Chapter XI (2)

On the twenty-third of June, Charles, accompanied by his mother, by the King of Navarre, and the other princes of the blood, and by the council of state, came to the chamber of parliament, and the chancellor announced to the assembled members the object of this extraordinary visit. It was to obtain advice not respecting religion itself--_that_ was reserved for the deliberation of the national council, and its merits could not be discussed here--but respecting the best method of appeasing the commotions daily on the increase, caused by a diversity of religious tenets. He therefore begged all present to express in brief terms their opinions on this important topic. It is not surprising that the answers given should have been of the most varied import. Ever since the time of Henry the Second, the Parliament of Paris had contained a considerable number of friends, more or less open, of Protestantism, and among the princes and noblemen who came to join in the deliberation, the number of its warm advocates was proportionately still greater. At the same time, the Roman Catholic party was largely represented in the ranks of the members of the parliament proper, as recent events had indicated; while, among the high nobility and the dignitaries of the church, the weight of the constable and the Duke of Guise, the cardinals of Bourbon, Tournon, Lorraine, and Guise, and the Bishop of Paris, counterbalanced the influence of the King of Navarre, the Prince of Conde, the Chatillons, and the chancellor. Five or six different opinions were announced by the successive speakers;[1043] but they could all be reduced to three. The more tolerant advocated the suspension of all punishments until the determination of the questions in dispute by a council. A second class, on the contrary, maintained the propriety and expediency of enforcing the laws which made death the penalty of heretical belief. The rest--and they mustered in the end a majority of _three_[1044] over the advocates of toleration, while they were much more numerous than the champions of bloody persecution--advised the king to give to the ecclesiastical courts exclusive cognizance of heresy, according to the provisions of the Edict of Romorantin, and to forbid the holding of public or private conventicles, whether with or without arms, in which sermons should be preached or the sacraments administered otherwise than according to the customs of the Romish Church.[1045] Such was the result of the deliberations of the Mercuriale of June and July, 1561,[1046] in the course of which opinions had been freely expressed far more radical than those of Anne Du Bourg in the Mercuriale of 1559.

[Sidenote: The "Edict of July."]

[Sidenote: Disappointment at its severity.]

The edict for which the direction had been thus marked out was published on the eleventh of July, 1561.[1047] It has become celebrated in history as the "Edict of July." After reiterating the injunctions of previous royal letters, and forbidding all insults and breaches of the peace, on pain of the halter, Charles was made to prohibit "all enrollings, signatures, or other things tending to sedition." Preachers in the churches were strictly commanded to abstain from uttering words calculated to excite the popular passions or prejudice. The most important portion of the law, however, was that which punished, by confiscation of body and goods, all who attended, whether with or without arms, conventicles in which preaching was held or the holy sacraments administered. Of simple heresy the cognizance was still restricted, as by the edict of Romorantin in the previous year, to the church courts; but no higher penalty could be imposed on the guilty, when handed over to the secular arm, than banishment from the kingdom. The punishment of all offences in which public disorder or sedition was mingled with heresy, remained in the hands of the presidial judges.[1048] These were the leading features of this severe ordinance. It is true that the edict was expressly stated to be only provisional--to last no longer than until the Universal or National Council, whichever might be held--that pardon was offered to those who would live in a Catholic manner for the future, that calumny was threatened with exemplary punishment. Yet it was clear that the law was framed in the interest of the Roman Catholics, and in their interest alone. The Duke of Guise openly exulted. He exclaimed in the hearing of many, "that his sword would never rest in its scabbard when the execution of this decision was in question."[1049] The disappointment of the Protestants was not less extreme. At court, Admiral Coligny did not hesitate to declare that its provisions could never be executed.[1050] The farther they were removed from St. Germain, the more loudly the Huguenots murmured, the greater was their indisposition to submit to the harsh conditions imposed upon them. In Guyenne and Gascony, and in Languedoc, where whole towns were to be found containing scarcely one avowed partisan of the papacy, the discontent was open and threatening. How long did the bigots of Paris intend to keep their eyes closed and refuse to recognize the altered aspect of affairs? Until what future day was the simplest of rights--the right of the social and public worship of God--to be proscribed? Must the inhabitants of entire districts continue, month after month, and year after year, to stand in the eye of the law as culprits, with the halter around their necks, and beg mercy of a despised priesthood and a dissolute court, for the crime of assembling in the open field, in the school-houses, or even in the parish churches, where their fathers had worshipped before them, to listen to the preaching of God's word?

[Sidenote: Iconoclasm at Montauban.]

With the rising excitement the power of the ministers to control the ardor of their flocks steadily declined. How could the people be moderate, or even prudent, when their rights were so thoroughly ignored? The events of Montauban during August and the succeeding months, may serve to illustrate the growing impatience of the laity. Until now, as we have seen, the earnest warnings of their pastors had generally been successful in restraining the Huguenots from touching the symbols of a hated system so temptingly exhibited before their eyes. But, a few weeks after the unofficial intelligence of the enactment of the edict of July had reached the city, the work of destruction commenced. On the night of the fourteenth of August the Church of St. Jacques received the first bands of iconoclasts. The pictures and images were torn down or hurled from their niches and destroyed; but the chalices, the silver crosses, and other precious articles, were left untouched. The object was neither robbery nor plunder. A week later, the same fate befel the paintings in the church of the Augustinians. After another and a shorter interval, the chapels of St. Antoine, St. Michel, St. Roch, St. Barthelemi, and Notre Dame de Baquet, witnessed similar scenes of destruction. It was at this juncture that the edict of July was brought to Montauban and publicly proclaimed. Nothing could have been more inopportune. The raging fever of the popular pulse had been mistaken for a transient excitement, and the specific now administered, far from quenching the patient's burning thirst, only stimulated it to a more irrepressible craving. That very evening (Tuesday, the twenty-sixth of August), the people, irritated beyond endurance, gathered around the Dominican church. The monks, forewarned of their danger, had taken the precaution to fortify themselves. They now rang the tocsin, but no one came to their rescue, and the stronghold was speedily taken. The assailants, however, cherished no enmity toward God's image in human flesh and bones. So, after effectually destroying all man's efforts to represent the Divine likeness in stone or on canvas, the Huguenots proceeded to the Carmelite Church. Here rich trophies awaited them--a "Saint Suaire" and relics, which, on close inspection, were found to be the bones of horses instead of belonging to the saintly personages whose names they had borne. The reader will scarcely feel surprise to learn that the monks--with the single exception of the Franciscans--now judged that the time for them to leave the city had arrived.

