Asa H. Craig, (Asa Hollister), 1847-1934
Without studying the history of France during the period known as the Huguenot wars (1562-1629), we get a very wrong opinion of the two opposing forces — the Huguenots and the Catholics. From the radical standpoint of Protestant authority, we find that the aggressors are the Catholics, and that the persecution of the Huguenots was the result of this aggression. As all wars are a series of persecutions, from one side or another, so we find in the history of 1562 to 1629 a succession of conflicts, in which each side is at times successful and again is defeated. As defeat in those days meant persecution, we are assured that when the Protestant Huguenots were victorious it meant the persecution of Catholics, and when it was a Catholic victory, it meant the persecution of Protestants.
But when we study unbiased and unprejudiced history, we find in every feature of reformation a desire to extend, or force the Calvinistic doctrine into every society, every interest, and every government. It becomes a restless fire of encroachment — a desire to teach all men the same theology as discovered or conceived by them, and if people failed to receive it, to force a conflict and compel its observance. The Reformer’s exhortation knew no bounds or limits. Its field of action was as broad as is the society of men. It begins by the study of philosophy, and ends only when it has conquered all, or is forced to retreat by a victorious opposition. Its faith is the all-absorbing thought of action, and how to force its universal adoption is the study of its followers. Thus, we find in the history of these French wars of religious persecutions, that Protestant enthusiasm is always the one to foment conflict, to beget hatred, and to inaugurate deep and terrible struggles, as the result of advancing new forms of worship, new duties to observe, and new principles of salvation.
Reformation means revolution. It may be a revolution through expressions of argument, or through the force of arms. It is opposition, and in opposition we have conflict; therefore, by a logical conclusion, we must recognize the fact that there can be no opposition, or persecution, until there is an aggression, and the parties have earned its opposition. The Huguenots were a sect largely instituted by the creed formulated by John Calvin. He organized this force in France, and by his earnest appeals to throw off the Catholic authority he became an opposition, an object of contention and the foundation for conflict.
Before Martin Luther declared his ninety-five theses as the true theology of the Holy Scriptures, there were men in the University of Paris, and elsewhere in France, who were advocating a change in the established worship, much on the same basis as that advocated by Luther, and when the German movement became known, the land of France was soon filled with heretics, who were loudly demanding the overthrow of Catholic religious ideas and the establishment of their own.
In no other country was the prospect for the spread of Protestantism so good as in France. In a large measure, it became a political as well as a religious movement. Three things had hitherto influenced the religious feelings of the French people: the ancient Albigensian religion that opposed the Roman Church in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Lutheran movement of Germany, and the Huguenot, or John Calvin’s theology, that was now agitating France. But now a fourth influence comes into the actual conflict and is responsible for the long-continued struggle and its terrible persecutions. This new force was the adoption of this religious movement by many of the nobles and secular chiefs for the purpose of temporal power. These chiefs could see that in the rapid growth of church opposition there might be an opportunity of overthrowing the government of France and establishing independent kingdoms. In this new combination we find Prince Anthony of Bourbon, king of Navarre, and Prince Louis of Conde, who were powerful in protecting the Huguenots from the laws that were decreed against heretics. It now became a conflict between contending royal forces, and not a direct religious revolt. These Bourbon princes were next in line as heirs to the throne of France, and encouraged the Huguenots to form a conspiracy, seize the person of the king, and place the reins of government into their Hands, but in this they were defeated, as the plot was – discovered and the leader, La Renaudie, was captured and put to death, while the real conspirator, Prince Conde, escaped conviction.
