CHAPTER V.

MELANCHTHON'S ATTEMPT AT CONCILIATION, AND THE YEAR OF THE PLACARDS.

It appears almost incredible that, so late as in the year 1534, the hope

of reuniting the discordant views of the partisans of reform and the

adherents of the Roman Church should have been seriously entertained by

any considerable number of reflecting minds, for the chasm separating

the opposing parties was too wide and deep to be bridged over or filled.

There were irreconcilable differences of doctrine and practice, and

tendencies so diverse as to preclude the possibility of harmonious

action.

[Sidenote: Hopes of reunion in the church.]

Not so, however, thought many sincere persons on both sides, and not

less on the side of the Reformation than on that of the Roman Catholic

Church. True, the claims of the papacy were insupportable, and the most

flagrant abuses prevailed; but many of the reformers believed it quite

within the bounds of possibility that the great body of the supporters

of the church might be brought to recognize and renounce these abuses,

and break the tyrannical yoke that had, for so many centuries, rested

upon the neck of the faithful. The ancient fabric of religion, they

said, is indeed disfigured by modern additions, and has been brought, by

long neglect, to the very verge of ruin. But these tasteless

excrescences can easily be removed, the ravages of time reverently

repaired, and the grand old edifice restored to its pristine symmetry

and magnificence. In a word, it was a general _reformation_ that was

contemplated--no radical reconstruction after a novel plan. And the

future _council_, in which all phases of opinion would be freely

represented, was to provide the adequate and sufficient cure for all the

ills afflicting the body politic and ecclesiastic.

By some of the more sanguine adherents of both parties these flattering

expectations were long entertained. With others the attempt to effect a

religious reconciliation seems to have served merely as a mask to hide

political designs; and at this distance of time it is among the most

difficult problems of history to determine the proportion in which

earnest zeal and rank insincerity entered as factors into the measures

undertaken for the purpose of reconciling theological differences.

Especially is this true respecting the overtures made by the French

monarch to Philip Melanchthon, which now claim our attention.

[Sidenote: Melanchthon and Du Bellay.]

[Sidenote: A plan of reconciliation.]

Early in the spring of the year 1534 Melanchthon received a courteous

visit at Wittemberg from an agent of the distinguished French

diplomatist, Guillaume du Bellay-Langey, envoy to the Protestant princes

of Germany. The interview paved the way for a long correspondence

between Melanchthon and Du Bellay himself, in which the latter threw out

suggestions of the practicability of some plan for bringing the

intelligent and candid men in both countries to adopt a common ground in

respect to religion. Finally, in response to Du Bellay's earnest

request, his correspondent consented to draw up such a scheme as

appeared to himself proper to serve for the basis of union. The result

was a paper of a truly wonderful character, in which the reader scarcely

knows whether to admire the evident charity dictating every line, or to

smile at the simplicity betrayed in the extravagant concessions. In a

letter accompanying his proposal Melanchthon set forth at some length

both his motives and his hopes. In touching upon controverted points, he

claimed to have exhibited a moderation that would prove to be not

without utility to the church. He professed his own belief that an

accommodation might be effected on every doctrinal point, if only a free

and amicable conference were to be held, under royal auspices, between a

few good and learned men. The subjects of dispute were less numerous

than was generally supposed, and the edge of many a sharply drawn

theological distinction had been insensibly worn away by the softening

hand of time. By such a conference as he proposed the perils of a public

discussion could be avoided--a form of controversy fatal, for the most

part, to the peace of the unlearned. In fact, no radical change was

absolutely required in the ancient order or in ecclesiastical polity.

Not even the pontifical authority itself need necessarily be abolished;

for it was the desire of the Lutheran party, so far as possible, to

retain all the accustomed forms. In fine, he begged Du Bellay to exhort

the monarchs of Europe to concord while yet there was room left for the

counsels of moderation. What calamities might otherwise be in store!

What a ruin both of church and state, should a collision of arms be

precipitated![328]

But Melanchthon's ardor had carried him far beyond his true reckoning.

No other reformer could have brought himself to approve the articles now

submitted for the king's perusal; while it was certain that not even

this unbounded liberality would satisfy the exorbitant demands of the

Roman party.

[Sidenote: Melanchthon's concessions.]

Melanchthon not only admitted that an ecclesiastical system with bishops

in many cities was lawful, but that the Roman pontiff might preside over

the entire episcopate. He countenanced, to a certain extent, the current

doctrine respecting human tradition and the retention of auricular

confession. He discerned a gradual approach to concord in respect to

justification, and found no difficulty in the divergent views of free

will and original sin. He did, indeed, insist upon the rejection of the

worship of saints, and advocate expunging from the ritual all appeals

for their assistance. So, too, monks ought to be allowed to forsake the

cloister, and monastic establishments could then be advantageously

turned into schools of learning. The celibacy of the clergy should, in

like manner, be forthwith granted. There was, however, in his view, one

point that bristled with difficulties. How to remove them Melanchthon

confessed himself unable to suggest. The question of the popish mass was

the Gordian knot which must be reserved for the future council of the

church to untie or cut.[329]

[Sidenote: His own misgivings.]

A faint suspicion seems, however, to have flitted through the Wittemberg

reformer's mind, that possibly, after all his large admissions, his

attempt was but labor lost! For, in a letter to Martin Bucer, written on

the very day he despatched his communication to Du Bellay, he more than

hinted his own despair of effecting an agreement with the Pope of Rome,

and excused himself for his apparently lavish proffers, on the plea that

he was desirous of making his good French friends comprehend the chief

points of controversy![330]

[Sidenote: A favorable impression made on Francis.]

Melanchthon's articles, faithfully transmitted by Du Bellay, produced on

the mind of Francis a favorable impression. The ambitious monarch

welcomed the prospect of a speedy removal of the doctrinal differences

that had previously marred the perfect understanding he wished to

maintain with the Protestant princes of Germany. Whether, however, any

higher motives than considerations of a political character weighed with

him, may well be doubted.

Meantime, an unexpected occurrence for the time dispelled all thought of

that harvest of conciliation and harmony which the more moderate

reformers looked for as likely to spring up from the seed so liberally

sown by Melanchthon.

[Sidenote: Indiscreet partisans of reform.]

If, among the advocates of the purification of the church, there was a

party which, with Melanchthon, seemed ready to jeopard some of the most

vital principles of the great moral and religious movement, in the vain

hope of again cementing an unnatural union with the Roman system, there

was another faction, to which moderation and half-way measures were

utterly repulsive. Its partisans believed themselves warranted in

resorting to open acts expressive of detestation of the gilded idolatry

of the popular religion. For their views they alleged the Old Testament

history as sufficient authority. Had not the servants of Jehovah braved

the resentment of the priests of Baal, and disregarded the threats of

kings and queens? Why treat the saints' images, the crucifixes, the

gorgeous robes and manufactured relics, with more consideration than was

displayed by Hebrew prophets in dealing with heathen abominations? So

inveterate an evil as the corruption of all that is most sacred in

Christianity could only be successfully combated by vigor and decision.

Only under heavy and repeated blows does the monarch of the forest yield

to the axe of the woodman.

Between the extremes of ill-judged concession and untimely rashness, the

great body of those who had embraced the Reformation endeavored to hold

a middle course, but found themselves exposed to many perils, not the

result of their own actions, but brought upon them by the timidity or

foolhardiness of their associates. A lamentable instance of the kind

must now be noticed.

[Sidenote: Placards and pasquinades.]

For many months the street-walls of Paris had been employed by both

sides in the great controversies of the day, for the purpose of giving

publicity to their views. Under cover of night, placards, often in the

form of pasquinades, were posted where they would be likely to meet the

eyes of a large number of curious readers. So, in the excitement

following the arrest and exile of Beda and other impertinent and

seditious preachers, placards succeeded each other nightly. In one the

theologians of the Sorbonne were portrayed to the life, and each in all

his proper colors, by an unfriendly pencil. In another, "Paris, flower

of nobility" was passionately entreated to sustain the wounded faith of

God, and the King of Glory was supplicated to confound "the accursed

dogs," the Lutherans.[331] Under the circumstances, it was not strange

that the "Lutheran" placard was hastily torn down by some zealot, with

the exclamation that the author was a heretic, while a crowd stood all

day about the other transcribing its unpoetic but pious exhortations to

burn the offenders against Divine justice, and no one attempted to

remove it.

[Sidenote: Mission of Feret to Switzerland.]

The success of this method of reaching the masses, who could never be

induced to read a formal treatise or book, suggested to some of the more

ardent "Lutherans" of Paris the idea of preparing a longer placard,

which should boldly attack the cardinal errors of the papal system of

religion. But, the press being closely watched in the French capital, it

was thought best to have the placard printed in Switzerland, where,

indeed, the most competent and experienced hands might be found for

composing such a paper. The messenger employed was a young man named

Feret, an apprentice of the king's apothecary;[332] and the printing

seems to have been done in the humble but famous establishment of Pierre

Van Wingle, in the retired Vale of Serrieres, just out of Neufchatel,

and on the same presses which, in 1533, gave to the world the first

French reformed liturgy, and, two years later, the Protestant

translation of the Bible into the French language by Olivetanus.[333]

There is less certainty respecting the authorship, but it seems highly

probable that not Farel, but an enthusiastic and somewhat hot-headed

writer, Antoine de Marcourt, must be held responsible for this imprudent

production.[334]

[Sidenote: The placard against the mass.]