Instructed by the somewhat suggestive example of the fate that had befallen their brethren, the black and white friars, and, doubtless considering discretion the better part of valor, the priests of the collegiate church of St. Stephen abandoned their preparations for defence, and, stipulating only for their own safety, gave up their paintings to be consigned to the flames. A bonfire was kindled on one of the public squares; and while the sacred pictures and images thrown upon it were being slowly consumed, bands of children looked on and chanted in chorus the metrical paraphrase of the ten commandments. The city being thus cleared of its public objects of superstitious devotion,[1051] the people next turned their attention to those of a more private character. As the crowds moved along the streets they earnestly appealed to the inmates of the houses to follow the noble example the churches had set them. We are informed by a contemporary record that the iconoclasts carefully abstained from trespassing, and confined themselves to an exhibition of those passages of Sacred Writ in which an idolatrous worship was prohibited. But, if the brief argumentation for which the rapidity of the transaction allowed time was not in all cases sufficient to produce entire conviction, it may be presumed that any remaining scruples were removed by the contagion of the popular enthusiasm. Montauban was purged of image-worship as in a day, and without the injury of man, woman, or child.[1052]

[Sidenote: The Edict cannot be executed.]

[Sidenote: Impatience with "public idols."]

Coligny was right. The Edict of July could not be carried into execution in those parts of France where, as in Montauban, the mass of the population had openly adopted Protestantism. If the resistance encountered was often accompanied by an earnestness that disdained to be trammelled by the customary forms of civil law, it was almost always exercised in accordance with the dictates of natural justice. If the people, emancipated from the service of images, believed themselves to possess an indisputable right to dash in pieces or burn the curiously wrought saints sculptured in marble or portrayed by the painter's pencil, this fact is less wonderful than that they scrupulously spared the lives of the priests and monks to whose pecuniary advantage their former worship had principally redounded. The plain Huguenot, like the plain Christian in the primitive age, was fully persuaded that he had an owner's title in the public idol, which not only justified him in destroying it when he had discovered its vanity, but rendered it his imperative duty to execute the natural impulse. As for the obligation of nine-tenths of the population to use the idol tenderly, because of any rightful claim of the remaining tithe, this was a consideration that scarcely occurred to them.

[Sidenote: Calvin endeavors to repress it.]

Nor were they very solicitous respecting the dangers that might arise from over-precipitancy. Not so with Calvin, from whose closely logical intellect the influence of a thorough training in the principles of French law had not been obliterated. Never was disapprobation more clearly expressed than in the reformer's letter to the church of Sauve--a small town in the Cevennes mountains, a score of miles from Nismes--where a Huguenot minister, in his inconsiderate zeal, had taken an active part in the "mad exploit" of burning images and overturning a cross. This conduct Calvin regarded as the more reprehensible in one "whose duty it was to moderate others and hold them in check." He denied that "God ever enjoined on any persons to destroy idols, save on every man in his own house, or in public on those placed in authority," and he demanded that this "fire-brand" should exhibit his title to be lord of the territory in which he had undertaken to exercise so distinct a function of royalty. "In thus speaking," he added, "we are not become the advocates of the idols. Would to God that idolatry might be exterminated, even at the cost of our lives! But since obedience is better than all sacrifice, we must look to what is lawful for us to do, and must keep within our bounds." "Have pity, very dear brethren," he wrote in conclusion, "on the poor churches, and do not wittingly expose them to butchery. Disavow this act, and openly declare to the people whom he has misled, that you have separated yourselves from him who was its chief author, and that, for his rebellion, you have cut him off from your communion."[1053] Calvin's advice was that of the whole body of Protestant divines in France and its neighborhood. Even an idolatrous worship must not be overturned by violent means.

[Sidenote: Re-assembling of the States at Pontoise.]

[Sidenote: Able harangue of the "Vierg" of Autun.]

