6. Baumgarten, Herman. Vorgeschichte der Bartholomäusnacht. Strasb., 1882. See Presb. Rev., iii, 619. 7. Schott, T. Die Bartholomäusnacht. Barm., 1888. 3 Aufl., 1891. Die Bluthochzeit od. die Bartholomäusnacht. Leipz., 1890. Rev., June, 1863; West. Rev., April, 1868; Fisher, Discus 8. Lindner, A. See North Brit. sions in Hist., 1 ff. 1. Benoit, Elias. IV. EDICT OF NANTES. Histoire de l'édit de Nantes. 5 vols. Delft, 1693-95. Transl., 2 vols., Lond., 1694. 2. Lièvre, A. Du rôle que le clergé cath. de France a joué dans la révocation de l'édit de Nantes. Strasb., 1853. 3. Gaberel, J. Les Suisses romands et les réfugiés de l'édit de Nantes. Paris, 1860. 4. Schott, Th. Die Aufhebung d. Ediktes von Nantes, 1685. Halle, 1885. Schott well says that all Catholic France had a share in the guilt of the revocation : "Not the momentary freak of a despot caused it; much less was it the result of a plot between Père La Chaise and Madame Maintenon. It was the outcome of a State-Church system, which began with fettering the liberties of the Huguenots, and ended with their extinction." Paux (below) shows the part the priesthood had in it. 5. Edits, déclarations, et arrêts, conc. la relig. P. réformée, 1662–1751, prec. de l'édit de Nantes. Paris, 1885. 6. Sander, F. Die Hugenotten und die Edikt von Nantes. Bresl., 1885. 7. Bersier, Eugene. La révocation: discours prononcé le 22 Oct., 1885, suivi de notes relatives aux jugements des contemporains sur l'édit de révocation. Paris, 1886. 8. Schaff, P. History of the Edict of Nantes. N. Y., 1890. 9. Douen, O. La révocation de l'édit de Nantes à Paris. Vols. i-iii. Paris, 1894. From inedited documents. See Th. Litz., 1896, No. 10. See F. Paux, Révocation de l'édit de Nantes, in Revue historique, 1885, N. ii; and his Les plaintes des protestants cruellement oppriméz dans le royaume de France; new ed., with commentary, in Collection des classiques du protestantisme français. Condé and Revocation of Edict of Nantes, in The Nation, N. Y., Feb. 20, 1896, 155 ff. 2 CHAPTER XXXI. BEGINNINGS OF THE REFORMATION IN FRANCE. THE DEARTH OF LEADERS. THE lack of a great personality who for a long term of years should stand as a representative of the Reformation in France marks one of the striking differences between the movement in that country and the parallel movements in Germany and Switzerland. The Reformation in France was an exotic upon which the warm sun shone for a time, but which could not prosper under the succeeding heats of persecution. For several decades the French Protestants drew their chief inspiration from Germany and Switzerland, not from their native soil. The names of Lefèvre, Briçonnet, and Farel are not sufficient to prove an exception to the general need of masterful leadership. For the first and second did not remain true long enough to give the cause its needful guidance, while Farel early fled to Switzerland, where he swelled and also mingled with the stream of reformatory activity. The political situation of the kingdom differed from that of both Germany and Switzerland, so as to afford the Reformation a less favorable field for operation. It was difficult to influence a sufficient number of the members of Parliament to warrant the expectation of protection from that source. The king indeed claimed absolute authority, and for a time it appeared as though he might assume essentially the same attitude toward the Reformation in France which Frederick the Wise occupied in Saxony. Had he done so there can be little doubt that the flow of reformatory progress would have been both accelerated and broadened. Considering the circumstances, therefore, the successes of the Reformation in France are almost more astonishing than in Germany and Switzerland; while in romantic and pathetic interest the French far surpasses either the Swiss or the German movement. LEFÈVRE. Jacques Lefèvre of Etaples,' a village of Picardy, has the high honor of having introduced the Reformation to French soil. Born about 1450, he was nearly seventy years of age when Luther began his reformatory work; yet whether it be regarded as an inevitable result of historical development or 1 Better known as Faber Stapulensis, the Latin of his own name and of his native place. as a special divine providence, his earlier birth did not enable him to anticipate the famous galaxy which almost simultaneously in many lands heralded the reintroduction of the long-exiled Gospel of Christ. But while he did not long precede Luther in the discovery, he nevertheless published the doctrine of the insufficiency of works and the necessity of justification by faith five years earlier than the great German. His Humanistic studies, pursued under many disadvantages of defective early training, had led him, like Erasmus, Reuchlin, and a host of others, to the study of the divine word. In 1508 he published a commentary on the Psalms, and in 1512 a commentary on the epistles of Paul. It was in the latter work that he clearly enunciated the doctrine of justification. But, as in Luther's case, his doctrine did not at first open his eyes to its logical consequences, and he had no idea of a breach with the Church, to which step, indeed, he never advanced. His views were not so much the symptom of a recoil from the flagrant abuses as an evidence of the independence and originality of his mind. Luther's doctrines were first published for the purpose of destruction; Lefèvre's for the more positive and constructive end of developing truth. As a consequence Lefèvre neither saw the antagonism between his faith and his practices nor called down upon himself the indignation of the ecclesiastical authorities. His doctrine of justification, proclaimed to the world in 1512, did not hinder him from worshiping pictures and images as late as 1514; while in 1516 Luther thought him deficient in clear apprehension of spiritual truth.' Saint worship and prayers for the dead he continued until 1519. In 1526 an anonymous writer declared that "the greater part of Meaux was infected with the false doctrines of Luther," and made the priest and scholar, Lefèvre, responsible because he had, as vicar general of the diocese, removed the pictures and images from the