Feret, having on his return eluded detection at the frontiers, reached

Paris in safety. He brought with him a large number of copies of a

broadside headed, "_True Articles respecting the horrible, great and

insupportable Abuses of the Papal Mass_." Among those to whom the paper

was secretly submitted, there were some who, more prudent than the rest,

decidedly opposed its publication. It was too violent, they said. The

writer's ill-advised severity would answer no good purpose. The tract

would alienate the sympathy of many, and thus retard, instead of

advancing, the cause it advocated.[335] Remonstrance, however, proved

futile.

Early on the morning of the eighteenth of October, 1534, a placard was

found posted upon the walls in all the principal thoroughfares of the

metropolis. Everywhere it was read with horror and indignation, mingled

with rage; and loud threats and curses were uttered against its unknown

author.

The document that called forth these expressions and was the occasion of

more important commotions in the sequel, had so direct and potent an

influence upon the fortunes of the Reformation in France that it cannot

be passed over without a brief reference to the general character of its

contents. It began with a solemn address: "I invoke heaven and earth in

testimony of the truth, against that proud and pompous papal mass,

through which (if God remedy not speedily the evil) the world will be

wholly desolated, destroyed, and ruined. For therein is our Lord so

outrageously blasphemed and the people so blinded and seduced, that it

ought no longer to be suffered or endured." Every Christian must needs

be assured that the one sacrifice of Christ, being perfect, demands no

repetition. Still the world has long been, and now is, flooded with

wretched sacrificing priests, who yet proclaim themselves liars,

inasmuch as they chant every Sunday in their vespers, that Christ is a

priest forever after the order of Melchisedec. Wherefore not only every

man of sound understanding, but "they themselves, in spite of

themselves, must admit that the Pope and all his brood of cardinals,

bishops, monks, and canting mass-priests, with all who consent

thereunto, are false prophets, damnable deceivers, apostates, wolves,

false shepherds, idolaters, seducers, liars and execrable blasphemers,

murderers of souls, renouncers of Jesus Christ, of his death and

passion, false witnesses, traitors, thieves, and robbers of the honor

of God, and more detestable than devils." After citing from the book of

Hebrews some passages to establish the sufficiency of Christ, the writer

addresses his opponents: "I demand then of all sacrificing priests,

whether their sacrifice be perfect or imperfect? If imperfect, why do

they deceive the poor people? If perfect, why need it be repeated? Come

forward, priests, and reply if you can!"

The body of Christ cannot, it is argued, be contained in the host. It is

_above_, whither also we are bidden raise our hearts and look for the

Lord. To breathe or mutter over the bread and wine, and then adore them,

is idolatry. To enjoin this adoration on others is a doctrine of devils.

But these impudent heretics, not ashamed of attempting to imprison the

body of Jesus in their wafer, have even dared to place this caution in

the rubric of their missals, "If the body of our Lord, being devoured of

mice or spiders, has been destroyed or much gnawed, or if the worm be

found altogether within, let it be burned and placed in the reliquary."

"O Earth! How dost thou not open and swallow up these horrible

blasphemers! Wretched men, is this the body of the Lord Jesus, the true

Son of God? Doth he suffer himself to be eaten of mice and spiders? He

who is the bread of angels and of all the children of God, is he given

to us to become the food of animals? Will ye make him who is

incorruptible at the right hand of God to be the prey of worms and

corruption? Were there no other error than this in your infernal

theology, well would ye deserve the fagot! Light then your fires to burn

_yourselves_, not us who refuse to believe in your idols, your new gods,

and new Christs that suffer themselves to be eaten indifferently by

animals and by you who are no better than animals!"[336] Closing with a

vivid contrast between the fruits of the mass and those of the true

Supper of our Lord, the writer finally exclaims of his opponents, "Truth

fails them, Truth threatens and pursues them, Truth terrifies them; by

which their reign shall shortly be destroyed forever."[337]

[Sidenote: The popular excitement in Paris.]

It would be difficult to exaggerate the effect produced upon the

populace of Paris by this intemperate handbill. If any part of the

ceremonial of the church was deeply rooted in the devotion of the common

people, it was the service of the mass. And in attacking the doctrine of

the Real Presence, the authors of this libel, distributed under cover of

the darkness, had, in the estimation of the rabble, proved themselves

more impious and deserving a more signal punishment than that

sacrilegious Jew whose knife had drawn drops of miraculous blood from

the transubstantiated wafer. Not the parish priests, nor the doctors of

the Sorbonne, could surpass the infuriated populace in loud execrations

of the wretch for whom burning alive seemed too mild a punishment.

[Sidenote: Anger of the king.]

But a second act of ill-timed rashness accomplished a result even more

disastrous for Protestantism than the kindling of the fanatical zeal of

the people; for it inflamed the anger of the king, and made him, what

all the persuasions of the Roman court had hitherto failed to make him,

a determined enemy and persecutor of the "new doctrines." A copy of the

placard was secretly affixed by night to the very door of the royal

bedchamber in the castle of Amboise,[338] where Francis and his court

were at the time sojourning. If the contents of the tract offended the

religious principles carefully inculcated upon the king by his spiritual

instructors, the audacity of the person who, disregarding bars, bolts

and guards, had presumed to invade the privacy of the royal abode and

obtrude his unwelcome message, could not but be regarded in the light of

a direct personal insult. Francis had not been in the habit of troubling

himself about the private opinions of the learned on vexed points of

theology; nor had he been inclined to permit his more fanatical

subjects to harass any of those eminent scholars whose literary

attainments added lustre to his brilliant court. Yet his claim to the

right of enforcing uniformity of belief--and that uniformity a complete

_conformity_ to his own creed--had rather been held in abeyance than

relinquished. Louis de Berquin had, at his cost, discovered that the

royal protection could not be expected even by a personal favorite and a

scholar of large acquisitions, when, not content with holding doctrines

deemed heretical, he strove to promulgate them. The interposition of

Margaret of Angouleme had proved unavailing in his behalf. The heretics

who had now ventured to nail an expose of their dogmas on his bedchamber

door could scarcely anticipate greater clemency.

[Sidenote: Political considerations.]

To personal motives were added political considerations. Indulgence to

the perpetrators of an act so insulting to the Roman Catholic religion

might drive the pontiff, whose friendship was an essential requisite of

success in Francis's ambitious projects, to become the fast friend of

the emperor, his rival. Pope Clement the Seventh had been succeeded by

Paul the Third. The alliance cemented by the marriage of the Duke of

Orleans to Catharine de' Medici had been dissolved by the death of the

bride's uncle. The favor of the new Pope must be conciliated. Under such

circumstances, what were the sufferings of a few poor reformers, when

weighed in the balance against the triple crown of his Holiness?

[Sidenote: Fruitless intercession of Margaret.]

Francis determined to return to Paris for the purpose of superintending

in person a search for the culprits. It is true that the Queen of

Navarre attempted to moderate his anger by suggesting that it was not

unlikely that the placard, far from being composed by the "Lutherans,"

was the cunning device of their enemies, who thus sought to insure the

ruin of the innocent. But the king appears not unreasonably to have

rejected the suggestion as improbable; although, seven years later,

Margaret reminded him of her surmise, and maintained that the sequel had

strongly confirmed its accuracy.[339]

[Sidenote: Francis abolishes the art of printing.]

Far, indeed, from yielding to his sister's persuasions, Francis in his

anger took a step which he would certainly have been glad himself, a few

months later, to be able to forget, and of which his panegyrists have

fruitlessly striven to obliterate the memory. On the thirteenth of

January, 1535, after the lapse of nearly three months from the date of

the publication of the placards--an interval that might surely be

regarded as sufficiently long to permit his overheated passions to cool

down--the king sent to the Parliament of Paris _an Edict absolutely

prohibiting any exercise of the Art of Printing in France, on pain of

the halter_! It was no secret from whom the ignoble suggestion had come.

A year and a half earlier (on the seventh of June, 1533), the

theologians of the Sorbonne had presented Francis an urgent petition, in

view of the multiplication of heretical books, wherein they set forth

the absolute necessity of suppressing forever by a severe law the

pestilent art which had been the parent of so dangerous a progeny.[340]

The king was now acting upon the advice of his ghostly counsellors!

[Sidenote: He suspends the disgraceful edict.]

Happily for Francis, however, whose ambition it had hitherto been to

figure as a modern Maecenas, even a subservient parliament declined the

customary registration. The king, too, coming to his senses after the

lapse of six weeks, so far yielded to the remonstrances of his more

sensible courtiers as to recall his rash edict, or, rather, suspend its

operation until he could give the matter more careful consideration.