The States General, after having been first summoned to meet at Melun on the first of May, and then prorogued, when it was found that some of the particular States had introduced the consideration of the public affairs of the kingdom, instead of devising means for the payment of the royal debt,[1054] finally met at Pontoise on the first of August. It does not come within the scope of this history to dwell at great length upon the proceedings of this important political assembly. The States were bold and decided in tone. It was only after finding that those who had a clear right to the regency were unwilling to assert it, that they consented, in deference to the request of Du Mortier, Admiral Coligny, and Antoine himself, to ratify the contract between Catharine de' Medici and the King of Navarre.[1055] Nearly four weeks were spent in the discussion of the subjects that were to be incorporated in the "_cahiers_," or bills of remonstrance to be presented to the king. It was at the solemn reception of the three orders in the great hall of the neighboring castle of St. Germain-en-Laye,[1056] on the twenty-seventh of August, that the "tiers etat" expressed with greatest distinctness its sentiments respecting the present condition of the realm. Jacques Bretagne, _vierg_[1057] of the city of Autun, a townsman of the clerical orator of the first of January, whose arrogance had inspired such universal disgust, was their spokesman. After reflecting with considerable severity upon the deficiency of the clergy in sound learning and spirituality--qualities for which they ought to be pre-eminently distinguished--he took an impressive survey of the excessive burdens of the people--burdens by which it had been reduced to such deep poverty as to be altogether unable to do anything to relieve the crown until it had obtained time to recruit its exhausted resources.[1058] He declared it to be utterly inconceivable how such enormous debts had been incurred, while the purses of the "third estate" had been drained by unheard-of subsidies. As he had before exhibited the obligations of the clergy by biblical example, so the orator next proved, by reference to the Holy Scriptures, that it was the duty of Charles to cause his subjects to be instructed by the preaching of God's word, as the surest foundation of his regal authority. Then, approaching the vexed question of toleration, he declared that never had monarch more reason to study the Word of Life than the youthful King of France amid the growing divisions and discords of his realm. The different opinions held by Charles's subjects, he said, arose only from their great solicitude for the salvation of their souls. Both parties were sincere in their profession of faith. Let persecution, therefore, cease. Let a free national council be convened, under the presidency of the king in person, and let sure access be given to it. In fine, let places be conceded to the advocates of the new doctrines for the worship of Almighty God in the open day, and in the presence of royal officers; for the voluntary service of the heart, which cannot be constrained, is alone acceptable to heaven. From such toleration, not sedition, but public tranquillity, must necessarily result. And lest the ordinary allegation of the necessary truth of the Papal Church, on account of its antiquity, should be employed to corroborate the existing system of persecution, the deputy of the people reminded the king and court that the same argument might be rendered effective in hardening Jews and Turks in their ancient unbelief. "We need not busy ourselves in examining the length of time, with a view to determining thereby the truth or falsity of any religion. _Time is God's creature_, subject to Himself, in such a manner that ten thousand years are not a minute in reference to the power of our God!"[1059]

[Sidenote: Written demands of the tiers etat.]

If the harangue of the orator of the third estate was alarming to the clergy, its written demands were little calculated to reassure them. For of several propositions made for the payment of the public debts from the ecclesiastical property, none were very satisfactory to the priests. According to one, all benefices were to be laid under contribution. The holders of the lowest in valuation were to give up one-fourth of their revenues; the holders of more valuable benefices a larger proportion; while the high dignitaries of the church were to be limited to a yearly stipend of six thousand livres for bishops, eight thousand for archbishops, and twelve thousand for cardinals. But the most obnoxious scheme was one proposing an innovation of a very radical character. The aggregate revenues of the temporalities of the Gallican Church were estimated at four million livres; the temporalities themselves were worth one hundred and twenty millions. It was gravely proposed to dispose of all this property by sale. Forty-eight millions might be reserved, which, if invested at the usual rate of one-twelfth, or eight and a-third per cent., would secure to the clergy the revenue they now enjoyed. Forty-two millions would be required to pay off the debts of the crown. The remaining thirty millions might be deposited with the chief cities of the kingdom, to be loaned out to foster the development of commerce; while the moderate interest thus obtained would suffice to fortify the frontiers and support the soldiery.[1060]

[Sidenote: Representative government demanded.]

The constitutional changes proposed by the formal _cahier_ of the third estate were of an equally radical character. They looked to nothing short of a representative government, protected by suitable guarantees, and a complete religious liberty. On the one hand, the monarch was to be guided in the administration by a council of noblemen and learned and loyal subjects. Except in the case of princes of the blood, no two near relatives, as father and son, or two brothers, should sit at the same time in the council; while ecclesiastics of every grade were to be utterly excluded, both because they had taken an oath of fealty to the Pope, and because their very profession demanded a residence in their respective dioceses. On the other hand, the States General were to be convened at least once in two years, and no offensive war was to be undertaken, no new impost or tax to be raised, without consulting them. Happy would it have been for France, had its people obtained, by some such reasonable concessions as these, the inestimable advantage of regular representation in the government! At the price of a certain amount of political discussion, a bloody revolution might, perhaps, have been avoided.

In the matter of religion, the third estate recommended, first of all, the absolute cessation of persecution and the repeal of all intolerant legislation, even of the edict of July past; grounding the recommendation partly on the failure of all the rigorous laws hitherto enacted to accomplish their design, partly on the greater propriety and suitableness of milder measures. And they judiciously added, with a charitable discernment so rare in that age as to be almost startling: "The diversity of opinions entertained by the king's subjects _proceeds from nothing else than the strong zeal and solicitude they have for the salvation of their souls_."[1061] Strange that so sensible an observation should be immediately followed by a disclaimer of any intention to ask for pardon for seditious persons, libertines, anabaptists, and atheists, the enemies of God and of the public peace!

[Sidenote: An impartial national council.]

It was natural that, in accordance with these views, the third estate should call for the convocation of a national council to settle religious questions, to be presided over by the king himself, in which no one having an interest in retarding a reformation should sit, and where the word of God should be the sole guide in the decision of doubtful points. Meanwhile, the third estate proposed, that in every city a church or other place should be assigned for the worship of those who were now forced to hold their meetings by night because of their inability to join with a good conscience in the ceremonies of the "Romish Church"--for so the document somewhat curtly designated the establishment.[1062]

[Sidenote: The French prelates at Poissy.]