From this time on a terrible conflict was waged — defensory on one side and exterminatory on the other. In 1560 an edict was issued, giving the right to bishops to inquire into heresy and if they found, rebellious or tumultuous assemblies of Huguenots who, in their opinion, were creating a disturbance against the Church, they could use their secular power and demand immediate dispersion of the gathering, never to meet again. What is known in history as the “massacre of Vassy” was the result of the enforcement of this authority, and is related as follows: The Duke of Guise, one of the strongest adherents of the king and the Roman Church, while passing through the country with a body of armed attendants, came to a place called Vassy, where they found a company of Huguenots assembled in a barn for worship. The Duke inquired the objects of this assemblage, and being answered somewhat evasively, became insulting, and in his anger he attempted to exercise his authority and demanded that the assembly should disperse, which, not being complied with, he ordered his attendants to make an attack, which resulted in the killing of forty and the wounding of many more.
The Huguenots now rose throughout all France in open revolt. They were led by Admiral Coligny and the Prince of Conde and the civil wars that followed displayed a ferocity of disposition that was more befitting pagans than Christians. It was a series of assassinations, massacres, and butcheries. It was not a Christianized conflict of forces, but the lamentable disposition of barbaric revenge. Families were murdered in cold blood, villages were sacked and burned, cities were captured, and multitudes slain. It was a war of extermination, and not conquest. Men acted like wild beasts, and could not be sated with blood. The insane passion of destruction, ruin and bloodshed marked the career of these contending forces. To be a Huguenot, was to be an outlaw against the nation. To be a Catholic, was to be a foe to toleration and Christianity. It was a deadly hatred in which there was no conquest except the conquest of death, no forgiveness, no compromise, no yielding to the dictates of reason. It was the outpouring of hell’s revolution. Christ and Christianity were lost in this whirlpool of fiendish desperation. The Church of God was trampled beneath the feet of bloodthirsty vandals.
It should be borne in mind, however, that not all this terrible carnage was the result of religious contention, but was instigated by the political ambitions of men. The Huguenots were used as a cat’s-paw to stir up insurrections, to incite religious animosities, to precipitate civil war, and to be the means of placing the arch leaders in power. These ambitious princes cared nothing for religion. In heart they were neither Catholic nor Protestant. They cared nothing for the distinction of creed. They professed the Huguenot faith in order to use them in the overthrow of the government and in establishing their own power. They sought the blackest warfare to intensify the undying hatred of those who suffered from the persecutions of others.
As we follow this terrible period of successive wars, we find that sieges, battles, and truces follow each other in rapid rotation, while conspiracies, treacheries, plots, and assassinations form one long line of deeds disgraceful to Christian civilization. Well may it be called the period of treacheries. No house was free from the dreadful expectation of losing a member by the knife of the murderer. If he was a Protestant, he feared the treachery of some Catholic; and it he was a Catholic, he feared the pledged secrecy of the Huguenot to strike some fatal blow. It was a time of constant alarm, constant sacrifice of life, constant traitorous condition of society.
The Catholics were defied from every direction, vilified, and slandered for things they never did. The great massacre on St. Bartholomew’s Day, August 24, 1572, was not the work of the Catholic Church, it was the planned revenge of Catherine de Medici, to prevent the Bourbon family from ascending the throne. Catherine was the mother of the then king of France, Charles IX, and history informs us that no woman ever lived who was guilty of so much crime, treachery, and bloodshed as Catherine de Medici. Her ambition knew no bounds, and nothing stood in her way or prevented her from achieving her ends. Life was nothing to her in the accomplishment of her purposes. But for her, the world would never have felt the disgrace of this most terrible deed of bloody assassination — the massacre of the Huguenots on St. Bartholomew’s Day. It was this woman’s treachery that caused the fatal order to be signed for that awful butchery. It was she who planned the execution of the plot, and who obtained the order from Charles IX. This horrible crime will ever remain a black stain upon the fair fame of the sunny kingdom of France.
