History of the Catholic Church, vol 1 by J. MacCaffrey (color ebook reader .TXT) 📖

of either religious party, determined to put an end to the civil strife by the publication of the Edict of Nantes (1598). The principal articles of the Edict were that the Calvinists should enjoy freedom of worship throughout the greater part of the kingdom, that they should be eligible for all positions of honour and trust in the state, that they should have for their own use the Universities of Montauban, Montpelier, Sedan, and Samur, that the funds for the upkeep of these universities and for the maintenance of their religion should be supplied by the state, and that for a period of eight years they should have possession of some of the principal fortresses. On their side they engaged to break off all alliances with foreigners, to allow Catholic worship to be restored in the places where it had been suppressed, to observe the marriage laws of the Catholic Church, and to abstain from anything that might be regarded as a violation of Catholic holidays. Such concessions were regarded with great disfavour by the Pope, the clergy, and the vast majority of the French people as being opposed to the entire national tradition of France, and it required all the efforts of the king to secure for them the approval of the Paris Parliament (1599). Similarly the Calvinists were not content with what had been conceded to them, nor were they willing to abide by the terms of the Edict of Nantes in so far as to allow the establishment of Catholic worship in the places which were under their control. Their public attacks on the Blessed Eucharist and on the Pope were very irritating to their countrymen, but Henry IV., who was a good king deeply interested especially in the welfare of the lower classes, continued to keep the peace between both parties. His sympathies were, however, with the Protestants of Germany, and he was actually on his way to take part in a war against the Emperor when he was assassinated (1610).

 

He was succeeded by his son Louis XIII. (1610-43) who was then a boy of nine years. His mother Mary de’ Medici, who acted as regent approved the terms of the Edict of Nantes, but the Huguenots relying on the weakness of the government refused to carry out those portions of the Edict favourable to Catholics, and made demands for greater privileges. They rose in rebellion several times especially in the South, entered into alliance with every rebel noble who took up arms against the king, and acted generally as if they formed a state within a state. Cardinal Richelieu who was for years the actual ruler of France (1624-42),[10] inspired solely by political motives, determined to put an end to a condition of affairs that was highly dangerous to the strength and national unity of the kingdom. He saw that it was impossible for France to extend her power so long as there existed at home a well-organised body of citizens prepared to enter into treasonable relations with foreign enemies, and to turn to their own advantage their country’s difficulties. His opportunity came when the Huguenots having concluded an alliance with England rose in rebellion (1627). He laid siege to their strongest fortress, La Rochelle, drove back the fleet which England sent to their assistance, and compelled the city to surrender (1628). By this strong measure he put an end to the power of the Huguenots in France and secured peace and unity for the country, while at the same time he treated the conquered with comparative mildness, confirming the Edict of Nantes (Edict of Nimes, 1629), proclaiming a general amnesty, and restoring the leaders of the rebellion to the property and positions they had forfeited.

 

During the reign of Louis XIV. (1643-1715) the whole tendency of the government was dangerous to the Huguenots. Louis XIV. was determined to make himself absolute ruler of France, and, therefore, he could regard only with the highest disfavour the presence in his territories of a well-organised privileged party like the Huguenots. An opportunity of carrying out his designs came in 1659, when with the approval of the Synod of Montpazier they attempted to negotiate an alliance with England. They were punished with great severity, forbidden to preach in any place without express permission, to attack Catholic doctrines publicly, or to intermarry with Catholics. Converts from Calvinism were encouraged by promises of special concessions.

Owing to the disfavour of the king and the energetic action of the clergy and bishops, whose education and culture at that time stood exceedingly high, large numbers of the Huguenots returned to the Church so that in some places, as for example in Normandy, where once they could boast of considerable influence, the sect became almost extinct.

 

The severity of the measures taken by Louis XIV. led to new rebellions, which were suppressed with great severity. Finally in 1685

a royal proclamation appeared announcing the revocation of all the privileges granted to the Huguenots and more particularly all those contained in the Edict of Nantes (1685). The churches which they had built recently were to be destroyed, their religious assembles were forbidden, and their clergy were offered their choice between submission to the Church or exile. The prime minister Louvois sent soldiers to enforce this proclamation, and the unfortunate Huguenots were treated with great harshness and cruelty. Many of them, unwilling to change their religion and unable to endure their hard lot at home, left the country and sought refuge in England, Germany, Denmark, and Holland. The revocation of the Edict of Nantes was not due to the religious zeal of Louis XIV. or of his ministers. Indeed at the very time that Louis XIV. was engaged in dragooning the Huguenots into the Catholic Church he was in bitter conflict with the Pope, and was committed to a policy that seemed destined to end in national schism.

Some of the French bishops, notably Fenelon, disapproved of this attempt at conversion by violence, and Pope Innocent XI., having no representative in Paris at the time, instructed his nuncio at London to induce James II. of England to bring pressure to bear on Louis XIV.

to favour the Huguenots.[11] Several times during the reign of Louis the Calvinists rose in arms to defend their religion but without effect. After his death the decrees against them were not enforced with much severity, but it was only in 1787 that a measure of almost complete political equality was granted to them by Louis XVI.

