profoundly influenced the work in France. But Lefèvre and Roussel, the scholar and the eloquent preacher, gradually tempered their zeal until there was nothing left except CHECK OF a memory, or at least a private maintenance of what they had once eloquently proclaimed. Both of them came to think it unnecessary to antagonize the existing order too vigorously. Religion was a subjective state which they could enjoy in spite of the recognized abuses of the Church. The selfishness of their conduct, not to say its pusillanimity, was in startling contrast with their former desire to have all enjoy the truth which they possessed. Lefèvre is said to have reproached himself bitterly in his old age for his failure to stand courageously for the truth he had preached to others, and for which they had suffered.' The lack of determination on the part of so many of the earliest French reformers is one of the most painful features in the history of the movement. We can contemplate with melancholy pleasure the heroism of those who suffered death for their faith, but the cowardice of those who had not courage even to apostatize, yet who endeavored to maintain in their hearts the truth of God which they denied by their public profession, can produce no sentiment more mild than sad ness. But if Briçonnet forsook the cause, he had at least favored it for a sufficient length of time to give it a place in the hearts of those more constant than himself. Particularly did the laboring classes of Meaux maintain their loyalty to the new faith. They found in it a solace of which the rich and great did not so much feel the need. Through his agency also the Gospel found its way into the heart of at least one of the royal family. It was he who had led Margaret of Angoulême, the talented sister of Francis I, to the Bible as the original and only source of true spiritual wisdom and nourishment. She remained a firm friend of the reformers to the day of her death, and exercised an immeasurable influence for good in the propagation of the truth. And while both in the king's palace and the hut of the laborer the Gospel found a welcome place, there were also many of the more favored of the middle classes, and even of the nobility, who had accepted the Reformation. The theologians of the Sorbonne had condemned the writings. 1It must not be supposed, however, that Lefèvre ever again became an adherent of the papal party, as they had hoped. See Herminjard, ii, 386. *He had once exhorted them that if he should ever change his faith, they at least should remain steadfast. of Martin Luther on April 15, 1521, three days before he stood for their defense at the diet of Worms. In November of the same ATTITUDE year they had condemned Lefèvre's view of the rela tion of the three Marys. These facts are sufficient to show the spirit which prevailed there. The Parlia ment, in matters of religion, was their subservient instrument. Francis I had no decided religious convictions, but he desired to stand as the representative of the new learning, whose adherents supported, in varying degrees, the reformed ideas. His sister Margaret, by conviction a follower of the reformed faith, employed all her influence with him in the interest of the Reformation. QUEEN As long, therefore, as political considerations made it seem to him possible, he did not interfere with the reformers, but rather protected them. But when Francis, expecting to be absent from the country for some time, placed his mother, Louise of Savoy,' on the throne as regent, the sorrows of the Protestants began. She appears at one time to have favored the much-hated Lutheran doctrines. Almost immediately upon her ascent to the throne she began to inquire of the Sorbonne as to the best means of purifying the kingdom from the taint of Lutheranism. They advised the strict and thorough enforcement of every enactment against the heretics; the surrender of the Lutheran books to bishops in their several dioceses; the prohibition of support, in any form, by anyone, of the abominable doctrines. Those who claimed that they were unjustly accused must prove their innocence by the active defense of the old order. It was time, indeed, that energetic measures should be taken if the heresy was to be stamped out; for in every portion of the country the writings of Luther were being read with approval, and converts among all classes were being rapidly gained. The Franciscan monk, Francis of Avignon, whom we saw figuring in the introduction of the Reformation into Hesse and elsewhere, was one of the acquisitions of this period. He DOCTRINE. had laid aside his cowl and married, defending himself publicly in writing, in 1523. In Paris and Lyons the cause was espoused by Margaret;' in Cambray by Pierre Caroli, a lecturer SPREAD OF The queen mother, Margaret, and the king constituted what Louise fondly called their "Trinity." Compare Francis I and his Times, by Clarisse Coiquet. English by Fanny Twemlow, p. 140. ? The case of Leclerc (see below) revealed the fact that in Paris and vicinity the converts were numerous. See Bulletin de la soc. de l'hist. du prot. français, iii, 23. in the college and the rival in learning of Beda, syndic of the Sorbonne. The case of Louis de Berquin, a nobleman of Artois, had given much anxiety both to the theologians and the Parliament, and on the immediate borders of the French territory and among French-speaking peoples the Reformation was advancing with rapid strides. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the queen regent had, except by inquiry, diverged from the moderate course hitherto pursued by her son. But upon the arrival of the news that Francis had been captured at Pavia, in February, 1525, influenced partly by the superstitious fear that the disasters of Francis were attributable to the divine vengeance for the royal toleration afforded the heretical doctrines, but more probably stirred by the desire to secure the aid of the pope in effecting her son's release, she assumed at once an attitude of hostility which induced a period of frightful suffering for the helpless adherents of the true faith. CHAPTER XXXII. THE FRENCH REFORMATION TO THE YEAR OF THE PLACARDS. THE plan which the advisers of Louise suggested to Parliament included the entire removal of trials for heresy from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical authorities, who seemed to be powerless to prevent the spread of the strange doctrines. A commission appointed by the Parliament, consisting of two of its own members and two doctors of the Sorbonne, was to have sole charge of proceedings against heretics. This indeed took the cases out of the hands of the French papal inquisitor, but it established a national inquisition in its stead. The commission was empowered to proceed in secret against the Lutherans, "by personal summons, by bodily arrest, by seizure of goods, and by other penalties ;" and, in order that there might be no delay which could mollify the direful fate of the convicts, the decisions of the commission were to be equally binding with those of the supreme court, and to be executed without appeal. The bishop of Paris had voluntarily surrendered his jurisdiction in heresy cases to the Parliament, which body now ordered all the more important bishops to do the same. The one thing yet needful was the sanction of the pope, who, although he destroyed the immediate power of his own clergy, did not reject the provisions of the regent and Parliament. In a letter to the Parliament he urged the commissioners to all possible zeal, in view of both the rapid spread and the fatal character of the new madness. Accompanying the letter was a bull addressed to the commissioners themselves, in which the pope formally transferred his own rights and those of the clergy to them.' They might search out, try "without noise," execute, and consign to eternal damnation persons of almost any and every grade of dignity in Church or State, and they might confer upon any faithful Roman Catholic who chose to exercise it the right to seize and hold for himself the lands and property of the heretics, and to reduce them to perpetual slavery. THE COMMIS- It was not strange that Parliament should take charge of eccle 1 From the decisions of the commission there was no appeal, even to the apostolic see. A PAPAL siastical affairs, but it may excite some astonishment that the pope so readily acceded to their plans. In truth, he gained more than he lost; for the dangers arising from the spread of Lutheranism were greater than those from the encroachments of the Parliament, which reflected, not on the pope, but on the French clergy. And in his bull he had conferred powers upon the commission which the Parliament did not originally contemplate, but which they virtually accorded him the right to confer by placing his bull upon record. Thus the pope had captured the commission, and thenceforth it was under even greater responsibility to him than to the Parliament. Furthermore, he had assumed the authority to dispose of the property of French citizens at will. What France had hitherto so jealously guarded was now granted in another form without protest.' POLICY OF THE One of the very first to be cited before the new commission was Briçonnet, whose defection we have already described. Lefèvre and Roussel had been driven out of France by the fear of the commission, which indeed was to prove, as the pope expected, his right arm of power in the kingdom. Those of the reformers who did not take refuge in flight were subjected to many annoying suspicions, and restrictions of religious liberty. It is probable that the trial of Briçonnet and the establishment of the ENERGETIC commission were hastened by the rash act of Jean Leclerc, a wool-carder of Meaux, who tore down a bull COMMISSION. of Clement VII which had been attached to the cathedral doors. The bull was as innocent as possible, and had for its end the peace of Christendom. Yet Leclerc could not tolerate, but secretly removed it, adding the farther indignity of posting an attack upon the pope in its place. Upon his conviction he was sentenced by Parliament to be whipped on three successive days in Paris, and as often in Meaux, branded on the forehead with the words "fleurde-lis," and then banished from the kingdom.' But if such acts as Leclerc's awakened the hostility which led to the appointment of the commission, that body failed not to perform its functions with corresponding energy. Jacques Pauvan, of Boulogne, Picardy, a pupil and assistant of Lefèvre in Meaux, was burned at the stake early in 1526, and the unknown "Hermit of Livry" 1 The French had declined to allow a papal inquisitor to arrest or detain a French citizen without consent of secular authority. * He was afterward (July 22, 1525) frightfully tortured, mutilated, and then burned, at Metz, for an even more rash act of sacrilege. His seeming irreverence was reverence for the true God. For full details see Baird, i, 87-89. |