In order that the readers of this narration of history may understand the real motives which led to this disastrous result, we will explain its origin: After a succession of wars ending in 1570, a treaty of peace, called, “The Treaty of St. Germain,” was agreed upon, which was very favorable to the Huguenots, giving them several towns to hold as pledges of safety, with the privilege of fortifying and giving protection to the Protestants. Among these towns was La Rochelle, the stronghold of this reform faith, which, in later years, became the seat of the last great religious wars of France. To cement this treaty, the Princess Marguerite, the sister of Charles IX, was to wed the young king of Navarre, Henry of Bourbon. This proposed alliance united the two contending forces of nobility and, in sentiment, the opposing religious creeds. Great rejoicing was made manifest over all France. Catholics and Protestants were equally joyful over the prospective settlement of civil strife. Even the chiefs of both lines of nobility crowded to Paris to attend the wedding, which took place August 18, 1572. Among the Protestant nobles who came was Admiral Coligny, who immediately sought the presence of Charles IX, and being of strong and impressive demeanor, won favors from the king that were distasteful to the queen-mother, Catherine de Medici, who resolved to render these favors fruitless by procuring the assassination of the admiral. The plot was unsuccessful, and Coligny was only slightly wounded. The object of Coligny was to influence the king against Catherine, his mother, and the Guises, who were sworn enemies of his.
The Huguenots immediately rallied to the support of their wounded chieftain and were loud in threats of revenge. Catherine was filled with great fear. Her attempted assassination had proved a failure, and she was in constant alarm, owing to her fear of being arrested or denounced by her son for this baseless treachery. To place herself in a favorable position she immediately submitted to the king the supposed evidence of a Huguenot plot to take the life of the king and place Henry of Bourbon on the throne. She even represented that this plot contemplated the assassination of the whole royal family and all the leaders of the Catholic party. She pleaded with her son to save his household, his kingdom, and his Church. She declared there was only one way that this could be done. As the whole Huguenot faith was allied against him, it was too late to arrest, but that he could execute to her an order of defense which could, if necessary, be secretly put into effect. At first the king refused to sign this order, but upon further entreaty he was overcome by his mother and signed the decree for the arrest or assassination of every Huguenot in Paris at such time as Catherine deemed it best for the safety of the royal family. On signing this decree, the king said: “I agree to the scheme, providing not one Huguenot be left alive in France to reproach me with the deed.” Catherine was successful in making effective her plans of revenge. She held the decree ordering, at her will, the arrest or assassination of every Huguenot in France. The schemes of Admiral Coligny would be frustrated by his death. There would be no arrests. It would be a carefully-laid plan of awful murders, conspiracies, or assassinations. Not one enemy of Catherine should escape. The hated nobles, princes, and laymen should feel the full force of a woman’s persecution. The royal family of Huguenots should die. Not one should remain alive to foment discord, to preach reform, or denounce the plots of Catherine. Now a state of uncontrolled hatred, passion and power should prevail. She would plan for extermination, not victory; it should, however, be the silent treachery of confidence, not an honorable conflict. It should be in the midday of night, not in open battle. It should be when men slept and dreamed of peace and security. It should be announced by a preconcerted signal — the tolling of a bell.
It was midnight of St. Bartholomew’s Day when this woman gave the signal. Her army of followers were posted everywhere. The bell tolled and the massacre began. The first victim to fall was Admiral Coligny. After the assassin had finished his work the body was dragged to a window and thrown to the street below in order that the Duke of Guise might see that his enemy was indeed dead. To describe this scene of butchery would be to repeat the scenes of Nero’s persecutions. Without thought or warning these bloodthirsty allies of Catherine, a woman, a mother, stealthily entered the houses of their victims, and with cool calculations of premeditated murder, executed her awful orders. The number of victims is variously estimated from 10,000 to 25,000 in all France, and from 3,000 to 8,000 in Paris alone.