While the States General were occupied at Pontoise in considering the means of relieving the king's pecuniary embarrassments, Catharine had assembled at Poissy all the bishops of France to take into consideration the religious reformation which the times imperatively demanded. The Pope as yet delayed the long-promised oecumenical council, and there was little hope of obtaining its actual convocation on fair and practical terms unless, indeed, he should be frightened into it by the superior terrors of a French national council, which might throw France into the arms of the Reformation. Tired of the duplicity of the pontiff, alarmed by the rapid progress of religious dissensions at home, not unwilling, perhaps, to make an attempt at reconciliation, which, if successful, would confirm her own authority and remove the anxieties to which she was daily exposed--now from the side of the Guises, and again from that of the Huguenots--the queen mother had yielded to the suggestion frequently made to her, and had consented to a discussion between the French prelates and the most learned Protestant ministers.[1063]

[Sidenote: Invitation to all Frenchmen,]

[Sidenote: and particularly to Beza.]

[Sidenote: The couriers of Rome stripped.]

Accordingly, on the twenty-fifth of July an invitation had everywhere been extended by proclamation at the sound of the trumpet, to all Frenchmen who had any correction of religious affairs at heart, to appear with perfect safety and be heard before the approaching assembly at Poissy.[1064] Even before this public announcement, however, steps had been taken to secure the presence of the most distinguished orator among the reformed, and, next to Calvin, their most celebrated theologian. On the fourteenth of July, the Parisian pastors, and, on the succeeding days, the Prince of Conde, the Admiral, and the King of Navarre, had written to Theodore Beza, begging him to come and thus take advantage of the opportunity offered by the favorable disposition of the royal court.[1065] Similar invitations were sent to Pietro Vermigli--the celebrated reformer of Zurich, better known by the name of Peter Martyr--a native of Florence, now just sixty-one years of age, whose eloquence, it was hoped, might exercise a deep influence upon his countrywoman, the queen mother.[1066] So earnest, indeed, was the court in its desire to bring about the conference, that Catharine, well aware that, should tidings of the project reach the ears of the Pope, he would leave no stone unturned to frustrate her design, gave secret orders that all the couriers that left France for Rome about this time should be stripped of their despatches on the Italian borders! This daring step was actually executed by means of the governors of cities in Piedmont, who were devoted to her interests.[1067]

[Sidenote: French sincerity doubted.]

In spite of this flattering invitation, however, there was much in the condition of French affairs, especially in view of the edict of July just published, that made the two Swiss reformers and their colleagues hesitate before undertaking a mission which might possibly prove productive of less benefit than injury to the cause they had at heart. Well might they suspect the sincerity of a court from which so unfair an ordinance as that of July had but just emanated. What good results could flow from an interview for which the blood-stained persecutor of their brethren, Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine, professed his eagerness, promising himself and his friends an easy victory over the Huguenot orators?[1068]

[Sidenote: Urgency of Parisian Huguenots.]

The Protestants of Paris viewed the matter in a different light. So soon as they heard that Beza had concluded not to accede to their request, they wrote again, on the tenth of August. In this letter they begged him, although it was already so late that they had little hope of his being able to reach Poissy in time to take part in the opening of the colloquy, at least to change his mind, and to set out as soon, and travel as expeditiously as possible, in order to succor those who had, in his absence, entered upon the contest. Already, seeing little eagerness on the part of the Protestants, their adversaries had begun to boast of victory. The common cry at Paris, even, was that the Protestants would not dare to maintain their errors "before so good a company." If the prelates should be allowed to adjourn without advantage being taken of the opportunity accorded the reformers of defending their faith, the nobles would be too much disgusted to interfere in their behalf a second time; and the queen had distinctly said that, in that case, she would never be able to believe that they had any right on their side. "As to the edict," they added, "which has induced you to adopt this resolution, although it is very bad, yet it can place you in no danger; for by it there is nothing condemned excepting the 'assemblies;' and as to simple heresy, as they call it, it can at most be punished only by banishment from the kingdom, without other loss. Moreover, we know with certainty that this edict was made for the sole purpose of contenting King Philip and the Pope, and drawing some money from the ecclesiastics. These ends are bad, but it seems to us that there is nothing in all this that ought to prevent our appearing for the maintenance of the truth of God, since it has pleased Him to give us the opportunity of coming forward and being heard, as we have so long desired."[1069] Two days later Antoine of Navarre added his solicitations in an earnest letter to the "Magnificent Seigniors, the Syndics and Council of the Seigniory of Geneva."[1070]

[Sidenote: Beza comes to St. Germain.]

That it was no personal fear which had occasioned Beza's delay was soon proved. Antoine had written on the twelfth of August; on the sixteenth, without waiting for a safe-conduct, the reformer was already on his way to St. Germain, acting upon the principle laid down by Calvin: "If it be not yet God's pleasure to open a _door_, it is our duty to creep in at the _windows_, or to penetrate through the smallest _crevices_, rather than allow the opportunity of effecting a happy arrangement to escape us."[1071] So expeditious, in fact, was Beza, that on the twenty-second of August he was in Paris.[1072] The next day he reached the royal court at St. Germain.

[Sidenote: Beza's previous history.]

