himself some sarcastic words. Is it not true however that the position itself of the various gospellers and doctrinal reformers underwent a change or at least a surprising development becoming all over Europe a serious and increasing menace to Rome, and indeed to Briçonnet's own Church? Little liking as we of the nineteenth century are supposed to have for bigotry in power, may we not feel some sympathy for a man who, at first seizing on the four gospels as a fresh and ancient exposition of Christianity, found later that this authority was taken by many to justify doctrines and actions that he could by no means approve? Who will cast blame on him for holding rightly or wrongly to the church of which he had so long been an enthusiastic and dutiful pastor? We may be sure that this man's influence would be on the side of mercy.

Briçonnet illustrates in himself many varied aspects of the early reformation. He was the advocate of contemporary learning while firmly adherent to discipline; the purifier of manners and the respecter of ceremony; the free employer of printing, distributor of the gospels, and organizer of preaching stations; but the opposer alike of parasitical and degenerate brotherhoods, of parochial negligence, of aggressive dissent, and apparently of Lutheran doctrines. Under Briçonnet (at that time one of the most conspicuous ecclesiastics in France) the reform movement reached a critical point. And it is unfortunate for him that the stream divided in his lifetime, forcing him to choose between the new antisacerdotal consequences of the gospel movement and his continuance as an exact officer of his own hierarchy. The fact remains that in Briçonnet's diocese, both during and after his lifetime, there is an example of discipline, needed within, being turned by the Church's sons against those fresh minds that boldly enquired into doctrine.

Jean

From about this time the progress of the French reformers, though itself of necessity obscure, is marked by conspicuous martyrdoms well established in history. Divergent opinions so nearly crystallized throughout Europe, were speedily hardened and hostility embittered in France by destruction of images on one side, and of men on the other. LeClerc, a devoted propagandist from Meaux, who died at Metz a victim to his own consistent enthusiasm, is considered by the French protestants as their first martyr in this period of history, though Metz at that time was not actually part of France.* His death was soon followed by many

Michelet says however that Chastellain was the first, who was burnt 12 Jan., 1525; and that his death animated LeClerc. As to Pavanes see Crespin and notes hereafter.

others especially at Paris, including that very noted case of De Berquin an accomplished gentleman of Artois.

Here we must for one moment pause to consider how a degraded ecclesiastical discipline realized itself in France. King Francis I, autocratic, profuse and favourable to learning, was if popular yet an untrustworthy king. We cannot attempt to follow him among the intrigues of parties and of court ladies, or into his negotiations with Pope and princes: matters which in this or that way affected his treatment of French reformers. His impetuous career may have been marked by a dashing kind of bravery and by his active encouragement of taste and intellect, but was defaced by self-indulgence and irregular attention to business, as well as by an extravagant personal jealousy of the Emperor Charles V. Lost in the maze of sixteenth century politics and war, he at one time even seized for a clue some secret understanding with the Turkish invader of Europe. A character masterful, pleasure-loving and vain, not balanced by any fine sense of honour, was open perhaps to the influence of liberal ideas, certainly to that of distinguished flatterers; and it is not wonderful to find this versatile friend of Briçonnet, and brother of Marguerite, receiving also the very different political instructions of Louise his mother, and of Duprat. Bibbiena, an acute legate of the Pope, who arrived at the French Court in 1518, noticed how far the young King's conceit of power left the real guidance of affairs in the hands of Louise.*

An important influence in France was that of the chancellor Duprat, who, after the loss of his wife, took orders, becoming later both cardinal, and Pope's legate. He constantly set himself to increase beyond measure the arbitrary power of the Court, and joined with Louise in flattering the tastes and passions of the King. This oppressive chancellor, immense pluralist, and creator of venal offices, had an overbearing disposition. It is said to have been Duprat who originated the idea that heresies were attended with blasphemy and came within the jurisdiction of the Parlement. At the same time he would weaken even that constitutional jurisdiction by the use of special commissions. The historian Martin attributes to Duprat the rejection by Louise of Marguerite's influence, and even the activity of the Sorbonne and the Gallican Church. Duprat presided over the Provincial Council of Sens held at Paris in 1528, and perhaps * See Sismondi Vol. XVI, 67, 68.

then aided the adoption of certain disciplinary reforms required among the clergy, and also of various severe decrees against heretics. His personal interests were hostile to the protestant movement. He amassed great treasure, which is said to have been, by his own admission, designed for attaining the tiara. The calm "Bourgeois de Paris," who seldom if ever awards praise or blame, speaks with admiration of Duprat's talents, and mentions the regard he had for Francis. The Cardinal died on the 9th of July, 1535, Francis seizing a large part of his enormous property at that moment.* It would have been vain for the Gospellers to count with confidence on help from any institution, high officials, or class of men in France during this reign. The king was more a man of taste than of religion, and his friends among reformers were more mystical than protestant. Again the Parlement de Paris, which had no doubt some tradition of independence, was no longer independent. Though at first perhaps disposed to resent papal legislation, it seems to have had little liking for new ideas and unaccustomed theology. This judicial body and the University were after obstinate resistance coerced to register and accept the Concordat, that unpopular result of Duprat's negotiation. Not only was this most telling victory for the king accompanied by the abasement of two venerable institutions, it was also a triumph for the Court of Rome over a third, namely the Gallican Church. Another disaster to the already impaired character and credit of the Parlement occurred in 1522. Copying perhaps Pope Leo X, who had created thirty cardinals at once, King Francis suddenly instituted twenty new counsellorships for sale. The King denied that they would be sold, but Louise the Queen Mother replied cynically to the remonstrant deputies, that the new appointments did not particularly matter, if the Parlement would only find the money in some different way. Other offices were similarly corrupted and the springs of justice further fouled.+ Again the Concordat placed so many benefices in the hands of the King that, notwithstanding the higher qualifications also now imposed, the University theologians became too dependent on the minister, to whom they looked for

*The "Journal" pp. 425, 460, 461. Sismondi, Vol. XVI, p. 439. Martin, Histoire de France (1878), Vol. VIII, pp. 157, 158. Bayle, Dictionary Historical etc: 2nd Edition, English (1737), article "Prat (Antony du)" and footnote. Biographie Universelle, Paris (1855), article “ Duprat."

+ Compare Michelet, Vol. VIII, pp. 67, 68; also "Journal d'un Bourgeois d: P:" pp. 58, 122 to 127; and Sismondi, Vol. XVI, pp. 136, 137, 138.