History written with religious bias does not fully explain the cause of this awful tragedy. It is loud in the denunciation of Catholic conspiracy, when Catholics, like the Huguenots, were in reality used to further the designs of those in power, or those seeking power. To prove this, we find that the whole civilized world, both Catholics and Protestants, loudly condemned this wholesale slaughter. The originators of the scheme were denounced as the greatest living enemies of all Christianity, and that no honorable Christian could, for a moment, countenance it. Pope Gregory XIII was informed that it was a Huguenot conspiracy to destroy the royal family, and on the report that the conspirators had failed, he held a feast of thanksgiving for their deliverance, but when he ascertained the true situation he mourned over the occurrence and repeatedly expressed his abhorrence at the cowardly acts of those who planned the deed.
This black page in French history only served to arouse the Huguenots to a more determined defense of their proposed system of reform. They believed their conflicts were wholly due to religious questions: that they were being persecuted because they were not Catholics; that it was purely a religious war. They little understood the deep current that controlled the stream of conflict, and from these misunderstandings they became more bitter than ever, more determined to denounce the Church of Rome, and more determined to advance their doctrine of worship.
We now come to a peculiar combination of events in the history of the French government. Charles IX soon died, and Henry III succeeded him, and for fifteen years of his reign there was a constant state of turmoil and war. The king became jealous of the popularity of the Duke of Guise and caused him to be assassinated. In revenge for this treachery, a Dominican monk stabbed the king with a dagger and thus ended the House of Valois-Orleans. Henry of Bourbon, king of Navarre, now came to the throne as Henry IV, and what the conspirator — Catherine — had sought to prevent, was now an accomplished fact. Henry was the first of the bourbons, and being a Protestant, and leader of the Huguenots, was not well received by the Catholics. The majority of the nation were Roman Catholics, and it is hard to conceive how a Protestant prince and the leader of the hated Huguenots could govern to the entire satisfaction of his people.
Peace was of short duration and civil war again commenced its awful deeds of violence. The Catholics declared that Cardinal Bourbon, an uncle of Henry, was by right the possessor of the throne, and sought to establish his claims. Philip II of Spain assisted the Catholics, and Elizabeth of England aided the Huguenots. After four years of strife Henry was constrained by a powerful influence to renounce the Huguenot faith and adopt that of the Roman Catholic Church. Henry was personally liked by the Catholic chiefs, and to stand in great favor with them, was to become a Catholic and thus stop these disastrous wars. He considered not only the policy so far as he himself was concerned, but it would remove all obstacles to a speedy peace. The country was tired of war and bloodshed, and to do this would stop the plans to place Cardinal Bourbon on the throne, and in due regard to peace and Christianity it became his duty to declare in favor of the Catholics.
As soon as Henry became the acknowledged and undisputed king of France, he commenced to build up its wasted energies and to restore its lost fortunes. In 1508, April 15th, he issued the celebrated Edict of Nantes, which gave to the Huguenots religious freedom and opened to them the avenues of employment and the right to hold office. He also gave them a large number of fortified towns in which they could have refuge, and defense, among which was the previously mentioned city of La Rochelle. France now entered upon a period of wonderful prosperity. Trade, commerce, and industries thrived on every hand. Religious toleration was hailed with joy by both Catholics and Protestants. The Huguenots were no longer clamoring for the overthrow of Catholic rights. They were content to spread their faith by the natural process — the expansion of ideas. It was a season of peace, and though there slumbered a latent hatred to all things Catholic, yet glad at the beautiful brightness of a new sunrise, they curbed their passions and prejudices and lived content in the assurances that a terrible storm had ended, and a glorious day was dawned.
For twelve years the beautiful winged emblem of peace had floated over the empire of France, when suddenly the clear sky was rent by the bolt of assassination. A fanatic by the name of Ravaillac, who regarded Henry IV as an enemy of the Catholic Church, planned an assassination by which the king met his death. This was a sad blow to the peace and prosperity of France, for with the death of Henry the Huguenots lost a true friend, although he had renounced their faith. With Henry it was toleration, and peace, and good will to all. He worked for harmony, and in a large measure had been successful. He was loved by Catholics, revered by the Huguenots, and in the administration of affairs was just to all.