The theologian whose advent had been so anxiously awaited was a French exile for religion's sake. Born, on the twenty-fourth of June, 1519, of noble parents, in the small but famous Burgundian city of Vezelay, none of the reformers sacrificed more flattering prospects than did Theodore Beza when he cast in his lot with the persecuted Protestants. At Bourges he had been a pupil of Wolmar, until that eminent teacher was recalled to Germany. At Orleans he had been admitted a licentiate in law when scarcely twenty years old. At Paris he gave to the world a volume of Latin poetry of no mean merit, which secured the author great applause. The "Juvenilia" were neither more nor less pagan in tone than the rest of the amatory literature of the age framed on the model of the classics. That they were immoral seems never to have been suspected until Beza became a Protestant, and it was desirable to find means to sully his reputation. The discovery of the hidden depths of iniquity in the reformer's youthful productions it was reserved for the same prurient imaginations to make that afterward fancied that they had detected obscene allusions in the most innocent lines of the Huguenot psalter. At the age of forty-two years, Beza, after having successively discharged with great ability the functions of professor of Greek in the Academie of Lausanne, and of professor of theology in that of Geneva, was, next to Calvin, the most distinguished Protestant teacher of French origin. He was a man of commanding presence, of extensive erudition, of quick and ready wit, of elegant manners and bearing. No better selection could have been made by the Huguenots of a champion to represent them at the court of Charles the Ninth.[1073]

[Sidenote: Wrangling of the prelates.]

Meantime the prelates had been in session more than three weeks. But little good had thus far come of their deliberations. In vain, had the king delivered before them a speech in which he incited them "to provide such good means that the people might be induced to live in concord, and in obedience to the Catholic Church." In vain had he assured them that he would not give them permission to separate until they had made a satisfactory settlement of the religious affairs of the kingdom.[1074] The prelates much preferred to fritter away their time in the discussion of petty details of ecclesiastical order and discipline--in regulating the number of priests, settling the dignity of cathedral churches, prescribing the duties of bishops, and other matters of equal importance--"fancying that, in answering such questions, they were applying an efficacious remedy to the ills that desolated the church in these times of troubles and divisions."[1075] In the words of a minister of state, writing to a French ambassador on the very day of Beza's arrival at court, they intended to treat of the reformation of manners alone, "without coming to the point of doctrine, which they had as lief touch as handle fire."[1076]

[Sidenote: Cardinal Chatillon's communion.]

The doubtful allegiance of some of their own number to the Romish Church was a source of peculiar vexation. As the prelates were about to join in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, Cardinal Chatillon and two other bishops insisted upon communicating under both forms; and when their demand was refused, they went to another church and celebrated the divine ordinance with many of the nobility, all partaking both of the bread and of the wine, thus earning for themselves the nickname of Protestants.[1077]

[Sidenote: Determination of Catharine and L'Hospital.]

What with the disinclination of the bishops to enter into the consideration of the real difficulties that beset the kingdom, and the open hostility of the Pope and of Philip the Second[1078] to any assembly that bore the least resemblance to a national council, Catharine and her principal adviser, the chancellor, had an arduous and well-nigh hopeless task. They strove to quiet the King of Spain and the Pope by the assurance that the prelates had only been assembled in order to prepare them to go in a body to attend the universal council soon to be convened. "Those who are dangerously ill," wrote Catharine in her defence, "may be excused for applying all herbs to their ache, in order to alleviate it when it becomes insupportable. Meanwhile they send for the good physician--whom I take to be a good council--to cure so furious and dangerous a disease." Only those who feel the suffering, she intimated, can talk understandingly with respect to its treatment.[1079]

[Sidenote: A remarkable letter to the Pope.]

[Sidenote: Effect produced at Rome.]

Catharine was not, however, satisfied with this general apology; she even undertook to express to the pontifical court her idea of some of the reforms which were dictated by the times.[1080] On the fourth of August--nearly three weeks before Beza's arrival--she wrote a letter to Pius the Fourth of so radical a character that its authenticity has been called into question, although without sufficient reason. After acquainting the Pope with the extraordinary increase in the number of those who had forsaken the Roman Church, and with the impossibility of restoring unity by means of coercion, she declared it a special mark of divine favor that there were among the dissidents neither Anabaptists nor Libertines, for all held the creed as explained by the early councils of the Church. It was, consequently, the conviction of many pious persons that, by the concession of some points of practice, the present divisions might be healed. But more frequent and peaceful conferences must be held, the ministers of religion must preach concord and charity to their flocks, and the scruples of those who still remained in the pale of the Church must be removed by the abolition of all unnecessary and objectionable practices. Images, forbidden by God and disapproved of by the Fathers, ought at once to be banished from public worship, baptism to be stripped of its exorcisms, communion in both forms to be restored, the vernacular tongue to be employed in the services of the church, private masses to be discountenanced. Such were the abuses which it seemed proper to correct, while leaving the papal authority undiminished, and the doctrines of the Church unaffected by innovations.[1081] To such a length was a woman--herself devoid of strong convictions, and possessing otherwise little sympathy with the belief or the practice of the reformers--carried by the force of the current by which she was surrounded. But, whether the letter was dictated by L'Hospital, or inspired by Bishop Montluc--at this time suspected of being more than half a Huguenot at heart--the fact that a production openly condemning the Roman Catholic traditional usages on more than one point should have emanated from the pen of Catharine de' Medici, is certainly somewhat remarkable. At Rome the letter produced a deep impression. If the Pope did not at once give utterance to his serious apprehensions, he was at least confirmed in his resolution to redeem his pledge in respect to a universal council, and he must have congratulated himself on having already despatched an able negotiator to the French court, in the person of the Cardinal of Ferrara, a legate whose intrigues will occupy us again presently.[1082]

[Sidenote: Beza's flattering reception.]