Meanwhile he undertook to institute a censorship. The king was to select

twelve persons of quality and pecuniary responsibility, from a list of

twice that number of names submitted by parliament; and this commission

was to receive the exclusive right to print--and that, in the city of

Paris alone--such books as might be approved by the proper authorities

and be found necessary to the public weal. Until the appointment of the

twelve censors the press was to remain idle! Nor was the suspension of

the prohibitory ordinance to continue a day longer than the term

required by the monarch to decide whether he preferred to modify its

provisions or leave them unchanged. "Albeit on the thirteenth day of

January, 1534,"[341] wrote this much lauded patron of letters, "by other

letters-patent of ours, and for the causes and reasons therein

contained, _we prohibited and forbade any one from thenceforth printing,

or causing to be printed, any books in our kingdom, on pain of the

halter_: nevertheless, we have willed and ordained that the execution

and accomplishment of our said letters, prohibitions and injunctions, be

and continue suspended and surcease until we shall otherwise

provide."[342]

[Sidenote: Vigorous proceedings of parliament.]

Meantime, parliament had not been slack in obeying the command to search

diligently for the authors and publishers of the placards. Many reputed

"Lutherans" had been arrested, some of whom, it was given out, pretended

to reveal the existence of a plot of the reformers to fall upon the good

Christians of the metropolis while assembled in their churches for

divine worship, and assassinate them in the midst of their devotions!

The credulous populace made no difficulty in accepting the tale. Paris

shuddered at the thought of its narrow escape, and some hundreds of

thousands of men and women reverently crossed themselves and thanked

heaven they had not fallen a prey to the blood-thirsty designs of a

handful of peaceable and unarmed adherents of the "new doctrines!" As

for Francis himself, a grave historian tells us that his apprehensions

were inflamed by the very mention of the word "conspiracy."[343]

[Sidenote: Abundance of victims.]

The investigation had been committed to practised hands. The prosecuting

officer, or _lieutenant-criminel_, Morin, was as famous for his cunning

as he was notorious for his profligacy. Moreover, the judicious addition

of six hundred _livres parisis_ to his salary afforded him a fresh

stimulus and prevented his zeal from flagging.[344] The timidity or

treachery of one of the prisoners facilitated the inquest. Terrified by

the prospect of torture and death, or induced by hope of reward, a

person, obscurely designated as _le Guainier_, or _Gueynier_,[345] made

an ample disclosure of the names and residences of his former

fellow-believers. The pursuit was no longer confined to those who had

been concerned in the distribution of the placards. All reputed heretics

were apprehended, and, as rapidly as their trials could be prosecuted,

condemned to death. There was a rare harvest of falsehood and

misrepresentation. No wonder that innocent and guilty were involved in

one common fate.[346]

It does not come within the scope of this history to give an edifying

account of the courage displayed by the victims of the frenzy consequent

upon the placards. The very names of many are unknown. Among the first

to be committed to the flames was a young man, Barthelemi Milon, whom

paralysis had deprived of the use of the lower half of his body.[347]

His unpardonable offence was that copies of the placard against the mass

had been found in his possession. A wealthy draper, Jean du Bourg, had

been guilty of the still more heinous crime of having posted some of the

bills on the walls. For this he was compelled before execution to go

through that solemn mockery of penitence, the _amende honorable_, in

front of the church of Notre Dame, with but a shirt to conceal his

nakedness, and holding a lighted taper in his hand; afterward to be

conducted to the _Fontaine des Innocents_, and there have the hand that

had done the impious deed cut off at the wrist, in token of the public

detestation of his "high treason against God and the king." A printer, a

bookseller, a mason, a young man in orders, were subjected to the same

cruel death. But these were only the first fruits of the

prosecution.[348] However opinions may differ respecting the merits of

the cause for which they suffered, there can be but one view taken of

their deportment in the trying hour of execution. In the presence of the

horrible preparatives for torture, the most clownish displayed a

fortitude and a noble consciousness of honest purpose, contrasted with

which the pusillanimous dejection, the unworthy concessions, and the

premeditated perjury of Francis, during his captivity at Madrid not ten

years before, appear in no enviable light. The monarch who bartered away

his honor to regain his liberty[349] might have sat at the feet of

these, his obscure subjects, to learn the true secret of greatness.

[Sidenote: The great expiatory procession.]

The punishment of the persons who had taken part in the preparation and

dissemination of the placards was deemed an insufficient atonement for a

crime in the guilt of which they had involved the city, and, indeed, the

whole kingdom. As the offence excelled in enormity any other within the

memory of man, so it was determined to expiate it by a solemn procession

unparalleled for magnificence. Thursday, the twenty-first of January,

1535, was chosen for the pageant. Along the line of march the streets

had been carefully cleaned. A public proclamation had bidden every

householder display from his windows the most beautiful and costly

tapestries he possessed. At the doors of all private mansions large

waxen tapers burned, and, at the intersection of all side streets,

wooden barriers, guarded by soldiers, precluded the possibility of

interruption.

Early on the appointed morning, the entire body of the clergy of Paris,

decked out in their most splendid robes and bearing the insignia of

their respective ranks, assembled in Notre Dame, and thence in solemn

state marched to the church of St. Germain l'Auxerrois, to meet the

king. Sixteen dignitaries bore aloft the precious reliquary of Sainte

Genevieve; others in similar honor supported the no less venerated

reliquary of Saint Marcel. Those skilled in local antiquities averred

that never before had the sacred remains of either saint been known to

be brought across the Seine to grace any similar display.

At Saint Germain l'Auxerrois--that notable church under the very shadow

of the Louvre, whose bell, a generation later, gave the first signal for

the massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day--the royal court and the civil and

municipal bodies that had been permitted to appear on so august an

occasion, were in waiting. At length the magnificent column began its

progress, and threading the crowded streets of St. Honore and St. Denis,

made its way, over the bridge of Notre Dame, to the island upon which

stood and still stands the stately cathedral dedicated to Our Lady. Far

on in the van rode Eleonore, Francis's second queen, sister to the

emperor, conspicuous for her dignified bearing, dressed in black velvet

and mounted on a palfrey with housings of cloth of gold. In her company

were the king's daughters by his former wife, the "good Queen Claude,"

all in dresses of crimson satin embroidered with gold; while a large

number of princesses and noble ladies, with attendant gentlemen and

guards, constituted their escort.

The monastic orders came next. Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians,

Carmelites, all were there, with burning tapers and highly prized

relics. The parish churches were represented in like manner by their

clergy; and these were followed by the chapter of the cathedral and by

the multitudinous professors and scholars of the university. Between

this part of the procession and the next, came a detachment of the Swiss

guards of the king, armed with halberds, and a band of skilled musicians

performing, on trumpets, hautboys, and other instruments, the airs of

the solemn hymns of the church.

An honorable place was held by the ecclesiastics of the "Sainte

Chapelle," originally built by Louis the Ninth, in the precincts of his

own palace, for the reception of the marvellous relics he brought home

from Holy Land. Those relics were all here, together with the other

costly possessions of the chapel--the crown of thorns, the true cross,

Aaron's rod that budded, the great crown of St. Louis, the head of the

holy lance, one of the nails used in our Lord's crucifixion, the tables

of stone, some of the blood of Christ, the purple robe, and the milk of

the Virgin Mary--all borne in jewelled reliquaries by bishops.

Four cardinals in scarlet robes followed--Givri, Tournon, Le Veneur, and

Chatillon--an uncongenial group, in which the violent persecutor and the

future partisan of the Reformation walked side by side. But the central

point in the entire procession was occupied not by these, but by Jean du

Bellay, Bishop of Paris, bearing aloft a silver cross in which was

enclosed the consecrated wafer of the eucharist, whose title to

adoration it was the grand object of the celebration to vindicate. The

king's three sons--the dauphin, and the Dukes of Orleans and

Angouleme--with a fourth prince of the blood--the Duke of Bourbon

Vendome--held the supports of a magnificent canopy of velvet, sprinkled

with golden fleurs-de-lis, above the bishop and his sacred charge.

Francis himself walked behind him, with a retinue of nobles, officers of

government, judges of parliament, and other civilians closing the line.

The king was naturally the object of universal observation.

Dressed in robes of black velvet lined with costly furs, he devoutly

followed the elevated host, with uncovered head, and with a large waxen

taper in his hands. Several stations had, at great expense, been erected

along the designated route. At each of these the procession halted, and

the Bishop of Paris placed the silver cross with its precious contents

in a niche made to receive it. Then the king, having handed his taper to

the Cardinal of Lorraine at his side, knelt down and reverently

worshipped with joined hands, until a grand anthem in honor of the

sacrament had been intoned. The scene had been well studied, and it made

the desired impression upon the by-standers. "There was no one among the

people," say the registers of the Hotel de Ville in unctuous phrase, "be

he small or great, that did not shed warm tears and pray God in behalf

of the king, whom he beheld performing so devout an act and worthy of

long remembrance. And it is to be believed that there lives not a Jew

nor an infidel who, had he witnessed the example of the prince and his

people, would not have been converted to the faith."[350]

[Sidenote: Memorable speech of the king.]

At the conclusion of the mass--the most brilliant that had ever been

celebrated within the walls of the cathedral, Francis proceeded to the

episcopal palace, to dine in public, with the princes his children, the

high nobility, cardinals, ambassadors, privy counsellors, and some of

the judges of the Parliament of Paris. Here it was that he delivered a

speech memorable in the history of the great religious movement of the

time. Addressing parliament and representatives of the lower judiciary,

Francis plainly disclaimed all sympathy with the Reformation. "The

errors," he said, "which have multiplied, and are even now multiplying,

are but of our own days. Our fathers have shown us how to live in

accordance with the word of God and of our mother Holy Church. In that

church I am resolved to live and die, and I am determined to prove that

I am entitled to be called Very Christian. I notify you that it is my

will that these errors be driven from my kingdom. Nor shall I excuse any

from the task. _Were one of my arms infected with this poison, I should

cut it off! Were my own children contaminated, I should immolate

them!_[351] I therefore now impose this duty upon you, and relieve

myself of responsibility." Turning to the doctors of the university,

the king reminded them that the care of the faith was entrusted to them,

and he therefore appealed to them to watch over the orthodoxy of all

teachers and report all defections to the secular courts.

[Sidenote: Constancy of the sufferers.]

Francis had spoken in the heat of passion, but, in the words of a

contemporary, "if his fury was great, still greater was the constancy of

the martyrs."[352] Of this, indeed, the king did not have to wait long

for a proof. For, after having witnessed, in company with the queen, the

_amende honorable_ of six condemned "Lutherans" or "Christaudins," which

took place on the square in front of the cathedral, Francis, as he

returned to the Louvre, passed the places where these unfortunates were

undergoing their supreme torments--three near the _Croix du Tiroir_, in

the Rue St. Honore, and three at the Halles. The first were men of some

note--Simon Fouhet, of Auvergne, one of the royal choristers, supposed

to have been the person who posted the placard in the castle of Amboise,

Audebert Valleton, of Nantes, and Nicholas L'Huillier, from the Chatelet

of Paris. The others were of an inferior station in life--a fruitster, a

maker of wire-baskets, and a joiner. All, however, with almost equal

composure, submitted to their fate as to the will of Heaven, rather than

the sentence of human judges; scarcely seeming, in their firm

anticipation of an immortal crown, to notice the tumultuous outcries of

an infuriated mob which nearly succeeded in snatching them from the

officers of the law, in order to have the satisfaction of tearing their

bodies to pieces.[353]

[Sidenote: Ingenious contrivance for protracting torture.]

It would seem, however, that the most relentless enemy could scarcely

have complained that any womanish indulgence had been shown to the

persons singled out to expiate the crime of posting the placard against

the mass. To delay the advent of death, the sole term of their

excruciating sufferings, an ingeniously contrived instrument of torture

was put in play, which if not altogether novel, had at least been but

seldom employed up to this time. Instead of being bound to the stake

and simply roasted to death by means of the fagots heaped up around him,

the victim was now suspended by chains over a blazing fire, and was

alternately lowered into it and drawn out--a refinement of cruelty whose

principal recommendation to favor lay in the fact that the diversion it

afforded the spectators could be made to last until they were fully

satisfied, and the executioner chose to allow the writhing sufferer to

be suffocated in the flames.[354] So satisfactory were the results of

the _Estrapade_, that it came to be universally employed as the

instrument for executing "Lutherans," with the exception of a favored

few, to whom the privilege was accorded of being hung or strangled

before their bodies were thrown into the fire. Such was, soon after this

time, the fate of a woman, a school-teacher by profession, found guilty

of heresy. In any case, the judges took effectual measures to forestall

the deplorable consequences that might ensue from permitting the

"Lutherans" to address the by-standers, and so pervert them from the

orthodox faith. The hangman was instructed to pierce their tongue with a

hot iron, or to cut it out altogether; just as, at a later date, the

sound of the drum was employed to drown the last utterances of the

victims of despotism.[355]

[Sidenote: Flight of Marot.]

The flames of persecution were not extinguished with the conclusion of

the solemn expiatory pageant. For months strangers sojourning in Paris

shuddered at the horrible sights almost daily meeting their eyes.[356]

The lingering hope that a prince naturally clement and averse to

needless bloodshed, would at length tire of countenancing these

continuous scenes of atrocity, seemed gradually to fade away. Great

numbers of the most intelligent and scholarly consulted their safety in

flight; the friendly court of Renee of France, Duchess of Ferrara,

affording, for a time, asylum to Clement Marot, the poet, and to many

others. Meantime the suspected "Lutherans" that could not be found were

summoned by the town-crier to appear before the proper courts for trial.

A list of many such has escaped destruction of time.[357] Fortunately,

most of them had gotten beyond the reach of the officers of the law, and

the sentence could, at most, effect only the confiscation of their

property.

[Sidenote: Royal declaration of Coucy, July 16, 1535.]

As summer advanced, however, the rigor of the persecution was perceived

to be somewhat abating. Finally, on the sixteenth of July, the king so

far yielded to the urgency of open or secret friends of progress among

the courtiers, as to issue a "Declaration" to facilitate the return of

the fugitives. "Forasmuch," said Francis, "as the heresies, which, to

our great displeasure, had greatly multiplied in our kingdom, have

ceased, as well by the Divine clemency and goodness, as by the diligence

we have used in the exemplary punishment of many of their

adherents--who, nevertheless, were not in their last hours abandoned by

the hand of our Lord, but, turning to Him, have repented, and made

public confession of their errors, and died like good Christians and

Catholics--no further prosecution of persons suspected of heresy shall

be made, but they will be discharged from imprisonment, and their goods

restored. For the same reason, all fugitives who return and _abjure

their errors_ within six months will receive pardon. But

_Sacramentarians_[358] and the relapsed are excluded from this offer.

Furthermore, all men are forbidden, under pain of the gallows, and of

being held rebels and disturbers of the public peace, to read, teach,

translate or print, whether publicly or in private, any doctrine

contrary to the Christian faith."[359] The concession, it must be

confessed, was not a very liberal one; for the exiles could return only

on condition of recanting. Yet the new regulations were mild in

comparison with the previous practice, which consigned all the guilty

alike to death, and left no room for repentance. Consequently, there

were not a few, especially of the learned who had been suspected of

heresy, that were found ready to avail themselves of the permission,

even on the prescribed terms.

[Sidenote: Alleged intercession of Pope Paul III.]

In explanation of this change in the policy of Francis, the most

remarkable rumors circulated among the people. Not the least strange was

one that has been preserved for us by a contemporary.[360] It was

reported in the month of June, 1535, that Pope Paul the Third, having

been informed of "the horrible and execrable" punishments inflicted by

the king upon the "Lutherans," wrote to Francis and begged him to

moderate his severity. The pontiff did, indeed, express his conviction

that the French monarch had acted with the best intentions, and in

accordance with his claim to be called the Very Christian King. But he

added, that when God, our Creator, was on earth, He employed mercy

rather than strict justice. Rigor ought not always to be resorted to;

and this burning of men alive was a cruel death, and better calculated

to lead to rejection of the faith than to conversion.[361] He therefore

prayed the king to appease his anger, to abate the severity of justice,

and grant pardon to the guilty. Francis, consequently, because of his

desire to please his Holiness, became more moderate, and enjoined upon

parliament to practise less harshness. For this reason the judges

ceased from criminal proceedings against the "Lutherans," and many

prisoners were discharged both from the Conciergerie and from the

Chatelet.

That this extraordinary rumor was in general circulation appears from

the circumstance that it is alluded to by a Paris correspondent of

Melanchthon; while another account that has recently come to light

states it not as a flying report, but as a well-ascertained fact.[362]

Its _singularity_ is shown from its apparent inconsistency with the

well-known history and sentiments of the Farnese Paul. It is difficult

to conceive how the pontiff who approved of the Society of Jesus and

instituted the Inquisition in the kingdom of Naples, could have been

touched with compassion at the recital of the suffering of French

heretics. Yet the paradoxes of history are too numerous to permit us to

reject as apocryphal a story so widely current, or to explain it away by

making it only a popular echo of the convictions of the more enlightened

as to the views that were most befitting the claimant to a universal

episcopate.

[Sidenote: Clemency again dictated by policy.]

Francis himself, however, made no such statement to the Venetian

ambassador at his court. Marino Giustiniano, who gave in his report to

the doge and senate this very year, was informed by the French king

that, on hearing of the suspension by the Emperor Charles the Fifth of

all sentences of death against the Flemish heretics, he had also himself

ordered that against every species of heretics, except the

Sacramentarians, proceedings should indeed be held as before, but _not

to the extremity of death_.[363] It is evident, therefore, that the

suppression of the most cruel features of the persecution had no higher

motive than political considerations. Francis had worked himself into a

frenzy, and counterfeited the sincerity of a bigot, when it was

necessary to make the Pope a friend, and a show of sanguinary ardor

seemed most adapted to accomplish his object. He now became tolerant, on

discovering that the course he had entered upon was alienating the

Protestant princes of Germany, upon whose support he relied in his

contest with Charles the Fifth. The turning-point appears to have been

coincident with the time when he found that the emperor was endeavoring

to outbid him by offering a short-lived toleration to the Netherlanders.

[Sidenote: Francis writes to the German princes.]

Only eleven days after the solemn propitiatory procession, and while the

trial and execution of the French reformers were still in progress,

Francis had written to his allies beyond the Rhine, in explanation of

the severe punishment of which such shocking accounts had been

circulated in their dominions. He justified his course by alleging the

disorderly and rebellious character of the culprits, and laid great

stress upon the care he had taken to secure German Protestants from

danger and annoyance.[364]

[Sidenote: Melanchthon entreated to come to France.]

A month later, Vore de la Fosse was on his way to Wittemberg, on a

private mission to Melanchthon. He was bearer of a long and important

letter from John Sturm. The learned writer, a German scholar of eminence

and a friend of the reformed doctrines, was at this time lecturing in

Paris, and after his departure from Francis's dominions, became rector

of the infant university of Strasbourg. He contrasted the hopeful strain

in which he had described to his correspondent the prospects of

religion, a year since, with the terrors of the present situation.

Crediting the king with the best intentions, he cast the blame of so

disastrous a change upon the insane authors of the placards, who had

drawn on themselves a punishment that would have been well deserved, had

it been moderate in degree. But, unhappily, the innocent had been

involved with the guilty, and informers had gratified private malice by

magnifying the offence. Francis had, it was true, been led, at the

intercession of Guillaume du Bellay and his brother, the Bishop of

Paris, to interpose his authority and protect the Germans residing in

his realm. But, none the less, he begged Melanchthon to fly to his

succor, and to exert an influence over the king which was the result of

Vore's continual praise, in putting an end to this unfortunate state of

things. Francis, he added, was willing to give pledges for the

reformer's safety, and would send him back in great honor to his native

land, after the conclusion of the proposed conference. "Lay aside,

therefore," wrote Sturm, "the consideration of kings and emperors, and

believe that the voice that calls you is the voice of God and of

Christ."[365] Vore followed up this invitation with great earnestness

both in personal interviews and by letter.[366]

[Sidenote: His perplexity.]

What answer should the reformer give to so pressing an invitation? In

his acknowledgment of Sturm's letter, Melanchthon confessed that no

deliberation had ever occasioned him so much perplexity. It was not that

domestic ties retained him or dangers deterred him. But he was harassed

by the fear that he would be unable to accomplish any good. If only this

doubt--amounting almost to _despair_--could be removed, he would fly to

France without delay. He approved--so he assured his correspondent--of

checking those fanatics who were engaged in sowing absurd and vile

doctrines, or created unnecessary tumults. But there were others against

whom no such charge could be brought, but who modestly professed the

Gospel. If through his exertions some slight concessions were obtained,

while points of greater importance were sacrificed, he would benefit

neither church nor state. What if he secured immunity from punishment

for such as had laid aside the monk's cowl? Must he then consent to the

execution of those conscientious men who disapproved of the evident

abuses of the mass and of the worship of the saints? Now, as it was

precisely the expression of this disapprobation that had caused the

present massacres, he trembled with fear lest he should be put in the

position of one that justified these atrocious severities. In short, it

was his advice, he said, in view of the cunning devices by which the

"phalanxes" of monks were wont to play upon the hopes and fears of the

high-born, that Francis, if honestly desirous of consulting the glory of

Christ, and the tranquillity of the church, be rather exhorted to

assemble a general council. Other measures appeared to him, not only

useless, but fraught with peril.[367]

[Sidenote: Formal invitation from the king.]

At this point the king himself took a direct part in the correspondence.

On the twenty-third of June, 1535, he sent Melanchthon a formal request

to visit his court, and there dispute, in his presence, with a select

company of doctors, concerning the restoration of doctrinal unity and

ecclesiastical harmony. He assured the reformer that he had been

prompted by his own great zeal to despatch Vore with this letter--itself

a pledge of the public faith--and besought him to suffer no one to

persuade him to turn a deaf ear to the summons.[368] Sturm, Cardinal du

Bellay, and his brother, all wrote successively, and urged Melanchthon

to come to a conference from which they hoped for every advantage.[369]

[Sidenote: Melanchthon consents.]

No wonder that, after receiving so complimentary an invitation,

Melanchthon concluded to go to France, and applied (on the eighteenth of

August) to the Elector John Frederick for the necessary leave of

absence. He briefly sketched the history of the affair, and set forth

his own reluctance to enter upon his delicate mission, until provided

with the elector's permission and a safe conduct from the French

monarch. Two or three months only would be consumed, and he had made

arrangements for supplying his chair at Jena during this short

absence.[370] It appears, however, that Melanchthon felt less confident

of obtaining a gracious reply to his request than his words would seem

to indicate. Consequently, he deemed it prudent to ask Luther to write

first and urge his suit. The latter did not refuse his aid. "I am moved

to make this prayer," said Luther in his letter to the elector, "by the

piteous entreaty of worthy and pious persons who, having themselves

scarcely escaped the flames, have by great efforts prevailed upon the

king to suspend the carnage and extinguish the fires until Melanchthon's

arrival. Should the hopes of these good people be disappointed, the

bloodhounds may succeed in creating even greater bitterness, and proceed

with burning and strangling. So that I think that Master Philip cannot

with a clear conscience abandon them in such straits, and defraud them

of their hearty encouragement."[371]

[Sidenote: The elector refuses to let him go.]

But even the great theological doctor's intercession was unavailing. The

very day the elector received "Master Philip's" application, he wrote to

Francis explaining his reasons for refusing to let Melanchthon go to

Paris. It is true that the letter was not actually sent until some ten

days later;[372] but no entreaties could move the elector to reconsider

his decision. Melanchthon indignantly left the court and returned to

Jena.[373] Here he subsequently received a written refusal from John

Frederick, couched in language far from agreeable. The elector expressed

astonishment that he should have permitted matters to go so far, and

that he continued to apply for permission even after his prince's desire

had been intimated. The danger to be apprehended for the peace of

Germany was far greater than any possible advantage that could be

expected from his mission. And the writer hinted very distinctly that

little confidence could be reposed in Francis's professions, where the

Gospel was concerned, as public history sufficiently demonstrated.[374]

[Sidenote: Melanchthon's chagrin.]

The most ungrateful of tasks was reserved for Melanchthon himself--the

task of explaining his inability to fulfil his engagement. In a letter

to Francis, he expressed the hope that the delay might be only

temporary, and he exhorted the king to resist violent counsels, while

seeking to promote religious harmony and public tranquillity by

peaceable means. To Du Bellay and Sturm he complained not a little of

the "roughness" of his prince, whom he had never found more "harsh." He

thought that the true motive of the elector's refusal was to be found in

the exaggerated report that he had given up everything, merely because

he had spoken too respectfully of the ecclesiastical power. "I am called

a deserter," he writes. "I am in great peril among our own friends on

account of this moderation; as moderate citizens are wont in civil

discords to be badly received by both sides. Evidently the fate of

Theramenes impends over me; for I believe Xenophon, who affirms that he

was a good man, not Lysias, who reviles him."[375]

[Sidenote: The proposed conference reprobated by the Sorbonne.]

Meanwhile the proposed conference encountered no less decided

reprobation from the Sorbonne, to which Francis had submitted his

project. For the "articles" drawn up by Melanchthon, a year before, in a

spirit of conciliation much too broad to please the Protestants, when

placed in the hands of the same theological body, in a modified form,

and without the name of the author, were returned with a very

unfavorable report. The Parisian doctors suggested that, as an

appropriate method of satisfying himself whether there was any hope of

accommodation, Francis might propound such interrogatories as these to

the German theologians from whom the articles emanated: "Whether they

confessed the church militant, founded by divine right, to be incapable

of erring in faith and good morals, of which church, under our Lord

Jesus Christ, St. Peter and his successors have been the head. Whether

they will obey the church, receive the books of the Bible[376] as holy

and canonical, accept the decrees of the general councils and of the

Popes, admit the Fathers to be the interpreters of the Scriptures, and

conform to the customs of the church?" As an insufferable grievance they

complained that the "articles" were not a request for _pardon_, but

actually a demand for _concessions_.[377]

The plan to entrap Melanchthon and some considerable portion of the

German Protestants into conciliatory proposals which Luther and the more

decided reformers could not admit, having failed through the abrupt and

tolerably rude refusal of the Elector of Saxony to permit his

theological professor to comply with the invitation of Francis, the

latter appears to have determined to put the best appearance upon the

affair. Accordingly, he promptly signified to the Sorbonne his approval

of its action, and he seems even to have suffered the rumor to gain

currency that he was himself dissuaded from bringing Melanchthon to

France, by the skilful arguments of the Cardinal of Tournon.[378]

In spite of the rebuff he had received, however, Francis made an attempt

to effect such an arrangement with the Protestant princes of Germany as

would secure their co-operation in his ambitious projects against

Charles the Fifth. To compass this end he was quite willing to make

concessions to the Lutherans as extensive as those which Melanchthon had

offered the Roman Catholics.

[Sidenote: Du Bellay's representations at Smalcald.]

Four months had not elapsed since the unsuccessful issue of his first

mission, before Du Bellay was again in Germany. On the nineteenth of

December, he presented himself to the congress of Protestant princes at

Smalcald. Much of his address was devoted to a vindication of his master

from the charge of cruelty to persons of the same religious faith as

that of the hearers. The envoy insisted that the Germans had been

misinformed: If Francis had executed some of his subjects, he had not

thereby injured the Protestants. The culprits professed very different

doctrines. The creed of the Germans had been adopted by common consent.

Francis admitted, indeed, that there were some useless and superfluous

ceremonies in the church, but could not assent to their indiscriminate

abrogation unless by public decree. Ought not the Protestant princes to

ascribe to their friend, the French king, motives as pure and

satisfactory as those that impelled them to crush the sedition of the

peasants and repress the Anabaptists? As for himself, Francis, although

mild and humane, both from native temperament and by education, had seen

himself compelled, by stern necessity and the dictates of prudence, to

check the promptings of his own heart, and assume for a time attributes

foreign to his proper disposition. For gladly as he listened to the

temperate discussion of any subject, he was justly offended at the

presumption of rash innovators, men that refused to submit to the

judgment of those whose prerogative it was to decide in such matters as

were now under consideration.

[Sidenote: He makes, in the name of Francis, a Protestant confession.]

Not content with general assurances, Du Bellay, in a private interview

with Brueck, Melanchthon, and other German theologians, ventured upon an

exposition of Francis's creed which we fear would have horrified beyond

measure the orthodox doctors of the Sorbonne.[379] He informed them,

with a very sober face, that the king's religious belief differed little

from that expressed in Melanchthon's "Common Places." His theologians

had never been able to convince him that the Pope's primacy was of

_divine_ right. Nor had they proved to his satisfaction the existence of

_purgatory_, which, being the source of their lucrative masses and

legacies, they prized as their very life and blood. He was inclined to

limit the assumption of monastic vows to persons of mature age, and to

give monks and nuns the right of renouncing their profession and

marrying. He favored the conversion of monasteries into seminaries of

learning. While the French theologians insisted upon the celibacy of the

priesthood, for himself he would suggest the middle ground of permitting

such priests as had already married to retain their wives, while

prohibiting others from following their example, unless they resigned

the sacerdotal office. He would have the sacramental cup administered

to the laity when desired, and hoped to obtain the Pope's consent. He

even admitted the necessity of reform in some of the daily prayers, and

reprehended the want of moderation exhibited by the Sorbonne, which not

only condemned the Germans, but would not hesitate on occasion to

censure the cardinals or the Holy Pontiff himself.

[Sidenote: The Germans are not deceived.]

We cannot find that Du Bellay's honeyed words produced any very deep

impression. Princes and theologians knew tolerably well both how sincere

was the king's profession of friendliness to the "Lutheran" tenets, and

what was the truth respecting the persecution that had raged for months

within his dominions. The western breezes came freighted with the fetid

smoke of human holocausts, and not even the perfume of Francis's

delicately scented speeches could banish the disgust caused by the

nauseating sacrifice. The princes might listen with studied politeness

to the king's apologetic words, and assent to the general truth that

sedition should be punished by severity; but they took the liberty, at

the same time, to express a fervent prayer that the advocates of a

reformed religion and a pure gospel might not be involved in the fate of

the unruly. And they disappointed the monarch by absolutely declining to

enter into any alliance against the Emperor Charles the Fifth. The

French ambassador returned home, and Francis so dexterously threw aside

the mask of pretended favor to a moderate reformation in the church,

that it soon became a disputed question whether he had ever assumed it

at all.[380]

[Sidenote: Efforts of the French Protestants in Switzerland and

Germany.]

Meantime the French Protestants were unremitting in their efforts to

obtain a more satisfactory solution of the religious question than was

contained in the Declaration of Coucy. They wrote to Strasbourg, to

Berne, to Zurich, to Basle, imploring the intercession of these states.

Particular attention was drawn to the severe treatment endured by their

brethren in Provence and Dauphiny. The writers declared themselves to be

not rebels, but the most loyal of subjects, recognizing one God, one

faith, one law, and one king. They were not "Lutherans," nor

"Waldenses," nor "heretics;" but simply _Christians_, accepting the

Decalogue, the Apostles' Creed, and every doctrine taught in either

Testament. It was unreasonable that they should be compelled by fines,

imprisonment, or bodily pains, to abjure their faith, unless their

errors were first proved from the Bible, or before the convocation of a

General Council.[381]

[Sidenote: An appeal from Strasbourg and Zurich.]

The Swiss and Germans made a prompt response. The Senate of Strasbourg

addressed Francis, praising his clemency, but calling his attention to

the danger all good men were exposed to. "If but a single little word

escape the mouth of good Christian men, directed against the most

manifest abuses, nay, against the flagitious crimes of those who are

regarded as _ecclesiastics_, how easy will it be, inasmuch as these very

ecclesiastics are their judges, to cry out that words have been spoken

to the injury of the true faith, the Church of God, and its

traditions?"[382]

Zurich, going even further, made the direct request of its royal ally,

that hereafter all persons accused of holding heretical views should be

permitted by his Majesty to clear themselves by an appeal to the pure

Word of God, and no longer be subjected without a hearing to torture

and manifold punishments.[383] Berne and Basle remonstrated with similar

urgency.

[Sidenote: An embassy receives an unsatisfactory reply.]

Receiving no reply to their appeal, in consequence of the king's

attention being engrossed by the war then in progress with the emperor,

and by reason of the dauphin's unexpected death, the same cantons and

Strasbourg, a few months later, were induced to send a formal embassy.

But, if the envoys were fed with gracious words, they obtained no real

concession. Francis assured the Bernese and their confederates that "it

was, as they well knew, only for love of them that he had enlarged the

provisions of his gracious Edict of Coucy, by lately[384] extending

pardon to all exiles and fugitives"--that is, "Sacramentarians" and

"relapsed" persons included. This, it seemed to him, "ought to satisfy

them entirely."[385] It was a polite, but none the less a very positive

refusal to entertain the suggestion that the abjuration of their

previous "errors" should no longer be required of all who wished to

avail themselves of the amnesty. Nor did it escape notice as a

significant circumstance, that Francis selected for his mouth-piece, not

the friendly Queen of Navarre, but the rough and bigoted

_Grand-Maitre_--Anne de Montmorency, the future Constable of

France.[386]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 328: Melanchthon to Du Bellay, Aug. 1, 1534, Opera

(Bretschneider, Corpus Reformatorum), ii. 740.]

[Footnote 329: This is only a brief summary of the most essential points

in these strange articles, which may be read entire in Melanch. Opera,

_ubi supra_, ii. 744-766.]

[Footnote 330: Ibid., ii. 775, 776.]

[Footnote 331: See the interesting letter of a young Strasbourg student

at Paris, Pierre Siderander, May 28, 1533, Herminjard, Correspondance

des reformateurs, iii. 58, 59. The refrain of one placard,

"Au feu, au feu! c'est leur repere!

Faiz-en justice! Dieu l'a permys,"

gave Clement Marot occasion to reply in a couple of short pieces, the

longer beginning:

"En l'eau, en l'eau, ces folz seditieux."

]

[Footnote 332: Crespin, Actiones et Monimenta (Ed. of 1560), fol. 64.]

[Footnote 333: Bulletin, ix. 27, 28.]

[Footnote 334: Merle d'Aubigne, on the authority of the hostile

Florimond de Raemond, ascribes it to Farel. But the style and mode of

treatment are quite in contrast with those of Farel's "Sommaire,"

republished almost precisely at this date; while many sentences are

taken verbatim from another treatise, "Petit Traicte de l'Eucharistie,"

unfortunately anonymous, but which there is good reason to suppose was

written by Marcourt. The author of the latter avows his authorship of

the placard. See the full discussion by Herminjard, Correspondance des

reformateurs, iii. 225, note, etc.]

[Footnote 335: Courault was foremost in his opposition. Crespin,

Actiones et Monimenta, fols. 64, 65.]

[Footnote 336: "Qui estes pire que bestes, en vos badinages lesquels

vous faites a l'entour de vostre _dieu de paste, duquel vous vous jouez

comme un chat d'une souris_: faisans des marmiteux, et frappans contre

vostre poictrine, apres l'avoir mis en trois quartiers, _comme estans

bien marris_, l'appelans Agneau de Dieu, et lui demandans la paix."]

[Footnote 337: This singular placard is given _in extenso_ by Gerdesius,

Hist. Evang. Renov., iv. (Doc.) 60-67; Haag, France prot., x. pieces

justif., 1-6; G. Guiffrey, Cronique du Roy Francoys I^er, Appendix,

464-472.]