Louis XIII, his son, succeeded him, but being a child of nine years, the government was administered by Mary de Medici, his mother, until Louis attained his majority, where-upon he chose Cardinal Richelieu for his prime minister. Richelieu was one of the most remarkable characters of the seventeenth century. From the moment he was chosen by Louis he became the virtual ruler of France, and history informs us that for twenty years he was the great dictator of the destinies, not only of France, but in a large measure, of all Europe. Richelieu’s policy was to place the King of France in absolute authority of all the people of his government regardless of toleration; and, secondly, to make the power of his sovereign the supreme power of Europe.
To obtain supreme control over the people of France, Richelieu must first subdue the political power of the Huguenots, who were strongly aided by their royal princes and nobles; and to control the destinies of Europe, he must break down the power of both lines of the House of Hapsburg. As the House of Hapsburg meant Austria and Spain, Richelieu must bend his energies to crush both countries. As the Huguenots were dissatisfied with their condition under Richelieu they determined to form an independent commonwealth on the southwestern coast of France, with La Rochelle as its capital. Accordingly, in 1627, they formed an alliance with England, and an English fleet and army were sent to institute and protect this new Republic. Richelieu now determined to crush forever the nobility of the Huguenots, and personally led an army to the siege of La Rochelle, which stubbornly resisted his repeated attacks for more than a year, but was finally overpowered and, in 1628, surrendered to French authority. Richelieu was so determined in his conquest that he ordered the fortifications of La Rochelle to “be razed to the ground, in such wise that the plow may plow through the soil as though tilled land.”
The Huguenots maintained a desperate resistance for a few months longer, but were finally reduced to submission. The political power of the French Protestants was now completely broken. The Huguenot chiefs were divested of authority, and the first great move of Richelieu had been performed. France was now in complete subjection to the royal power of Louis, King of France. A treaty of peace was negotiated, called the Edict of Grace, which accorded to all the freedom of worship. While the Huguenots had lost their power of government and were stripped of all sovereignty, yet Cardinal Richelieu, in the wisdom of toleration, refused no man the right to worship and to proclaim his belief to the world.
Many historians declare that the years of strife and bloodshed cover the years of the persecution of religious worship; this charge, however, by the recorded actions of Richelieu in his Edict of Grace, must be denied. It was not a persecution of faith, but the subjection of rebellious Huguenot chiefs who, under the cloak of a Protestant faith, sought to dismember France, and, unable to control the government, would set up an independent republic of their own. While religious fanaticism swayed the multitude, and wars of unrelenting hate had desolated France for more than two generations, and though she lost through massacres, assassinations, and wars more than a million lives, yet the real issue was not religion, but war for place, preferment, and power. The nobility were divided and to foment strife the innocent Catholics and Protestants were arrayed against each other in deadly combat.
Let us again return to Richelieu and mark a curious feature: The Thirty Years’ War of Germany was in its wildest rage, and Richelieu, who had just crushed French Protestantism in France, now gives aid to the Protestant princes of Germany. The solution of this mystery is that the success of the German princes meant a division of Germany and the humiliation of Austria, one branch of the House of Hapsburg. Richelieu did not live to see the closing of the Thirty Years’ War or the humiliation of Austria and Spain, but the foreign policy of the great minister was carried out by others, and both branches of the House of Hapsburg were dethroned, and the second great object of Richelieu was accomplished.
Thus closed the religious-political wars of France. To the people it had been a fighting for faith and the overthrow of those contending against them, while with the leaders it was the procurement of individual power. The loss to France was most terrible, and its effect demoralizing. The loss of life could be measured by numbers, but the loss of confidence was beyond computation. Industries were ruined, trade suppressed, and commerce gone. The people were slow to recover their enthusiasm, even of worship. The spirit of progress was dead, and they stood as dazed at the awful wreck that was around them.
