EXPECTED DISRUPTION OF THE FRENCH PROTESTANT CHURCH.
THE Reformed Church of France seems to be on the eve of a great schism. It is split up into two parties, who differ from each other about the fundamental dogmas of Christianity; and the strife has become so bitter, that all hope of a reconcilement must be dismissed. The quarrel was not begun recently, but it was brought to a practical issue by the Synod which met in 1872, for the first time after a lapse of two centuries. The descend- ants of the Huguenots did not bring their orthodoxy unscathed out of the fire which on the eve of the Revolution scorched the sanctities of France. Religion was so much a reality to them, that they could not, indeed, become Voltaireans, but many became so " Liberal "in their theology that they might have been denied the title of " Christian" in this country. They felt that the old theory of Biblical inspiration would not bear the scrutiny of modern scholarship, and they tried to free the theology of their Church, so far as they could, from the dogmas that chiefly excite the ire of criticism. That was not an easy task, in a Church which had accepted the rigid dogmas of Calvin. The only way to liberalise its teaching was to give a figurative interpretation to such doctrines as the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Ascension. More than a generation ago a large party contended that Protestantism should free itself from the swaddling-clothes of subscription to rigid creeds, and should be content with a general declaration of faith in Christ, without asking who Christ was. The Orthodox party retorted that no Church ever was or ever would be held together by so vague a profession of belief, and they insisted that those who denied the evangelical doctrines of Christ's birth, his death, his resurrection, and his ascension into heaven, had no right to remain in the same religious community as those who held those dogmas to be essen- tial to Christianity. The strife became intensely bitter in Paris some years ago, on account of the boldness and the eloquence with which M. Coquerel fits preached a mystical Unitarianism in the name of Protestant Christianity. The Orthodox party declared that such teaching was a scandal to the Reformed Church, and an occasion of malicious delight to her enemies. The controversialists of Rome had predicted that Protestantism could not stop on the inclined plane of private interpretation, but that ft would slide down to the abyss of rationalism, until it should find itself in company with a scoffing hostility to Christianity, and indeed to religion. Bossuet, Do Maistre, and all the great apologists of Catholicism, had warned the Protestants that in cutting themselves loose from the See of St. Peter, they had parted from the one safeguard of their faith ; and the small pupils of those great teachers have pointed to the doctrines of M. Coquerel fits, and to the applause which they excited among the descendants of the Huguenots, as a proof that Bossuet and De Maistre were right. Protestants lik,g Guizot agreed with the Catholic censor so far as to admit that the only safeguard against rationalism was a more or less rigid creed, but the orthodox Protestants could not enforce their opinions until M. Thiers permitted the Synod to be convoked. M. Guizot had exerted all his influence to obtain that favour, and his chief object doubtless was to stop the flood of rationalism. Both parties knew that the meeting was to be a trial of strength, and in truth the debates let loose the pent-up bitterness of years. Each side was represented by men of great ability, eloquence, and learning. M. Guizot flung himself into the discussion with the energy of youth. M. Chabaud-Latour, who is now the Minister of the Interior, took part on the same side. M. Bois, one of the most learned theologians of the Church, shaped most of the resolutions. M. Coquerel fits and a crowd of young pastors and elders defended the liberals with brilliant eloquence, but the orthodox voters were victorious. They carried resolutions to the effect that the Reformed Church was based on the sovereign authority of the Scriptures, and on faith in Jesus Christ, who died for our sins, and was raised again for our justification.
