Royal letter to the Bishop of Paris

CHAPTER V.

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

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

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

adherents of the Roman Church should have been seriously entertained by

any considerable number of reflecting minds, for the chasm separating

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

There were irreconcilable differences of doctrine and practice, and

tendencies so diverse as to preclude the possibility of harmonious

action.
Hopes of reunion in the church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

excrescences can easily be removed, the ravages of time reverently

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

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

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

future council, in which all phases of opinion

would be freely represented, was to provide the adequate and sufficient cure for all the ills afflicting the body politic and ecclesiastic.

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

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

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

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

difficult problems of history to determine the proportion in which

earnest zeal and rank insincerity entered as factors into the measures

undertaken for the purpose of reconciling theological differences.

Especially is this true respecting the overtures made by the French

monarch to Philip Melanchthon, which now claim our attention.

Melanchthon and Du Bellay. A plan of reconciliation.

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

visit at Wittemberg from an agent of the distinguished French

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

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

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

suggestions of the practicability of some plan for bringing the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

letter accompanying his proposal Melanchthon set forth at some length

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

theological distinction had been insensibly worn away by the softening

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

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

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

absolutely required in the ancient order or in ecclesiastical polity.

Not even the pontifical authority itself need necessarily be abolished;

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

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

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

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

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

precipitated!¹

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

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

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

this unbounded liberality would satisfy the exorbitant demands of the

Roman party.
Melanchthon's concessions.

Melanchthon not only admitted that an ecclesiastical system with bishops

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

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

doctrine respecting human tradition and the retention of auricular

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

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

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

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

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

cloister, and monastic establishments could then be advantageously

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

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

point that bristled with difficulties. How to remove them Melanchthon

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

the Gordian knot which

¹ Melanchthon to Du Bellay, Aug. 1, 1534, Opera

(Bretschneider, Corpus Reformatorum), ii. 740.

must be reserved for the future council of the church to untie or cut.¹
His own misgivings.

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

reformer's mind, that possibly, after all his large admissions, his attempt was
but labor lost! For, in a letter to Martin Bucer, written on the very day he
despatched his communication to Du Bellay, he more than hinted his own
despair of effecting an agreement with the Pope of Rome, and excused himself
for his apparently lavish proffers, on the plea that he was desirous of making his
good French friends comprehend the chief points of controversy!²
A favorable impression made on Francis.

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

the mind of Francis a favorable impression. The ambitious monarch

welcomed the prospect of a speedy removal of the doctrinal differences

that had previously marred the perfect understanding he wished to

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

higher motives than considerations of a political character weighed with

him, may well be doubted.

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

that harvest of conciliation and harmony which the more moderate reformers looked for as likely to spring up from the seed so liberally sown by Melanchthon.

Indiscreet partisans of reform.

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

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

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

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

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

utterly repulsive. Its partisans believed themselves warranted in

resorting to open acts expressive of detestation of the gilded idolatry

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

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

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


¹ This is only a brief summary of the most essential points in these strange articles,
which may be read entire in Melanch. Opera, ubi supra, ii. 744-766.

² Ibid., ii. 775, 776.

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

gorgeous robes and manufactured relics, with more consideration than was

displayed by Hebrew prophets in dealing with heathen abominations? So

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

Christianity could only be successfully combated by vigor and decision.

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

to the axe of the woodman.

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

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

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

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

foolhardiness of their associates. A lamentable instance of the kind

must now be noticed.

Placards and pasquinades.

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

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

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

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

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

following the arrest and exile of Beda and other impertinent and

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

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

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

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

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

dogs," the Lutherans.¹ Under the circumstances, it was not strange

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

¹ See the interesting letter of a young Strasbourg student

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

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

"Au feu, au feu! c'est leur répère!

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

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

longer beginning:

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

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

day about the other transcribing its unpoetic but pious exhortations to

burn the offenders against Divine justice, and no one attempted to remove it.
Mission of Féret to Switzerland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Féret, an apprentice of the king's apothecary;¹ and the printing

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

Van Wingle, in the retired Vale of Serrières, just out of Neufchâtel,

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

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

the Bible into the French language by Olivetanus.² There is less certainty
respecting the authorship, but it seems highly probable that not Farel,
but an enthusiastic and somewhat hot-headed writer, Antoine de Marcourt,
must be held responsible for this imprudent production.³
The placard against the mass.

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

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

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

insupportable Abuses of the Papal Mass." Among those to whom the


¹ Crespin, Actiones et Monimenta (Ed. of 1560), fol. 64.

² Bulletin, ix. 27, 28.

³ Merle d'Aubigné, on the authority of the hostile

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

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

republished almost precisely at this date; while many sentences are

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

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

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

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

réformateurs, iii. 225, note, etc.

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

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

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

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

advancing, the cause it advocated.¹ Remonstrance, however, proved

futile.

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

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

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

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

author.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wretched sacrificing priests, who yet proclaim themselves liars,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

passion, false witnesses, traitors, thieves, and robbers

¹ Courault was foremost in his opposition. Crespin,

Actiones et Monimenta, fols. 64, 65.

of the honor of God, and more detestable than devils." After citing from the
book of Hebrews some passages to establish the sufficiency of Christ, the writer

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

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

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

forward, priests, and reply if you can!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and new Christs that suffer themselves to be eaten indifferently by

animals and by you who are no better than animals!"¹ Closing with a

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

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

fails them, Truth threatens and pursues them, Truth

¹ "Qui estes pire que bestes, en vos badinages lesquels

vous faites à l'entour de vostre dieu de paste, duquel vous vous jouez

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

vostre poictrine, après l'avoir mis en trois quartiers, comme estans

bien marris, l'appelans Agneau de Dieu, et lui demandans la paix."
terrifies them; by which their reign shall shortly be destroyed forever."¹

Download 3.7 Mb.

Share with your friends: