Rome at first made the mistake of supposing that this was nothing more than a casual outbreak; she failed to discern that it was, in fact, the culmination of an internal movement which for two centuries had been going on in Europe, and which had been hourly gathering force; that, had there been nothing else, the existence of three popes—­three obediences—­would have compelled men to think, to deliberate, to conclude for themselves.  The Councils of Constance and Basle taught them that there was a higher power than the popes.  The long and bloody wars that ensued were closed by the Peace of Westphalia; and then it was found that Central and Northern Europe had cast off the intellectual tyranny of Rome, that individualism had carried its point, and had established the right of every man to think for himself.

Decomposition of Protestantism.  But it was impossible that the establishment of this right of private judgment should end with the rejection of Catholicism.  Early in the movement some of the most distinguished men, such as Erasmus, who had been among its first promoters, abandoned it.  They perceived that many of the Reformers entertained a bitter dislike of learning, and they were afraid of being brought under bigoted caprice.  The Protestant party, having thus established its existence by dissent and separation, must, in its turn, submit to the operation of the same principles.  A decomposition into many subordinate sects was inevitable.  And these, now that they had no longer any thing to fear from their great Italian adversary, commenced partisan warfares on each other.  As, in different countries, first one and then another sect rose to power, it stained itself with cruelties perpetrated upon its competitors.  The mortal retaliations that had ensued, when, in the chances of the times, the oppressed got the better of their oppressors, convinced the contending sectarians that they must concede to their competitors what they claimed for themselves; and thus, from their broils and their crimes, the great principle of toleration extricated itself.  But toleration is only an intermediate stage; and, as the intellectual decomposition of Protestantism keeps going on, that transitional condition will lead to a higher and nobler state —­the hope of philosophy in all past ages of the world—­a social state in which there shall be unfettered freedom for thought.  Toleration, except when extorted by fear, can only come from those who are capable of entertaining and respecting other opinions than their own.  It can therefore only come from philosophy.  History teaches us only too plainly that fanaticism is stimulated by religion, and neutralized or eradicated by philosophy.