M. Guizot next urged the Government to let the Synod pub- lish that declaration of faith, and the question was referred to the Council of State. At first the Council would not admit the legality of such an act, but it withdrew its objection when the Synod promised that it would not interfere with the liberty of the
Churches or with the conscience of the worshippers. The Synod then met once more to draw up the conditions of election, but this time the Liberals did not appear. They contended that it had not been regularly convened. Nevertheless, the Synod de- creed that the electoral rights of the Church should be given to no one who would not, either by word of mouth or writing, de- clare his belief in the doctrines specified by the resolutions. That edict was made very important by the fact that the constitution of the Church is strictly Presbyterian, and hence elections are alike frequent and necessary. Each church has its own presby- tery, which is chosen by the congregation. For every 6,000 per- sons there is a conaistory, made up of the presbytery of the chief church in the consistorial district, and delegates from the leaser places of worship. The consistories are important bodies, because they not only manage the funds, but they also appoint the pastors. Thus the disfranchisement of the Liberals would throw all the governing power and all the pulpits into the hands of their foes. But many of their congregations refused to pay the slightest heed to the orders of the Synod. They alleged, indeed, that those orders were illegal, because they had not been submitted to the Council of State. The question was brought before the Minister of Public Worship by some Paris electors who had been struck off the rolls for refusing to sign the synodical declaration, but he ruled that the complaint was invalid. Meanwhile, he proceeeded to annul most of the elections which had been held in defiance of the new regulations. All the rebellious congregations and con- sistories, however, were, if the Journal des Debats is rightly in- formed, not warned at the same time. The notices were sent at irregular intervals, and they were also distributed in a somewhat capricious fashion, if it be true that Rouen has escaped the Minis- terial visitation, in -spite of the notorious fact that its elections have been as illegal as some which have been annulled. The inference of the Unitarians is that the Government wished to proceed as quietly as it could, in order to prevent a general up- rising. But if such was the design, it has failed. The Liberals held a great meeting at Nimes, on the 7th and the 8th of last month. and they then drew up an appeal in which they virtually defied the Government to do its worst. The chiefs of the party have also come to Paris, and they are said to represent forty-two consistories, 260 pastors, and 350,000 Protestants. They have been arranging their plan of defence, and they are to lay their case before the Minister of Public Worship so soon as he shall return to Paris. Meanwhile, the orthodox Protestants have held a meet- ing at Montpellier, under the presidency of M. Bois, and they have published a reply to the appeal of the Unitarians. It is a very eloquent and able document. They say that they accept those great fundamental truths of the Gospel which were declared by the Synod, and the Liberals, they add, wish to preach and vote in the Church without believing in the divine revelation made by the Scriptures. The Liberals seek to throw the doors open to " all systems and all negations." But that demand is absolutely new, and hence those who make it will be responsible if there should be a schism. The liberals appealed to the glorious Huguenot history which is common to both the parties, and to those fathers of French Protestantism that they both venerate ; but the reply is that those revered men acted in a way which con- demns M. Coquerel fits Its avaient fonds leur lglise non sur l'indiffirence des doctrines, main sur is foi." The Unitarians appeal to a ,faith in their "common master and saviour, Jesus Christ," but the faith-of the two parties is fundamentally different. Nay, the Liberals do not say what they believe, for the all- sufficient reason that they do not agree among themselves. The orthodox Protestants, then, protest against the insinuation that they seek to strip the Liberals bare of all the pecuniary advan- tages derived from a connection with the State. M. Bois and his friends are quite willing that the heretics should form a com- pact with the Government, if they will only withdraw from the Church, and honestly appear in their true colours. But separa- tion or submission they declare to be indispensable.
We do not yet know how the Liberals will finallyact, but theymay choose between three obvious courses. They may bring the quarrel before the National Assembly, and demand the condemnation of the Minister who has sanctioned the conditions of the Synod. As, however, all the Right and many members of the Left Centre would take the side of the orthodox section, that would be a hopeless course. Secondly, they may bring the dispute into a Court of.Law, on the plea that the regulations are illegal ; and they-will doubtless do so, if they should fail to obtain satisfaction from the Government. Or finally, they may demand that their places of worship shall be handed over to them, that they shall receive a due share of the funds now allotted to the whole Church, and that they shall thus be formed into an independent body. Such, we believe, would be the best way of restoring peace,
but we suspect that the majority would resist any attempt to give the ancient chapels to men who have fallen away from the Huguenot faith. They will remind the Government that there are orthodox members even in the most heretical congregations, and that the place of worship should be left for the faithful few. The Liberals, on the other hand, will energetically resist any effort to strip them bare of churches, and they will cer- tainly use every political and legal means of defence. As the Minister of the Interior is himself an ardent member of the Orthodox party, it is far from improbable that the Government may refuse to grant the demands of the Liberals, and in such a case, the dispute will inevitably be carried to the Assembly and the Courts of Law.
We do not wonder at the determination of the majority to drive the Unitarians from the Church. However good Liberalism may be, yet it was preposterous to expect that M. Guizot and his friends would continue to let all the rights of the Reformed Church be exercised by men who denied every one of its funda- mental doctrines, or who gave them such an interpretation as to make them mystic poetry, or who taught a Christianity which is only a system of philosophy and morals. Nothing but bitter strife and hatred could come from such a union, and separation is essential for the sake of peace. But if .it -is true that the Liberals have, 350,000 adherents, the -State will act with a very high hand indeed should it take away all their places of worship. It would be better to treat them generously, and let them try the experiment of forming a Church without a creed. The spectacle would be interesting and instructive to this country, as well as to France. But meanwhile, it is a remark- able fact that such a negation of belief should exist among the descendants of the Huguenots, who were once as precise Cal- vinists as the Scotch themselves. When more than 300,000 of them refuse to make even the most general declaration of belief in the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, and the ascension, .a funda- mental change has indeed come over a Church which has added imperishable chapters to the history of France.
Previous page