Despite Pope and prelates, Beza met with the most flattering reception. He was welcomed upon his arrival by the principal statesmen of the kingdom. L'Hospital showed his eagerness to obtain the credit of having introduced him. Coligny, the King of Navarre, and the Prince of Conde betrayed their joy at his coming. The Cardinals of Bourbon and Chatillon shook hands with him. Indeed, the contrast between Bourbon's present cordiality and his coldness a year before at Nerac, provoked Beza to make the playful remark that "he had not undergone any change since the cardinal had refused to speak to him through fear of being excommunicated."[1083] Afterward, attended by a numerous escort,[1084] the reformer was conducted to the quarters of the Prince of Conde, where the princess and Madame de Coligny showed themselves "marvellously well disposed." On the morrow, which was Sunday, Beza preached in the prince's apartments before a large and honorable audience. Conde himself, however, was absent, engaged in making that unfortunate St. Bartholomew's Day reconciliation with the Duke of Guise, of which mention has already been made.[1085] Certainly neither Beza nor the other reformers could complain of the greeting extended to them. "They received a more cordial welcome than would have awaited the Pope of Rome, had he come to the French court," remarks a contemporary curate with a spice of bitterness.[1086]

[Sidenote: Beza meets Cardinal Lorraine.]

[Sidenote: The cardinal professes to be satisfied.]

[Sidenote: A witty woman's caution.]

That very evening Beza and Lorraine crossed swords for the first time in the apartments of Navarre.[1087] The former, coming by invitation, was much surprised to find there before him not only Antoine and his brothers, but Catharine de' Medici and Cardinal Lorraine, neither of whom had he previously met. Without losing his self-possession, however, he briefly adverted to the occasion of his coming, and the queen mother in return graciously expressed the joy she would experience should his advent conduce to the peace and quietness of the realm. Hereupon the cardinal took part in the conversation, and said that he hoped Beza might be as zealous in allaying the troubles of France as he had been successful in fomenting discord--a remark which Beza did not let pass unchallenged, for he declared that he neither had distracted nor intended to distract his native land. From inquiries respecting Beza's great master, Calvin, his age and health, the discourse turned to certain obnoxious expressions which Lorraine attributed to Beza himself; but the latter entirely disclaimed being their author, much to the confusion of the cardinal, who had expected to create a strong prejudice against his opponent in the minds of the by-standers. The greater part of the evening, however, was consumed in a discussion respecting the real presence. Beza, while denying that the sacramental bread and wine were transmuted into the body and blood of Christ, was willing to admit, according to Calvin's views and his own, "that the bread is sacramentally Christ's body--that is, that although that body is now in heaven alone, while we have the signs with us on earth, yet the very body of Christ is as truly given to us and received by faith, and that to our eternal life, on account of God's promise, as the sign is in a natural manner placed in our hands."[1088] The statement was certainly far enough removed from the theory of the Romish Church to have consigned its author to the flames, had the theologians of the Sorbonne been his judges. But it satisfied the cardinal,[1089] who confessed that he was little at home in a discussion foreign to his ordinary studies--a fact quite sufficiently apparent from his confused statements[1090]--and did not attempt to conceal the little account which he made of the dogma of transubstantiation.[1091] "See then, madam," said Beza, "what are those sacramentarians, who have been so long persecuted and overwhelmed with all kinds of calumnies." "Do you hear, cardinal?" said the queen to Lorraine. "He says that the sacramentarians hold no other opinion than that to which you have assented."[1092] With this satisfactory conclusion the discussion, which had lasted a couple of hours,[1093] was concluded. The queen mother left greatly pleased with the substantial agreement which the two champions of opposite creeds had attained in their first interview, and flattering herself that greater results might attend the public conferences. The cardinal, too, professed high esteem for Beza, and said to him, as he was going away: "I adjure you to confer with me; you will not find me so black as I am painted."[1094] Beza might have been pardoned, had he permitted the cardinal's professions somewhat to shake his convictions of the man's true character. He was, however, placed on his guard by the pointed words of a witty woman. Madame de Crussol, who had listened to the entire conversation, as she shook the cardinal's hand at the close of the evening, significantly said, in a voice loud enough to be heard by all: "Good man for to-night; but to-morrow--what?"[1095] The covert prediction was soon fulfilled. The very next day the cardinal was industriously circulating the story that Beza had been vanquished in their first encounter.[1096]

[Sidenote: A Huguenot petition.]

[Sidenote: Vexatious delay.]

[Sidenote: The petition informally granted.]

The Protestant ministers, assembled at St. Germain about ten days before Beza's arrival,[1097] had, with wise forethought, presented to the king a petition embracing four points of prime importance.[1098] They guarded against an unfair treatment of the cause they had come to maintain, by demanding that their opponents, the prelates, should not be permitted to constitute themselves their judges, that the king and his council should preside in the conferences, and that the controversy should be decided by reference to the Word of God. Moreover, lest the incidents of the discussion should be perverted, and each party should so much the more confidently arrogate to itself the credit of victory as the claim was more difficult of refutation, they insisted on the propriety of appointing, by common consent of the two parties, clerks whose duty it would be to take down in writing an accurate account of the entire proceedings. To so reasonable a petition the court felt compelled to return a gracious reply. The requests could not, however, be definitely granted, the ministers were told, without first consulting the prelates, and gaining, if possible, their consent.[1099] This was no easy matter. Many of the doctors of Poissy, and even some members of the council, maintained that with condemned heretics, such as the Huguenots had long been, it was wrong to hold any sort of discussion.[1100] Day after day passed, but the attainment of the object for which the ministers had come seemed no nearer than when they left their distant homes. They were not yet permitted to appear before the king and vindicate the confession of faith which they had, several months before, declared themselves prepared to maintain.[1101] Meantime it was notorious that their enemies were ceaselessly plotting to arrange every detail of the conference--if, indeed, it must be held--in a manner so unfavorable to the reformers, that they might rather appear to be culprits brought up for trial and sentence, before a court composed of Romish prelates, than as the advocates of a purer faith.[1102] At length, weary of the protracted delay, the Protestant ministers presented themselves before Catharine de' Medici, on the eighth of September, and demanded the impartial hearing to which they were entitled; and they plainly announced their intention to depart at once, unless they should receive satisfactory assurances that they would be shielded from the malice of their enemies.[1103] It was well for the Protestants that they exhibited such decision. Catharine, who always deferred a definite decision on important matters until the last moment--a habit not unfrequently leading to the hurried adoption of the means least calculated to effect her selfish ends--was constrained to yield a portion of their demands. In the presence of the Protestants an informal decree was passed, with the consent of Navarre, Conde, Coligny, and the chancellor[1104]--those members of the council who happened to be in the audience chamber--that the bishops should not be made judges; that to one of the secretaries of state should be assigned the duty of writing out the minutes of the conference, but that the Protestants should retain the right of appending such notes as they might deem proper. The king would be present at the discussions, together with the princes of the blood. But Catharine peremptorily declined to grant a formal decree according these points. This, she said, would only be to furnish the opposite party with a plausible pretext for refusing to enter into the colloquy.[1105] Meanwhile she urged them to maintain a modest demeanor, and to seek only the glory of God, which she professed to believe that they had greatly at heart.[1106]