[Footnote 338: Journal d'un bourgeois, 442. Not _Blois_, as the Hist.

ecclesiastique, i. 10, and, following it, Soldan, Merle d'Aubigne, etc.,

state. Francis had left Blois as early as in September for the castle of

Amboise, see Herminjard, Corresp. des reformateurs, iii. 231, 226, 236.]

[Footnote 339: "Ne me puis garder de vous dire qu'il vous souviengne de

_l'opinion que j'avois que les vilains placars estoient fait par ceux

guiles cherchent aux aultres_." Marg. de Navarre to Francis I., Nerac,

Dec., 1541, Genin, ii. No. 114. Although Margaret's supposition proved

to be unfounded, it was by no means so absurd as the reader might

imagine. At least, we have the testimony of Pithou, Seigneur de

Chamgobert, that a clergyman of Champagne confessed that he had

committed, from pious motives, a somewhat similar act. The head of a

stone image of the Virgin, known as "Our Lady of Pity," standing in one

of the streets of Troyes, was found, on the morning of a great feast-day

in September, 1555, to have been wantonly broken off. There was the

usual indignation against the sacrilegious perpetrators of the deed.

There were the customary procession and masses by way of atonement for

the insult offered to high Heaven. But Friar Fiacre, of the

_Hotel-Dieu_, finding himself some time later at the point of death, and

feeling disturbed in conscience, revealed the fact that from religious

considerations he had himself decapitated the image, "_in order to have

the Huguenots accused of it, and thus lead to their complete

extermination_!" Recordon, Protestantisme en Champagne, ou recits

extraits d'un MS. de N. Pithou (Paris, 1863), 28-30.]

[Footnote 340: A. F. Didot, Essai sur la typographie, in Encyclop.

moderne, xxvi. 760, _apud_ Herminjard, iii. 60.]

[Footnote 341: That is, 1535 New Style. For it will remembered that,

until 1566, the year in France began with Easter, instead of with the

first day of January. Leber, Coll. de pieces rel. a l'hist. de France,

viii. 505, etc.]

[Footnote 342: "Combien que ... nous eussions prohibe et defendu que nul

n'eust des lors en avant a imprimer ou faire imprimer aulcuns livres en

nostre royaulme, sur peine de la hart." As neither of these disgraceful

edicts was formally registered by parliament, they are both of them

wanting in the ordinary records of that body, and in all collections of

French laws. The _first_ seems, indeed, to have disappeared altogether.

M. Crapelet, Etudes sur la typographie, 34-37, reproduces the _second_,

dated St. Germain-en-Laye, February 23, 1534/5, from a volume of

parliamentary papers labelled "Conseil." Happily, the preamble recites

the cardinal prescription of the previous and lost edict, as given above

in the text. M. Merle d'Aubigne carelessly places the edict abolishing

printing _after_, instead of _before_, the great expiatory procession.

Hist. of the Reformation in the Time of Calvin, iii. 140.]

[Footnote 343: Felibien, Hist. de la ville de Paris, ii. 997.]

[Footnote 344: Soissons MS., Bulletin, xi. 255.]

[Footnote 345: I. e., _gainier_, sheath-or scabbard-maker. Hist.

ecclesiastique, i. 10; Journal d'un bourgeois, 444; see Varillas, Hist.

des revol. arrivees dans l'Eur. en matiere de rel., ii. 222.]

[Footnote 346: "Qui ad se ea pericula spectare non putabant, qui non

contaminati erant eo scelere, hi etiam in partem poenarum veniunt.

_Delatores et quadruplatores_ publice comparantur. Cuilibet simul et

testi et accusatori in hac causa esse licet." J. Sturm to Melanchthon,

Paris, March 4, 1535, Bretschneider, Corpus Reformatorum, ii. 855, etc.]

[Footnote 347: The _name_ and the _affliction_ of this first victim give

Martin Theodoric of Beauvais an opportunity, which he cannot neglect, to

compare him with a pagan malefactor and contrast him with a biblical

personage. "Hunc gladium ultorem persenserunt quam plurimi degeneres et

alienigenae in flexilibus perversarum doctrinarum semitis obambulantes;

inter alios, _paralyticus Lutheranus Neroniano Milone perniciosior_. Cui

malesano opus erat salutifer Christus, ut _sublato erroris grabato, viam

Veritatis insequutus fuisset_. At vero elatus, in funesto sacrilegi

cordis desiderio perseverans, _flammis combustus_ cum suis participibus

seditiosis Gracchis, exemplum sui cunctis haereticis relinquens deperiit.

Et peribunt omnes sive plebeii, sive primates," etc. Paraclesis Franciae

(Par. 1539), 5.]

[Footnote 348: The Journal d'un bourgeois, 444-452, gives an account, in

the briefest terms and without comment, of the sentences pronounced and

executed. See also G. Guiffrey, Cronique du Roy Francois I^er, 111-113.]

[Footnote 349: The real message sent by Francis I. to his mother, after

the disaster of Pavia, was quite another thing from the traditional

sentence: "Tout est perdu sauf l'honneur." What he wrote was: "Madame,

pour vous avertir comme je porte le ressort de mon infortune, de toutes

choses ne m'est demeure que l'honneur _et la vie sauve_," etc. Papiers

d'Etat du Card, de Granvelle, i. 258. It is to be feared that, if saved

in _Italy_, his honor was certainly lost in _Spain_, where, after vain

attempts to secure release by plighting his _faith_, he deliberately

took an _oath_ which he never meant to observe. So, at least, he himself

informed the notables of France on the 16th of December, 1527: "Et

voulurent _qu'il jurast; ce qu'il fist, sachant ledict serment n'estre

valable, au moyen de la garde qui luy fust baillee, et qu'il n'estoit en

sa liberte_." Isambert, Recueil des anc. lois franc., xii. 292.]

[Footnote 350: Registres de l'hotel de ville. Felibien, pieces justif.,

v. 345. In the preceding account these records, together with those of

parliament (ibid., iv. 686-688), the narrative of Felibien himself (ii.

997-999), and the Soissons MS. (Bulletin, xi. 254, 255), have been

chiefly relied upon. See also Cronique du Roy Francoys I^er, 113-121.]

[Footnote 351: "En sorte que si un des bras de mon corps estoit infecte

de cette farine, je le vouldrois coupper; et si mes enfans en estoient

entachez, je les vouldrois immoler." Voltaire (Hist. du parlement de

Paris, i. 118), citing the substance of this atrocious sentiment from

Maimbourg and Daniel, who themselves take it from Mezeray, says

incredulously: "Je ne sais ou ces auteurs ont trouve que Francois

premier avait prononce ce discours abominable." M. Poirson answers by

giving as authority Theodore de Beze (Hist. eccles., i. 13). But on

referring to the documentary records from the Hotel de Ville, among the

_pieces justificatives_ collected by Felibien, v. 346, the reader will

find the speech of Francis inserted at considerable length, and

apparently in very nearly the exact words employed. The contemporary

Cronique du Roy Francoys I^er, giving the fullest version of the speech

(pp. 121-12), attributes to the king about the same expressions.]

[Footnote 352: Histoire eccles., i. 13.]

[Footnote 353: Histoire eccles., _ubi supra_.]

[Footnote 354: "Une espece _d'estrapade_ ou l'on attachoit les

criminels, que les bourreaux, par le moyen d'une corde, guindoient en

haut, et les laissoient ensuite tomber dans le feu a diverses reprises,

pour faire durer leur supplice plus longtems." Felibien, ii. 999.]

[Footnote 355: Gerdes, Hist. Evang. renov., iv. 109. For the nature of

the penalty, see Bastard D'Estang, Les parlements de France, i. 425,

note on punishments.]

[Footnote 356: When John Sturm wrote, March 4th, _eighteen_--when

Latomus wrote, somewhat later, _twenty-four_--adherents of the

Reformation had suffered capitally. Bretschneider, Corp. Reform., ii.

855, etc. "Plusieurs aultres hereticques en grant nombre furent apres

bruslez a divers jours," says the Cronique du Roy Francoys I^er, p. 129,

"_en sorte que dedans Paris on ne veoit que potences dressees en divers

lieux_," etc.]

[Footnote 357: G. Guiffrey, Cronique du Roy Francoys I^er, 130-132;

Soissons MS. in Bulletin, etc., xi. 253-254. We may recognize, among the

misspelt names, those, for example, of _Pierre Caroli_, doctor of

theology and parish priest of Alencon, already introduced to our notice;

_Jean Retif_, a preacher; _Francois Berthault_ and _Jean Courault_,

lately associated in preaching the Gospel under the patronage of the

Queen of Navarre; besides the scholar _Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples_, and

_Guillaume Feret_, who brought the placards from Switzerland.]

[Footnote 358: Under the head of _Sacramentarians_ were included all

who, like Zwingle, denied the bodily presence of Christ in or with the

elements of the eucharist.]