While we view with horror the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day, yet we find on the counter page of history a startling array of carnage, vandalism and bloodshed. We find that the history of France is filled with the most atrocious deeds of violence which the “faithful” allowed themselves to commit on the “Papists” and their “idolatrous worship.” To quote from history, we find that “during a period of forty years over five thousand priests and members of religious orders suffered martyrdom.” The inhuman atrocities of which these Protestants were guilty had not even the excuse of being the effect of sudden excitement; they were performed at the instigation and with the approbation of Calvinistic preachers and synods. The principal scene of devastation was Southern France. Many churches were torn down; the Catholic priests were ill-treated and driven away; pictures, relics, and in some places — as at Nismes (1561), where Viret had stirred up the passions of the populace — even the Sacred Hosts were given to the flames. Similar outbursts of wild fanaticism took place at Paris (December 1561), where the Huguenots took the church of Medardus by storm, ill-treated the Catholics, and trampled underfoot the consecrated Hosts. Matters were even worse yet in the little kingdom of Berne. Here the regent was Johanna d’Albret, wife of Anthony of Bourbon, who in 1563 had become a Calvinist. She deposed the Catholics from their dignities, expelled the priests, and replaced them by preachers; while, at the instance of the latter, she forbade the exercise of Catholic worship. Those of the inhabitants who resisted this command were severely punished, and the priests who refused to apostatize were cruelly murdered.
“In Montpellier the Huguenots destroyed forty-six churches; in Orleans, nineteen; in the kingdom of Berne, Coligny had three hundred churches demolished. In Uzes, Nismes, Viviers, and Mende, five hundred churches were torn down. The magnificent cathedral at Beziers was transformed into a stable. About one hundred and fifty cathedrals and abbeys were ruined with the brutality of vandalism, the ‘idolatrous pictures’ burnt, the sacred vessel desecrated. At Nismes the Huguenots murdered eighty Catholics of good standing, and cast their bodies into the ‘bloody Springs’. In Sully, Coligny had thirty-five priests murdered and their bodies thrown into the Loir. In Pithiviers he had all the priests hanged. When Gabriel de Lorges, Count of Montgomery, had freed Berne, in 1569, from French troops, he caused three thousand Catholics of every age, sex, and condition to be murdered, the churches to be laid in ashes, etc. The Calvinist synod of Lescar demanded that everyone should be forced to attend the Calvinistic sermons. Can we wonder that by such conduct on the part of the Huguenots and their leaders, the French Catholics, who constituted the immense majority, were driven beyond all bounds
Such is the record of history. It was not a one-sided persecution. The Protestants were taught that the Pope and his Church were robbers of personal liberty and of personal worship; that they were conspirators; instruments in the hands of the Church to destroy all reformation or opposition; that their worship was the institution of the devil and ought to be destroyed; that their images and pictures were defamatory of God’s holy command; that the image of the Blessed Holy Virgin was an insult to Christianity. All these and more were the teachings of the Reformation. They believed they had received divine inspiration through Calvin and Martin Luther. They were the elect and God’s chosen people, and that it was His command to compel the spreading of this “true gospel” of worship.
We might continue and write a volume in narration of the events which interested France through her cruel wars, extending over a period of sixty-six years — 1562 to 1628 — but enough has been said to give an idea of the cause and effect of this awful devastation of life and property, and the persecution of Christianity. It explains the motive power of conflict and conquest. It explains that no war would ever have been waged had it not been for the division of royal power and its jealous ambitions. While the rank and file fought for the principles of faith, yet we are not oblivious to the fact that these people were misled by the powers that were above them. In almost every event of any particular note, we can trace the selfish motive of some designing person. At the Massacre of Vassy, a renowned record of history, we find the cause to be the over- bearing command of the Duke of Guise, who provoked a quarrel and then made an assault, while the tragedy of St. Bartholomew’s Day was the conspiracy of royal scheming. So, we may trace the animus of these terrible persecutions to some cause not directly religious, but in general foreign to any doctrine of worship.