–––-

[1] Lefranc, Les idees religieuses de Marguerite de Navarre, 1898.

 

[2] Thomas, Le Concordat de 1516, 3 vols., 1910.

 

[3] Forneron, Les Ducs de Guise, 1877.

 

[4] De Ruble, Antoine de Bourbon, 2 vols., 1881-2.

 

[5] Marcks, Gaspard von Coligny, 1892. Delaborde, Gaspard de Coligny, 3 vols., 1879-83.

 

[6] De Ruble, L’assassinat de Francois de Lorraine, 1898.

 

[7] Rouquette, L’inquisition protestante, Les Saint-Barthelemy calvinistes, 1906.

 

[8] On the massacre of St. Bartholomew, cf. De la Ferriere, /La St.

Barthelemy/, 1892. Fauriel, Essai sur les evenements qui ont precede et amene la St. Barthelemy, 1838. Bordier, /La St.

Barthelemy et la critique moderne/, 1879. Hanoteaux, Etudes historiques sur le XVIe et le XVIIe siecle en France, 1886.

Vacandard, Etudes de critique et d’histoire religieuse, 1905.

Id., Les papes et la St. Barthelemy (/Rev. du Cler. Francais/, 1904).

 

[9] Richard, La papaute et la ligue francaise, 1901. De Chalambert, Histoire de la Ligue sous Henri III. et Henri IV., 1898. De l’Epinois, La Ligue et les papes, 1886.

 

[10] Caillet, L’Administration en France sous le ministere du cardinal de Richelieu, 2 vols., 1863.

 

[11] Gerin, Le Pape, Innocent XI. et la Revocation de l’Edit de Nantes (/Rev. des Quest. Historiques/, xxiv.).

 

(c) Calvinism in the Netherlands.

 

Cramer-Piper, Bibliotheca Reformatoria Neerlandica, 1903-11.

Juste, Histoire de la revolution des Pays Bas sous Philippe II., 2 vols., 1863-7. De Lettenhove, Les Huguenots et les Gueux, 6

vols., 1882-5. Gossart, La domination espagnole dans les Pays Bas a la fin du regne de Philippe II., 1906. Holzwarth, Der Abfall der Niederlanden, 2 Bde, 1865-72.

 

The Netherlands formed part of the vast territories ruled over by Charles V. For many reasons it was not to be wondered at that the people should sympathise with the great religious revolt in Germany.

They were allied closely with the Germans by blood and language. Like them, too, they looked upon Spain and upon the Spaniards with feelings of distrust. Again, as in other parts of the world, so too in the Netherlands the wealth of the Church had led to grave abuses as well as to a loss of respect for ecclesiastical authority, the latter of which was fostered in the minds of some by the spirit of mysticism that flourished in the land of St. Thomas a Kempis.

 

Yet, notwithstanding these favourable circumstances, the Reformation made little progress in the Netherlands during the reign of Charles V.

He was a man who understood the people and who respected their rights and privileges. He visited the country frequently, was always ready to listen to their demands, and he took care not to offend their national instincts by a display of Spanish troops or Spanish officials.

Besides, having a freer hand to deal with the new religious movement in the Netherlands than he had in Germany, he was determined to preserve his hereditary dominions from the dimensions and civil strife that had done so much to weaken the empire. He insisted on the proclamation and execution of the decree of the Diet of Worms against Luther, forbade the spread of heretical writings, introduced the Inquisition, and punished with great severity those who were found guilty of attempting to tamper with the faith of the people. But despite his efforts the trouble that had broken out in the neighbouring countries, France and Germany, could not fail to find an echo in the Netherlands, and the views of Calvin and Luther found some support.

 

In 1555 Charles retired and was succeeded by his son Philip II. (1555-98). The new ruler unlike his father made no effort to win the affections of his subjects in the Netherlands, or to attach them to himself by bonds of loyalty. On the contrary he came amongst them only too seldom, and after 1559 he never set foot in the country. He showed himself careless about their commercial interests, regardless of their constitutional rights and privileges, and indifferent to their national prepossessions. Instead of relying on the native officials and nobles to carry on the administration of the kingdom, he sought to strengthen his own power by appointing Spaniards to offices of trust and by sending Spanish troops to suppress all symptoms of discontent.

He set aside the Grand Council which by custom had the rights of a parliament, and without consultation with the authorities in the Netherlands he decided upon a new ecclesiastical division of the country. Hitherto there were only four bishops, whose Sees were subject to foreign metropolitans. Philip decided that the time had come when the number of bishoprics should be increased, and the jurisdiction of foreign metropolitans should be abolished. The main reason that influenced him to adopt this decision was the fact that, as matters stood, a complete and far-reaching scheme of reform could not be put into operation. In conjunction with Pope Paul IV. he arranged (1559) that the Spanish Netherlands should be placed under the three newly-erected archiepiscopal Sees of Utrecht, Cambrai, and Mechlin, and that suitable provision should be made for the maintenance of the new bishops out of the possessions of the monasteries and of the ecclesiastical institutions as well as from the contributions of the laity.

 

Many of the nobles were already tired of the Spanish rule, and