Volume I Part 54 (2/2)
Such are the reported details of a plan almost too gross for belief. It is true that the existence of similar schemes--less extensive, perhaps, but equally sanguinary, and, in the light of history, not much less absurd--formed by the adherents of the papacy during the sixteenth century, is too well attested to admit of doubt. But the historical difficulties surrounding this doc.u.ment have never yet been satisfactorily explained, and the student of the Huguenot annals must still content himself with regarding it as a summary of reports current within the first two years of the reign of Charles the Ninth, respecting the secret designs of the Triumvirs, rather than as an authorized statement of their intentions.[1023]
[Sidenote: Ma.s.sacres in holy week.]
While the intrigues of the d.u.c.h.ess of Valentinois and other bigots had been successful at court, the enemies of the Huguenots had not been idle in other parts of France. Fearful of the effect which the apparent union between Catharine and the King of Navarre might produce in accelerating the advance of the reformed doctrines, they resolved to stir up the zeal of the populace--that portion of the people that retained the strongest devotion for the traditional faith--in the country as well as in the capital.[1024] Holy week furnished opportunities that were eagerly embraced. Fanatical priests and monks wrought up the excitable mob to a frenzy.[1025] When their pa.s.sions had reached a fervent heat, it was easy to bring on seditious explosions, the blame of which could be attached to the other party. ”Few cities in the realm,” says Abbe Bruslart in his journal, ”escaped at this time riots and tumultuous scenes occasioned by the new religion.”[1026]
Amiens, Pontoise, and Paris itself were among the scenes of these disorders. Twenty cities witnessed the slaughter of Protestants by the infuriated rabble.[1027]
[Sidenote: The affair at Beauvais.]
The disturbance that attracted more attention than any other took place in the episcopal city of Beauvais--about forty miles north of Paris--on Easter Monday, the very next day after Montmorency, Guise, and St. Andre had been confirming their inauspicious compact at the sacred feast in honor of a risen Redeemer. The Bishop of Beauvais was the celebrated Cardinal Odet de Chatillon, long suspected of being at heart a convert to the reformed doctrines. More bold than he had formerly been, he now openly fostered their spread in his diocese.[1028] But even the personal popularity of the brother of Coligny and D'Andelot could not, in the present instance, secure immunity for the preachers who proclaimed the Gospel under his auspices. Incited by the priesthood, the people overleaped all the bounds within which they had hitherto contained themselves. The occasion was a rumor spread abroad that the Cardinal, instead of attending the public celebration of the ma.s.s in his cathedral church, had, with his domestics, partic.i.p.ated in a private communion in his own palace, and that every communicant had, at the hands of the Abbe Bouteiller, received both elements, ”after the fas.h.i.+on of Geneva.”
Hereupon the mob, gathering in great force, a.s.sailed a private house in which there lived a priest accused of teaching the children the doctrines of religion from the reformed catechisms. The unhappy Adrien Fourre--such was the schoolmaster's name--was killed; and the rabble, rendered more savage through their first taste of blood, dragged his corpse to the public square, where it was burned by the hands of the city hangman. Odet himself incurred no little risk of meeting a similar fate. But the strength of the episcopal palace, and the sight of their bishop clothed in his cardinal's costume, appeased the mob for the time; and before the morrow came, a goodly number of the neighboring n.o.bles had rallied for his defence.[1029]
[Sidenote: a.s.sault on the house of Longjumeau.]
If such riotous attacks followed the preaching of the ecclesiastics in the provinces, the demonstrations of hostility to the exercises of the Protestants could not be of a milder type in the midst of the turbulent populace of Paris, and within a stone's throw of the College de la Sorbonne. Toward the end of April information was received that the city residence of the Sieur de Longjumeau, situated on the _Pre aux Clercs_, was becoming a haunt of the Huguenots. It was not long before the rabble, with ranks recruited from the neighboring colleges, inst.i.tuted an a.s.sault. But they met with a resistance upon which they had not counted. Forewarned of his danger, Longjumeau had gathered beneath his roof a number of friendly n.o.bles, and laid in a good supply of arms. The undisciplined crowd fled before the well-directed fire of the defenders, and left several men dead and a larger number wounded on the field. Not satisfied with this victory by force of arms, Longjumeau resorted to parliament. But the court displayed its usual partiality for the Roman Catholic faith. While it abstained from justifying the a.s.sailants, and forbade the students from a.s.sembling in the neighborhood, it reiterated the adage that ”there is nothing more incompatible than the co-existence of two different religions in the same state,”[1030] censured the n.o.bleman's conduct, and ordered him forthwith to retire to his castle at Longjumeau.[1031]
[Sidenote: New and tolerant order.]
The only salvation of France lay in putting an end to such alarming exhibitions of discord, from the frequent recurrence of which it was to be feared that the country stood upon the verge of civil war. For this reason, Catharine de' Medici yielded to the persuasions of Chancellor L'Hospital, and, on the nineteenth of April, caused a royal letter to be addressed to all the judges, in which the practice of self-control and tolerance was enjoined. Insulting expressions based on differences of religion were strictly forbidden. The very use of the hateful epithets of ”Papist” and ”Huguenot” was proscribed. Far from offering a reward for denunciation, the king proclaimed it criminal to violate the sanct.i.ty of the home for the alleged purpose of ferreting out unlawful a.s.semblages. He again ordered the release of all imprisoned for religion's sake, and extended an invitation to exiles to return to their homes, if they would live in a Catholic manner, granting them permission, if they were otherwise disposed, to sell their property and leave the kingdom.[1032]
[Sidenote: Opposition of the Parliament of Paris.]
It would have been not a little surprising if so tolerant an edict, even though it did little more than repeat the provisions of the last royal letters on the same subject (of the twenty-eighth of January), had been accepted without opposition by the Romish party.[1033] Still more strange if parliamentary jealousy had not taken umbrage at the neglect of immemorial usage, when the letter was sent to the lower courts before having received the honor of a formal registry at the hands of the Parisian judges. It is difficult to say which offence was most resented.
Toleration, parliament remonstrated, was a tacit approval of a diversity of religion--a thing unheard of from Clovis's reign down to the present day. Kings and emperors--nay, even popes--had fallen into error and been proclaimed heretical or schismatic, but never had such calamity befallen a king of France. It were better for Charles to make open profession of his intention to live and die in his religion, and to enforce conformity on the part of his subjects, than to open the door wide to sedition by tolerating dissent. Better to renew the prohibition of heretical conventicles, and to reiterate the ancient penalties.
Particularly ill-advised was it that Charles should be made to p.r.o.nounce seditious those who applied the names ”Papist” and ”Huguenot” to their opponents, for it seemed to establish side by side two rival sects, although the name of the one was so novel as never to have found a place in any former missives of the crown.[1034]
[Sidenote: Popular cry for Protestant pastors.]
The refusal of the Parisian parliament to verify the edict in the customary manner prevented its universal observance; but, notwithstanding this untoward circ.u.mstance, it proved exceedingly favorable to the development of the Huguenot movement.[1035] Scarcely a month after its publication, Calvin, in a letter to which we have more than once had occasion to refer, expressed his astonishment at the ardor with which the French Protestants were pressing forward to still greater achievements. The cry from all parts of Charles the Ninth's dominions was for ministers of the Gospel.[1036] ”The eagerness with which pastors are sought for on all hands from us is not less than that with which sacerdotal offices are wont to be solicited among the papists.
Those who are in quest of them besiege my doors, as if I must be entreated after the fas.h.i.+on of the court; and vie with each other, as if the possession of Christ's kingdom were a quiet one. And, on our part, we desire to fulfil their earnest prayers to the extent of our ability; but we are thoroughly exhausted; nay, we have for some time been compelled to drag from the book-stores every workman that could be found possessed even of a slight tincture of literature and religious knowledge.”[1037]
The letters that reached Calvin and his colleagues by every messenger from Southern France--many of which have recently come to light in the libraries of Paris and Geneva--present a vivid picture of the condition of whole districts and provinces. From Milhau comes the intelligence that the ma.s.s has for some time been banished from the place, but that a single pastor is by no means sufficient; he must have a colleague, that one minister may take exclusive care of the neighboring country, ”where there is an infinite number of churches,” while the other remains in the city. Everywhere there is an abundance of hot-headed persons who, by their breaking of crosses and images, and even plundering of churches, give the adversary an opportunity for calumniating. ”May the Lord, of His goodness, be pleased to purge His church of them!”[1038]
[Sidenote: Moderation of the Huguenot ministers.]
In these most difficult circ.u.mstances--while, on the one hand, the demand for ministers was largely in excess of the supply, and, on the other, the folly of certain inconsiderate enthusiasts seemed likely to draw upon the great body of Protestants the unwarranted charge of disorder and insubordination to law--the Huguenot ministers fearlessly took a position that strikingly exhibits their excellent judgment, as well as their high moral principle. They declined to countenance a policy which offered, to say the least, bright temporary advantages.
They refused to trust the vessel freighted with their best hopes for the future of France, to be carried into port on the treacherous waves of popular excitement. They preferred to abate somewhat of the proper demands which they might have exacted with success, that they might deprive their enemies of the slightest ground for maligning their loyalty to their native land and its legitimate king. When the Protestants of Montauban--a town then beginning to a.s.sume a religious character which it has never since lost--learned that they had been falsely accused of having revolted from the king, and of having elected a governor of their own, established a polity similar to that of the Swiss cantons, and coined money as an independent state, they not only refuted the charges to the satisfaction of the royal lieutenant sent to investigate the truth,[1039] but they discontinued the _public_ celebration of the Lord's Supper, in order to avoid even the appearance of unwillingness to obey the king's commands. At the same time they wrote to Geneva an earnest request that, notwithstanding the need of teachers in France, no persons that had been monks or chaplains should be admitted to the ministry unless after long and careful scrutiny. They did more harm, they disquieted the churches more, they said, than the most violent persecutions that had befallen the Protestants. For they refused to submit to discipline, made light of the decisions of their brethren, and, while seeking only their own pleasure, drew odium upon the ministers who endeavored to uphold good order among the people.[1040]
[Sidenote: Inconsistent laws and practice.]
[Sidenote: Judicial perplexity.]
The position of the Huguenots was certainly anomalous, and presented the strangest inconsistencies. The royal letters enjoined that no inquiries should be made with the view of disturbing any one for religion's sake; the Parliament of Paris refused to register these letters and obey the provisions; the still more fanatical counsellors of the Parliament of Toulouse rather increased than diminished their severities, and daily consigned fresh victims to the flames.[1041] It was natural that the clergy should take advantage of these circ.u.mstances to renew their remonstrances against the continuance of the existing toleration. The Cardinal of Lorraine seized the opportunity afforded him by the solemn ceremonial of Charles's anointing at Rheims (on the thirteenth of June, 1561) to present to the queen mother the collective complaints of the prelates, because, so far from witnessing the rigid enforcement of the royal edicts, they beheld the heretical conventicles held with more and more publicity from day to day, and the judges excusing themselves from the performance of their duty by alleging the number of conflicting laws, in the midst of which their course was by no means easy. He therefore recommended the convocation of the parliament with the princes and members of the council, that, by their advice, some permanent and proper settlement of this vexed question might be reached.[1042]
Catharine, who, in the publication of the letters-patent of April, had followed the advice of Chancellor L'Hospital, and seemed to lean to the side of toleration, now yielded to the cardinal's persuasions--whether from a belief that the mixed a.s.sembly which he proposed to convene would pursue the path of conciliation already pointed out by the government, or from a fear of alienating a powerful party in the state.
[Sidenote: The ”Mercuriale” of 1561.]
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 a.s.sembled 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 n.o.blemen 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 n.o.bility 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 cla.s.s, 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 b.l.o.o.d.y 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.
<script>