CHAP. XXVIII.

THE DIVISION OF EUROPE AT THIS PERIOD OF THE PRESENT HISTORY, INTO A CATHOLIC AND A PROTESTANT PARTY: ITS CONSEQUENCES.

ANCIENT and modern history differ in nothing. so much, as the absence of religious wars and controversies from the former, and the large space which they occupy in the latter. During the successive periods of the Assyrian, Persian, Macedonian, and Roman empires, the grand political division of the world was, into the states within the sway of those powerful empires, and the states beyond it. At the end of the fifth century of the christian æra, by far the greater part of Europe. was Roman; but, after the death of Trajan, the Romans ceased to be conquerors; and soon afterwards the barbarians of the north and north-east began to invade their territories on every side, and to erect on their ruins, a multitude of principalities, independent on each other, but united by the profession of a common religion, by a common regard for its interests, and by a common submission, in religious concerns, to the pope, as their common head. By degrees, Austria, France, Spain, and England, became the European powers of the first order. The union of the Imperial and Spanish crowns on the head of Charles the fifth, produced confederacies against him. The French monarch was always at their head; and Europe thus became

divided into two new parties, the Austrian and the French.

The reformation arrived: and then, according to Scheller*, "the interests of the European states, “ which, till that time, had been national, ceased to "be such; and the interests of religion formed a "bond of union, among subjects of different go"vernments, who, till this time, had been unknown "to each other. A sentiment more powerful in "the heart of man than even the love of his "country, rendered him capable of perceptions "and feelings which reached beyond its limits: "the French calvinist found himself more in con“tact with a calvinist in England, Germany, Hol"land, or Geneva, than with a catholic of his own country." This effected a new political division of Europe: France, siding with the separatists from the church of Rome, and introducing to the aid of their common cause the Ottoman power, became the real head of one party; Austria was the head of the other. But when, upon the abdication of Charles the fifth, his German were divided from his Spanish states, and the civil wars of France weakened her connections with the protestant

66

* Histoire de la Guerre de trente ans,-cited by M. de Bonald, in his interesting essay, "De l'Unité Religieuse en "Europe;"-inserted in the Ambigu of Peltier, No. cxxv.→→ This journal contains several other essays of Bonald, on subjects of literature and history, which show great learning, an excellent taste, and profound observation.-See also "Les véritables Auteurs de la Révolution de France de 1789, 8vo. Neufchatel, 1797

powers and the Porte, Philip the second of Spain and Elizabeth of England became the conspicuous characters. Philip, with the aid of Bavaria, was the centre of the catholic system; Elizabeth, with the United Provinces at her disposition, was at the head of the protestant. During this period, Germany, under the peaceable influence of Rudolph, took no part in the contest; but all the temporal, and, (which was of much greater consequence), all the spiritual power of Rome, co-operated with the Spaniard, and placed the pope in the van of the catholic array. Then, if Scheller's remarks be just, the protestants in every country subject to the Spanish sway, would be partisans of Elizabeth, and every catholic in the territories subject to her dominion or controul, would be favourable to the designs of Philip and the pope. Pursuing his reasoning, it would follow, that this would be particularly the case of the clergy of each division, on account of their nearer interests in the concerns of religion; and still more the case of the catholic clergy, on account of their intimate connection with the Roman see, and graduated dependence upon her.

Now if we examine the conduct of the foreign protestants and the English catholics by Scheller's observation, we shall find the result very favourable to the latter.-While England was at peace with France, Elizabeth supplied the protestant insurgents with men, ammunition, and money, concluded an offensive and defensive treaty with them, and was put by them into possession of Havre de

Grace, which commanded the mouth of the Seine, and was, on that account, esteemed and denominated the key of France. In the same manner, while England was at peace with Spain, Elizabeth fomented the revolt of the protestant Flemings, entered into a similar treaty with them, sent them similar supplies, encouraged her subjects to outrage Philip in the European, West Indian, and South American seas and shores, and readily accepted the offer of the states of Holland, that her ambassador should be admitted into their council *.

On the other hand,-notwithstanding the illegitimacy, or, at most, the dubious legitimacy of Elizabeth, notwithstanding her proscription of the catholic religion and her persecution of the catholics, notwithstanding the plausible pretension of the Scottish queen to the throne of England, and notwithstanding the sentence of deposition fulminated by the pope against Elizabeth, the practical allegiance of her catholic subjects was unshaken :-we shall afterwards have occasion to mention the exemplary loyalty of the universal body to their queen in the hour of her danger.

It may be admitted, that, while the catholics were placed under these trying circumstances, and were so unjustly and so cruelly treated, it was natural to fear their disaffection, and that state

* These instances of Elizabeth's interference with the rebellious subjects of France and Spain, are candidly mentioned by Hume; and eloquently brought forward in the Responsio ad edictum Elizabethæ, noticed in a future part of this work.

policy would, therefore, both require and justify precaution. Still, before guilt was committed, or the meditation of it discovered, however just it might be to hold out the terrors of persecution and punishment, the infliction of them was unjustifiable. On the other hand, prudence required from the catholics, that they should avoid every thing that could provoke suspicion, and embrace every lawful measure, which was likely to conciliate either the sovereign or the people; that they should limit their intercourse with the see of Rome, as much as the principles of their religion allowed; that they should have no political relations with Spain, or any other foreign power, and no intercourse with the queen of Scots; that they should abstain from all state concerns, particularly those, which regarded the royal succession; that they should avail themselves of every opportunity of testifying their absolute and unqualified allegiance to her majesty; and that even in spiritual matters they should adopt, as far as the true doctrines of their religion admitted, all arrangements that would please, and avoid all that would be offensive to government. This, good sense and duty prescribed to the flock: this, their pastors, and this, in a particular manner, the supreme pontiff of their church should have preached to them, and confirmed by words and example.

To this conduct also the government of Elizabeth should have invited her catholic subjects. They should have reflected that, while catholics peaceably obeyed the processes of her courts, cheerfully served in her fleets and armies, and did no act inconsistent