[Sidenote: Last efforts of the Sorbonne to prevent the colloquy.]

The Romish party, however, was unwilling to approach the distasteful conference without a final attempt to dissuade the queen from so perilous an undertaking. As the Protestants left Catharine's apartments, a deputation of doctors of the Sorbonne entered the door. They came to beg her not to grant a hearing to heretics already so often condemned. If this request could not be accorded, they suggested that at least the tender ears of the king should be spared exposure to a dangerous infection. But Catharine was too far committed to listen to their petition. She was resolved that the colloquy should be held, and held in the king's presence.[1107]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 968: Evidently the Guises had acquiesced with so much alacrity in the convocation of the States General only because of their confidence in their power to intimidate any party that should undertake to oppose them. Chantonnay, the Spanish ambassador, informed Philip of this before Francis's death, and gave the Cardinal of Lorraine as his authority for the statement: "Le ha dicho el cardenal de Lorrena que para aquel tiempo avria aqui tanta gente de guerra y se daria tal orden que a qualquiera que quiziesse hablar se le cerrasse la boca, y assi ne se hiziesse mas dello que ellos quiziessen." Simancas MSS., _apud_ Mignet, Journal des savants, 1859, p. 40.]

[Footnote 969: Letter of Beza to Bullinger, Jan. 22, 1561, Baum, ii., App., 18.]

[Footnote 970: From Nov. 20th to Dec. 1st, De la Place, 77, 78.]

[Footnote 971: La Planche, 418.]

[Footnote 972: "Si possible estoit," wrote Calvin, "il seroit bon de leur faire veiller le corps da trespasse, comme ils out faict jouer ce rosle aux aultres." Letter to ministers of Paris, Lettres franchises, ii. 347.]

[Footnote 973: "Lutherano more sepultus Lutheranorum hostis." Letter of Beza to Bullinger, _ubi supra_, p. 19. "Dont advint un brocard: que le roy, ennemy mortel des huguenauds, n'avoit pen empescher d'estre enterre a la huguenaute." La Planche, 421.]

[Footnote 974: De la Place, 76.]

[Footnote 975: "De consentir que une femme veuve, une estrangere et Italienne domine, non-seulement il luy tourneroit a grand deshonneur, mais a un tel prejudice de la couronne, qu'il en seroit blasme a jamais." Calvin to the ministers of Paris, Lettres fr., ii. 346.]

[Footnote 976: Commentarii del regno di Francia, probably written early in 1562, in Tommaseo, Rel. des Amb. Ven., i. 552-554.]

[Footnote 977: Calvin, who read his contemporaries thoroughly, wrote to Bullinger (May 24, 1561): "Rex Navarrae non minus segnis aut flexibilis quam hactenus liberalis est promissor; nulla fides, nulla constantia, etsi enim videtur interdum non modo viriles igniculos jacere, sed luculentam flammam spargere, mox evanescit. Hoc quando subinde accidit non aliter est metuendus quam praevaricator forensis. Adde quod totus est venereus," etc. Baum, vol. ii., App., 32.]

[Footnote 978: Letter of Francis Hotman, Strasbourg, December 31, 1560, to the King of Navarre, Bulletin, ix. (1860) 32.]

[Footnote 979: "En quoy il fault que je vous dye que le roy de Navarre, qui est le premier, et auquel les lois du royaume donnent beaucoup d'avantage, s'est si doulcement et franchement porte a mon endroict, que j'ay grande occasion de m'en contenter, s'estant du tout mis entre mes mains et despouille du pouvoir et d'auctorite soubz mon bon plaisir.... Je l'ay tellement gaigne, que je fais et dispose de luy tout ainsy qu'il me plaist." Letter of Catharine to the Bishop of Limoges, December 19, 1560, _ap._ Negociations relat. au regne de Fr. II., p. 786, 787.]

[Footnote 980: "Encore que je souy contraynte d'avoyr le roy de Navarre aupres de moy, d'aultent que le louys de set royaume le portet ynsin, quant le roy ayst en bas ayage, que les prinse du sanc souyt aupres de la mere; si ne fault-y qu'il entre en neule doulte, car y m'e si aubeysant et n'a neul comendement que seluy que je luy permes." The fact that this letter was written by Catharine's own hand well accounts for the spelling. Negociations, etc., 791.]

[Footnote 981: Memoires de Castelnau, liv. iii., c. 2. In July, 1561, the salaries of the officers of the Parliament of Paris were in arrears for nearly a year and a half. Memoires de Conde (Edit. Michaud et Poujoulat), 579.]