[Footnote 359: "De ne lire, dogmatiser, translater, composer ni

imprimer, soit en public ou en prive, aucune doctrine contrariant a la

foy chretionne." Declaration of Coucy, July 16, 1535, Isambert, Recueil

des anc. lois franc., xii. 405-407. See also a similar declaration, May

31, 1536, ibid., xii. 504.]

[Footnote 360: Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris, 458, 459.]

[Footnote 361: Neantmoins Dieu le createur, luy estant en ce monde, a

plus use de misericorde que de rigueur, et qu'il ne faut aucunes fois

user de rigueur, et que c'est une cruelle mort de faire brusler vif un

homme, dont parce il pourroit plus qu'autrement renoncer la foy et la

loy. Ibid., _ubi supra_.]

[Footnote 362: "Et le tres-crestien et bon roy Francois premier du nom,

_a la priere du pape_, pardonna a tous, excepte a ceulx qui avoient

touche a l'honneur du saint sacrement de l'autel." Soissons MS.,

Bulletin, xi. 254. Sturm to Melanchthon, July 6, 1535, says: "Pontificem

etiam aiunt aequiorem esse, et haud paulo meliorem quam fuerunt caeteri.

Omnino improbat illam suppliciorum crudelitatem, et _de hac re dicitur

misisse [literas ad Regem]_." Herminjard, iii. 311. Cf. Erasmus Op.,

1513.]

[Footnote 363: "Sapendo, _come sua Maesta m'ha detto_, che Cesare in

Fiandra aveva sospeso ogni esecuzione di morte contro questi eretici, ha

anche egli concesso che contra ogni sorte di eretici si proceda come

avanti, ma _citra mortem_, eccetto i sacramentarii." Relazione del

clarissimo Marino Giustiniano (1535), Relaz. Venete, i. 155.]

[Footnote 364: Francis I. to the German Princes, February 1, 1535,

Bretschneider, Corpus Reform., ii. 828, etc.]

[Footnote 365: Sturm to Melanchthon, March 4, 1535, Bretschneider,

Corpus Reform., ii. 855, etc.]

[Footnote 366: A letter of Vore is found in Bretschneider, _ubi supra_,

ii, 859.]

[Footnote 367: Melanchthon to Sturm, May 5, 1535, ibid., ii. 873.]

[Footnote 368: Ibid., ii. 879. The address was, "Dilecto nostro Philippo

Melanchthoni."]

[Footnote 369: "Nihil est quod de vestro congressu non sperem," are

Cardinal du Bellay's words, June 27th. Ibid., ii. 880, 881.]

[Footnote 370: Ibid., ii. 904, 905. The university had been temporarily

removed from Wittemberg to Jena, on account of the prevalence of the

plague.]

[Footnote 371: Luther to the Elector of Saxony, Aug. 17, 1535, Works

(Ed. Dr. J. K. Innischer), lv. 103.]

[Footnote 372: August 28, 1535. The reasons alleged to Francis were, the

injurious rumors the mission might give rise to, and the damage to the

university from Melanchthon's absence. At some future time, the elector

said, he would permit Melanchthon to visit the French king, should his

Majesty still desire him to do so, and present hinderances be removed.]

[Footnote 373: "Subindignabundus hinc discessit." Luther to Justus

Jonas, Aug. 19.]

[Footnote 374: "Daneben was eurer Person halb, dessgleichen auch in

Sachen des Evangelii fuer Trost, Hoffnung oder Zuversicht zu dem

Franzosen zu haben, ist wohl zu bedenken, dieweil vormals wenig Treue

oder Glaube von ihm gehalten, wie solches die oeffentliche Geschicht

anzeigen." Letter of Aug. 24, 1535. The elector expressed himself at

greater length to his chancellor, Dr. Brueck (Pontanus). Such a mission

would appear suspicious when the elector was on the point of having a

conference with the King of Hungary and Bohemia. Melanchthon might make

concessions that Dr. Martin (Luther) and others could not agree to, and

the scandal of division might arise. Besides, he could not believe the

French in earnest; they doubtless only intended to take advantage of

Melanchthon's indecision. For it was to be presumed that those most

active in promoting the affair were "more Erasmian than evangelical

(_mehr Erasmisch denn Evangelisch_)." Bretschneider, ii. 909, etc.]

[Footnote 375: See the three letters, and other interesting

correspondence, Bretschneider, ii. 913, etc. However it may have been

with M., _Luther's_ regret at the elector's refusal was of brief

duration. As early as Sept. 1st he wrote characteristically to Justus

Jonas: "Respecting the French envoys, so general a rumor is now in

circulation, originating with most worthy men, that I have ceased to

wish that Philip should go with them. It is suspected that the true

envoys _were murdered on the way, and others sent in their place_(!)

with letters by the papists, to entice Philip out. You know that the

Bishops of Maintz, Luettich, and others, are the worst tools of the

Devil; wherefore I am rather anxious for Philip. I have therefore

written carefully to him. The World is the Devil, and the Devil is the

World." Luther's Works (Ed. Walch), xxi. 1426.]

[Footnote 376: That is, including the apocryphal books.]

[Footnote 377: "Qui est, Sire," they observe with evident amazement at

the bare suggestion, "demander de nous retirer a eux, plus qu'eux se

convertir a l'Eglise." The _articles_ having been submitted through Du

Bellay, August 7, 1535, the Faculty's answer was returned on the 30th of

the same month, accompanied by a more elaborate _Instructio_, the former

in French, the latter in Latin. Both are printed among the _Monumenta_

of Gerdes, 75-78, and 78-86.]

[Footnote 378: Florimond de Raemond (l. vii. c. 4), and others writers

copying from him, represent Tournon as purposely putting himself in the

king's way with an open volume of St. Irenaeus in his hands. Obtaining in

this way his coveted opportunity of portraying the perils arising from

intercourse with heretics, the prelate enforced his precepts by reading

a pretended story related by St. Polycarp, that the Apostle John had on

one occasion hastily left the public bath on perceiving the heretic

Cerinthus within. Soldan (Gesch. des Prot. in Frankreich, i. 163)

sensibly remarks that little account ought to be made of the statements

of a writer who associates Louise de Savoie--in her later days a

notorious enemy of the Reformation, _who had at this time been four

years dead_--- with her daughter Margaret, in "importuning" the king to

invite Melanchthon.]

[Footnote 379: Some years earlier, Du Bellay had, while on an embassy,

set forth his royal master's pretended convictions in favor of the

Reformation with so much verisimilitude as to alarm the papal nuncio,

who dreaded the effect of his speeches upon the Protestants. "Non e

piccola murmoration qui en Corte, ch'l Orator Francese _facea piu che

l'officio suo richiede in animar Lutherani_." Aleander to Sanga,

Ratisbon, July 2, 1532, Vatican MSS., Laemmer, 141.]

[Footnote 380: Sleidan, De statu rel. et reipubl., lib. ix., ad annum

1535. The Jesuit Maimbourg rejects the secret conference of Du Bellay as

apocryphal, in view of Francis's persecution of the Protestants at

Paris, and his declaration of January 21st. But Sleidan's statement is

fully substantiated by an extant memorandum by Spalatin, who was present

on the occasion (printed in Seckendorff, Gerdes, iv. 68-73 Doc., and

Bretschneider, ii. 1014). It receives additional confirmation from a

letter of the Nuncio Morone to Pope Paul III., Vienna, Dec. 26, 1536

(Vatican MSS., Laemmer, 178). Morone received from Doctor Matthias,

Vice-Chancellor of the Empire, an account of Francis's recent offer to

the German Protestants "_di condescendere nelle loro opinioni,_" on

condition of their renouncing obedience to the emperor. He reserved only

two points of doctrine as requiring discussion: the sacrifice of the

mass, and the authority and primacy of the Pope. The Protestants

rejected the interested proposal of the royal convert.]

[Footnote 381: The authorship of this interesting document, and the way

it reached its destination, are equally unknown. It is published--for

the first time, I believe--in Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss, Opera Calvini

(1872), x. part ii. 55, 56.]

[Footnote 382: Senatus Argentoratensis Francisco Regi, July 3, 1536,

ibid., x. 57-61.]

[Footnote 383: Senatus Turicensis Francisco Regi, July 13, 1536, ibid.,

x. 61.]

[Footnote 384: Edict of Lyons, May 31, 1536, Herminjard, iv. 192.]

[Footnote 385: Francois I^er aux Conseils de Zurich, Berne, Bale et

Strasbourg, Compiegne, Feb. 20, and Feb. 23, 1537, Basle MSS., ibid.,

iv. 191-193. Cf. the documents, mostly inedited, iv. 70, 96, 150.]

[Footnote 386: Le Conseil de Berne au Conseil de Bale, March 15, 1537,

ibid., iv. 202, 203, Sleidan (Strasb. ed. of 1555), lib x. fol. 163

_verso_. It must, however, be remarked that the "evangelical cities"

would not take the rebuff as decisive, and, within a few months, were

again writing to Francis in behalf of his persecuted subjects of Nismes

and elsewhere. Le Conseil de Berne a Francois I^er, Nov. 17, 1537,

Berne MSS., Herminjard, iv. 320.]