de Navarre made the sovereignty of the people acceptable to Ultramontanes, so the English Revolution appeared to Huguenots a convincing argument in favour of the same doctrine.
Between Bayle and Voltaire, more than one striking a.n.a.logy can be noticed.
Both in respect to French internal politics held the same opinion.
Persecuted by fanatical Huguenot ministers and Catholic priests, they dreamed of an impossible alliance between the King and the free-thinking tolerant men of letters. It is certain that Bayle corresponded with Pelisson, Secretary of State to Louis XIV. In the _Avis aux refugies_ he probably stretched to their utmost his concessions to the French Court.
Nothing short of going to Ma.s.s was deemed sufficient to allow him to reside in France, so he brushed aside the temptation. But public opinion in France treated him well. Boileau, then a kind of sovereign magistrate in the Republic of Letters, expressed high approval of the _Dictionary_, and the French courts of law, contrary to the King's edicts, admitted Bayle's will to be valid.
For reasons different from Bayle, Basnage kept shy of the liberal doctrines. Although Jurieu's son-in-law, he was essentially for moderate courses. Saumaise, Amyraut, Claude, he thought, had gone too far in extolling divine right,[251] but Bayle was right in the main. Held in high esteem by the States-General, Basnage exerted himself in different diplomatic missions to wring some concessions from the French Court.
Wis.h.i.+ng his co-religionists to return to France, he thought it expedient to publish his thoughts on the subject of obedience. Like his father-in-law, he wrote, but in a less heroic strain, _Pastoral Letters_ to the Huguenots remaining in France. ”Remember,” he said, ”only the teachings of the Gospel and the principles that we derive from Holy Scripture, and that we shall inculcate till the end of our life without change, that loyalty to the sovereign must be inviolable, not only through fear, but for conscience sake.”[252] He warns them against holding large noisy a.s.semblies in the ”desert,” advising family prayers in the stead: ”Do not call down upon yourselves by tumultuous a.s.semblies and indiscreet zeal, fresh misfortunes which in the present time would appear to be due to justice rather than to hatred and difference of religion.” On no account are they to bear arms: ”You ought to be alive to the honour of your religion ... that never authorises any one to bear and use arms for his preservation.”[253]
Those diplomatic words do not reflect the general feeling of the refugees; in England they adopted, as we have seen, current Whig theories; for them the French and the Tory interest coincided. Later on, they supported the house of Hanover. In an address presented to the King a little before the rebellion of 1745 by the merchants of the City of London, out of 542 names, Rev. D. Agnew identified no less than 99 refugees. The Tories, feeling the danger accruing to them from this active Whig element, brought against them several measures. The Act of Settlement pa.s.sed by a Tory administration had a clause that, ostensibly directed against the Dutch favourites of the King, was detrimental to the refugees. In 1705, the Tory majority in the Commons rejected a Naturalization Bill, for fear the new-made subjects should return Whig members.[254]
The problem of toleration interests politics as well as religion. For the refugees who, driven from France, settled in England or Holland, civil toleration was in question only in so far as it referred to the French King's policy. But in the French churches abroad, the question of ecclesiastical toleration arose from the intolerance displayed by the Synods to the heterodox preachers. From those various discussions two dissimilar theories presently took shape, in which once more Bayle and Jurieu were pitted together.
Bayle, hearing how his brother had died for his religion in a French prison, dashed off against the persecutors a virulent pamphlet[255] out of which there soon grew a theory of toleration. The chief argument of the Catholic clergy was Christ's words in the parable: ”Compel them to come in.” Bayle set to work to show how the literal meaning of the words must be rejected, because force cannot give faith; it is contrary to Christ's meekness, it confounds justice and injustice, and is the cause of civil wars; it makes Christianity hateful in the eyes of the pagans, and is a temptation to sin, the dragoons losing their souls in carrying out their master's commands; it makes the persecution of the early Christians justifiable, and ent.i.tles every sect to persecute in the name of truth, which to their belief they possess.
After that preliminary pa.s.sage of arms, comes the capital argument in the book. Conscience in each individual is the sovereign judge whom he is bound to obey. Since invincible causes often prevent us from discovering truth, all that G.o.d asks of us is sincerity. If a pagan is guilty before Heaven, it is not because he is an idolater, but for crimes committed against the dictates of his conscience. The greatest crime is to disobey one's conscience, to be insincere. A heretic of good faith is ent.i.tled from a human point of view to the same respect as a sincere believer. Persecution being contrary to the order of things established by G.o.d, is not only criminal but absurd.[256]
A reply to the _Commentary_ was dashed off by Jurieu, who always wrote at white-heat.[257] When there is, as often happens, a conflict between the revealed law of G.o.d and the dictates of the individual conscience, if our conscience is the sovereign judge, G.o.d's word is in vain. Justice, equity depending on individual caprice, the responsibility of the criminal logically disappears. A murderer like Ravaillac, who, in stabbing Henri IV., obeys his conscience, must not in strict justice be put to death. No happier state there is, according to the _Commentary_, than that of a cannibal innocent, because his conscience is not enlightened, and free to follow the lowest instincts of man's nature. Erring conscience to Jurieu's mind has the power, not the right, to command; the fountain-head of right is justice and truth, not their counterfeit.
In a supplement to the _Commentary_, published in 1687, Bayle met Jurieu's attack. On the question of toleration no distinction can be drawn between orthodoxy and heresy. Suppose that, in obedience to Christ's command to give alms, a man relieves a fellow-creature feigning to be poor, he has none the less obeyed the command; therefore a heretic compelling an orthodox to renounce his belief obeys Christ's command ”compel them to come in.” The Protestant has the same right as the Catholic to persecute, the Pagan as the Christian, and the whole argument of the upholders of intolerance rests on worthless distinctions.
This objection Jurieu had foreseen by expounding a bold uncompromising theory. The right to persecute is a right granted by G.o.d to the Christian magistrate. No Church of Christ can hold its own in the struggle going on in this world against darkness and sin without the use of force. Early Christianity would never have won ascendancy without the help of the Christian Emperors who destroyed the Pagan temples and forbade the wors.h.i.+p of the false deities. ”It is G.o.d's will that the Kings of the world should despoil the Beast and smite down its image.” The King of France has no right to persecute the Huguenots, they being Christians ”confessing G.o.d and Jesus Christ according to the three Creeds.” Bossuet had already flung into his adversary's face the fate of Servetus. Servetus, Jurieu readily answered, was no Christian: professing ”d.a.m.nable errors,” he was justly burned at the stake.
<script>