churches, forbidden the use of holy water, and rejected the doctrine of purgatory. This was a distant remove from his original excessive loyalty to all these superstitions, and must be attributed, in a large measure, to the influence of the Reformation in Germany, with the progress of which his information kept pace. 1 Baird, History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France, i, 75. Luther so expressed himself in a letter to Spalatin under date of October 19, 1516. ' Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris, p. 277. See also Baird, i, 75. Lefèvre, originally professor at the University of Paris, had removed to Meaux in 1516, at the invitation of the newly appointed Bishop Briçonnet. His appointment to the office of vicar general did not follow until seven years later. See Her minjard, Correspondance des Réformateurs, i, 71, 157. It is a striking fact that while Lefèvre's doctrine of justification, including the rejection of the efficacy of works, aroused LEFÈVRE'S MARYS. no special antagonism, he met with opposition as soon VIEW OF THE as his biblical studies led him to deny any of the less essential tenets of the Roman Catholic faith. The Church generally accepted the identity of Mary, the sister of Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, and "the woman that was a sinner," and had proclaimed this belief by its arrangement of the gospel lessons. In the course of Lefèvre's investigations he reached a more rational conclusion, and published a work supporting the view that these three were not identical with one another. The excitement, though local, was intense. Three years later the Sorbonne declared the interpretation of Lefèvre to be heretical, and it would have gone hard with him had the king not interfered in his behalf. But the destructive work, which was so necessary a part of the Reformation in every land, had now begun. He had already opened the way for the "renovation of the world," which, as by a prophetic instinct, he had long and frequently foretold.' LEFÈVRE'S NEW TESTA- But he was about to perform a task of far wider consequence than any in which he had hitherto engaged. His doctrines had been drawn from the Bible, and he determined to give that divine book to the French people in their native tongue. It is characteristic of the Reformation that it emphasized the authority of God's word as against ecclesiastical tradition, and that one of the chief agencies for the spread of ideas destructive of Roman Catholicism was the Bible in the vernacular in the hands of the people. Lefèvre's New Testament appeared in 1523 and his Old Testament in 1528. Before the latter year he had left Meaux, but he was permitted to remain there long enough to witness the joy with which the common people read the New Testament in their own language and heard it read in the churches. Lefèvre himself described the effects in a letter to Farel under date of July 6, 1524, a little more than a year after the publication of the gospels. He is authority also for the statement that all through his diocese the epistles and gospels were read in the services, both on feast days and Sundays, and that the reading was accompanied with exhortations at the discretion of the priests. All this was done by the favor of Bishop Briçonnet, and 2 'See the confirmation in Baird, i, 71. Such prophecies were not uncommon in that period. See Berger, Kulturaufgaben der Reformation, pp. 52, 53. 'The gospels appeared in June, the remainder of the New Testament in the autumn of 1523. was defended by the king in spite of the antagonistic efforts of the Parliament. He was soon to be forced from the scene of his reformatory labors and to become an exile in a foreign land. But the history of the Reformation in Meaux, and indeed the history of Lefèvre, cannot be written without notice BRICONNET. of Briçonnet, the bishop of the diocese. He had been Lefèvre's pupil as he was now his friend. He had enjoyed a series of ecclesiastical dignities, prior to his elevation to this important see in March, 1516. Among these were two diplomatic visits to Rome, where, like Luther, he saw the need of reform. In the exercise of his episcopal authority he undertook the work of reformation in his own diocese. Although later he tamely submitted to the dictation of his official superiors, he now gave every evidence of his sympathy with the Reformation, both as to its doctrines and its practices. He gathered about him a brilliant company of reformers, including Lefèvre, Farel, Gerard Roussel, and Martial Mazurier, whom he employed as preachers in preference to those who adhered to the old faith. He had forbidden the Franciscan monks to preach in his diocese, and the successes of the Evangelicals aroused the jealousy and the animosity of the Dominicans. It was under his protection that Lefèvre began his translation of the Bible, and to his generosity many of the poor of the diocese were indebted for free copies of the New Testament. It was he who introduced the amazing novelty of the reading of the Scripture in the churches in a language which the people could understand. He listened with obedience to the letters and advice of the German and Swiss reformers, and was consciously responsible for the progress of the new ideas in his diocese during a term of eight or nine years. But there came a time when he could no longer stem the tide of opposition which rolled violently against him. He now turned upon those whom he had formerly protected and was transformed from a champion of the Reformation into an advocate of the old doctrines and practices. He was the first of a considerable list of the brilliant coterie at Meaux who either retracted their doctrines or so modified their activities as to avoid the inevitable clash with the civil authorities.' One after another of the reformers forsook the diocese. Farel, then Lefèvre and Roussel, fled. Farel remained true, but his labors were chiefly confined to Switzerland, whence he 1 Mazurier may have preceded him. It is said that this most vociferous of the evangelical preachers of Meaux was the first to recede, and that he was largely instrumental in overcoming the scruples of Briçonnet. See Baird, i, 82. |