[Footnote 982: "Che certo non puo piu." Relaz. di Giovanne Michele, _ap._ Tommaseo, Relations des Amb. Ven., i. 408.]

[Footnote 983: And yet--such are the inconsistencies of human character--this queen, whose nature was a singular compound of timidity, hypocrisy, licentiousness, malice, superstition, and atheism, would seem at times to have felt the need of the assistance of a higher power. If Catharine was not dissembling even in her most confidential letters to her daughter, it was in some such frame of mind that she recommended Isabella to pray to God for protection against the misfortunes that had befallen her mother. The letter is so interesting that I must lay the most characteristic passage under the reader's eye. The date is unfortunately lost. It was written soon after Charles's accession: "Pour se, ma fille, m'amye, recommende-vous bien a Dyeu, car vous m'aves veue ausi contente come vous, ne pensent jeames avoyr aultre tryboulatyon que de n'estre ases aymaye a mon gre du roy vostre pere, qui m'onoret pluls que je ne merites, mes je l'ayme tant que je aves tousjour peur, come vous saves fayrement ases: et Dyeu me l'a haulte, et ne se contente de sela, m'a haulte vostre frere que je ayme come vous saves, et m'a laysee aveque troys enfans petys, et en heun reaume (un royaume) tout dyvyse, n'y ayent heum seul a qui je me puise du tout fyer, qui n'aye quelque pasion partycoulyere." God alone, she goes on to say, can maintain her happiness, etc. Negociations, etc., 781, 782.]

[Footnote 984: "C'est folie d'esperer paix, repos et amitie entre les personnes qui sont de diverses religions.... Deux Francois et Anglois qui sont d'une mesme religion, ont plus d'affection et d'amitie entre eux que deux citoyens d'une mesme ville, subjects a un mesme seigneur, qui seroyent de diverses religions." La Place, p. 85; Histoire eccles., i. 264.]

[Footnote 985: Yet the Huguenots, more enlightened than the chancellor, while not renouncing the notion that the civil magistrate is bound to maintain the true religion, justly censured L'Hospital's statements as refuted by the experience of the greater part of the world. "Disaient davantage, qu'a la verite, puisqu'il n'y a qu'une vraye religion a laquelle tous, petite et grands, doivent viser, le magistrat doit sur toutes choses pourvoir a ce qu'elle seule soit avouee et gardee aux pays de sa sujettion; mais ils niaient que de la il fallut conclure qu'amitie aucune ni paix ne put etre entre sujets de diverses religions, se pouvant verifier le contraire tant par raisons peremptoires, que par experience du temps passe et present en la plupart du monde." Histoire eccles., i. 268.]

[Footnote 986: "Ostons ces mots diaboliques, noms de parts, factions et seditions; _lutheriens_, _huguenauds_, _papistes_; ne changeons le nom de _chrestien_." La Place, p. 87.]

[Footnote 987: The chancellor's address is given _in extenso_ in Pierre de la Place, Commentaires de l'estat de la religion et republique pp. 80-88; and in the Histoire eccles. des egl. ref., i. 257-268. De Thou, iii. (liv. xxvii.) 3-7. "Habuit longam orationem Cancellarius," says Beza, "in qua initio quidem pulchre multa de antiquo regni statu disseruit, sed mox _aulicum suum ingenium_ prodidit." Letter to Bullinger, Jan. 22, 1561, Baum, Theod. Beza, ii. App., 19. Prof. Baum has shown (vol. ii., p. 159, note) that this last assertion is fully borne out by portions of the speech, even when viewed quite independently of the impatience naturally felt by a Huguenot when an enlightened statesman undertook to sail a middle course where justice was so evidently on one side. I refer, for instance, to that extraordinary passage in which L'Hospital speaks of the treatment to which the Protestants had hitherto been subjected as _so gentle_, "qu'il semble plus correction paternelle que punition. Il n'y a eu ni portes forcees, ny murailles de villes abbattues, ni maisons bruslees, ny privileges ostes aux villes, commes les princes voisins ont faict de nostre temps en pareils troubles et seditions." La Place, _ubi supra_, p. 87. See other points specified in Histoire eccles., _ubi supra_.]

[Footnote 988: La Place, 88.]

[Footnote 989: Ib., 79; Hist. eccles., i. 269, 270; Beza to Bullinger, Jan. 22, 1561, _ubi supra_: "quam ipsius audaciam cum nobilitas et plebs magno cum fremitu repulisset, indignatus ille ne suae quidem Ecclesiae patrocinium suscipere voluit."]

[Footnote 990: This was on the 1st day of Jan., 1561: "Habuerunt hi singuli suas orationes publice, sedente rege et delecto ipsius concilio, Calendis Januarii." Letter of Beza, _ubi supra_, p. 20.]

[Footnote 991: All previous legislation appears to have proved fruitless. "Wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together." It was all in vain to endeavor to confine the gay and aspiring ecclesiastics to the provinces, so long as promotion was only to be found at Paris and worldly pleasures in the large cities. An edict of 1557, enjoining residence, Haton tells us, had little effect. It was obeyed only by the poorest and most obscure of the curates, and by them only for a short time. The great were not able to observe it, if they would. How could they? They could not have told on which benefice to reside, for they held many. "Ung homme seul tenoit un archevesche, un evesche et trois abbayes tout ensemble; ung aultre deux ou trois cures, avec aultant de prieurez, le tout par permission et dispense du pape.... _Et pour ce ne scavoient auquel desditz benefices ilz debvoient resider._" Mem. de Claude Haton, i. 91.]

[Footnote 992: La Place, Commentaries, 89-93; De Thou, iii. (liv. xxvii.) 8-10, Hist. eccles., i. 277-279.]