CALVINISM AND RELIGIOUS TOLERATION IN FRANCE AND THE

NETHERLANDS, 1555-1609

by

David L. Robinson

Bachelor of Arts, Memorial University of Newfoundland (Sir Wilfred Grenfell College),

2011

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

in the Graduate Academic Unit of History

Supervisor: Gary K. Waite, PhD, History

Examining Board: Cheryl Fury, PhD, History, UNBSJ Sean Kennedy, PhD, Chair, History Gary K. Waite, PhD, History Joanne Wright, PhD, Political Science

This thesis is accepted by the Dean of Graduate Studies

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK

May, 2011

©David L. Robinson, 2011 Library and Archives Bibliotheque et Canada Archives Canada

Published Heritage Direction du 1+1Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-91828-9

Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-91828-9

NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distrbute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis. Canada ABSTRACT

The similarities and connections between the French Wars of Religion and the Dutch

Revolt have long been understood by historians. However, despite recognition of these

similarities, there has been very little comparative study of the two regions. This thesis compares the Calvinist relationship to the changing views toward and practice of religious toleration within the two regions in an effort to understand how the varying political circumstances affected this religious reform movement. The first chapter outlines the historiography of both regions giving some background on the development of the French and Dutch Calvinist Reformations. The second chapter focuses on French

Calvinism showing an increasing support of religious toleration for Roman Catholics as the religious civil wars dragged on, at least until peace could be established allowing for a continuation of Calvinist reformation. Chapter three notes a similar pattern in the

Netherlands until around 1580 when Calvinists, who were now favoured with state church status in the northern rebel provinces, abandoned advocacy of toleration for

Catholics while seeking to bring about further reformation. However, because of the presence of numerous religious minorities such as the Mennonites, and the reluctance of the government to persecute most religious dissenters, the Dutch Calvinists largely accepted their position in the multi-confessional society of the United Provinces

(membership in the national Reformed Church was not compulsory). The final chapter explains the similarities and differences in the two Calvinist movements concluding that

Calvinism proved to be very adaptable in its views of toleration. Their views were determined by their political circumstances. To achieve their ultimate goal of complete reformation, the Calvinists were sometimes advocates of toleration, and sometimes opponents. Table of Contents

ABSTRACT...... ii Table of Contents...... iv Chapter 1: Introduction...... 1 Chapter 2: Calvinism and Religious Toleration in France 1559-1598...... 43 The Conspiracy of Amboise, the Colloquy of Poissy, and the First Civil Wars: 1559- 1572 ...... 48 The French Calvinists and Religious Toleration after 1572...... 68 Conclusion...... 94 Chapter 3: Calvinism in a multi-confessional Society: Dutch Calvinists and Religious Toleration 1566-1609 ...... 96 Spanish Tyranny, Papal Inquisition, and Civil War, 1566-1584...... 98 Calvinists, Magistrates, and the Religious Other in the Early United Provinces 1572- 1609...... 121 Conclusion...... 142 Chapter 4: Calvinism and Religious Toleration in Comparative Perspective...... 147 Bibliography...... 170 Primary Sources:...... 170 Secondary Sources:...... 172 Curriculum Vitae Chapter 1: Introduction

The 1998 Hollywood filmElizabeth opens with a graphic scene of the execution of three

Protestants during the reign of the English Queen Mary. Although the film is riddled with historical inaccuracies, this opening scene is reflective of the common perception of early-modern Europe as rampant with religious intolerance. Certainly there is much truth to this perception, but, as is usually the case with history, the reality of things is more nuanced. Recently, some historians have noted the varying degrees of religious toleration, or peaceful co-existence of multiple religious communities, practiced across Europe in the early-modern period.1 Naturally, the practice of religious tolerance varied from region to region, and thus a comparative look at different contexts in which religious tolerance arose is informative of the conditions which promoted such toleration or, conversely, discouraged it. France and the Netherlands are regions particularly suitable to a comparative approach since both countries experienced rapid Calvinist reformation, prolonged civil wars, and a resulting debate over the issue of religious toleration. In both cases the Calvinist goal of complete reformation became intertwined with political struggles creating religiously divided political factions resulting in long-lasting civil wars. In both cases, neither the Catholics nor Protestants were able to decisively defeat their opponent.

1 Perhaps the most notable example being, Benjamin Kaplan,Divided By Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice o f Toleration in Early Modem Europe (Cambridge, Mass., 2007).

1 Calvinists have often been portrayed both popularly and scholarly as deeply

intolerant of other religious beliefs, and deviant social behaviour.2 However, through an

examination of the writings of several Dutch and French Calvinists (or Huguenots as they

were often known in France), it becomes clear that Reformed Christians held a variety of

opinions regarding the desirability of peaceful co-existence with other religious groups.

What united the Calvinists was their goal of complete reformation along Calvinist lines.

Such a goal appears to leave no room for acceptance of religious toleration. Nevertheless,

as a result of the changing political circumstances, French and Dutch Calvinists often did

become committed proponents of toleration of other beliefs when it was consistent with their ultimate goal of reformation. Similarly, conformity to Calvin’s complicated views on toleration occurred only when political circumstances allowed it.

The evidence used for this thesis comes from a variety of French and Dutch pamphlets spanning the period between 1SS9 and 1609. Because a research trip to Europe was not feasible, a major factor in the selection of these pamphlets was their availability.

However, an effort was made to ensure that the pamphlets were representative of the development of Calvinist thought on religious toleration. This was done through selection of a variety of authors of different social backgrounds. For example, some authors are nobles or political elites, while others are pastors and lay commoners. Additionally, an attempt was made to choose pamphlets from periods of particular political change. In the

2 Jonathan Israel, “The Intellectual Debate about Toleration in the Dutch Republic,” inThe Emergence o f Tolerance in the Dutch Republic, eds. C. Berkvens-Stevelinck, J. Israel, and G.H.M Posthumus Meyjes (Leiden, 1997), 3-36; Alister E. McGrath, A Life o f John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping o f Western Culture (Cambridge, Mass., 1990), 105-107.

2 case of France for example, several pamphlets from 1559 and 1560 when Calvinism was

at its most expansionist are compared to get an idea of Calvinist ideas about toleration in

that context, while later pamphlets from the 1570s are compared to show the effect of the

St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres on Calvinist thought. Further information is provided

through secondary sources which complement the primary documents by adding

supporting evidence from the work of other historians on the Calvinist Reformation in

cities and towns. To understand the variety of opinions expressed in these Calvinist

writings, it is first necessary to compare the general development of the French and

Dutch Reformations, and outline the scholarship regarding the relationship between

Calvinism and religious toleration. The next chapter will proceed to show that French

Calvinists adopted their views of toleration to the political circumstances of the Wars of

Religion. Chapter three notes a similar pattern in the Netherlands, but also demonstrates how Calvinists in the northern Netherlands adapted to the multi-confessional society of the United Provinces. The final chapter will account for the similarities and differences in

Calvinist toleration discourse in the two regions.

The Reformation unfolded very similarly in France and the Netherlands in the

1520s. Historians of both the French and Dutch Reformations point to a pre-Reformation

Christian humanist movement as a foundation for further reform. As products of the

Italian Renaissance, humanists were fascinated with ancient Greece and Rome and hoped to improve their own society via the wisdom of the ancients. Humanism in northern

Europe focused increasingly on early Christian sources, and sought to recover the original devotion and purity of the New Testament church by getting back to the basics.

This included returning to the original Greek translations of the Bible, de-emphasising 3 the cult of the saints, and criticising the wealth and corruption of the Church. Humanists

decried what they called the “superstition” of the medieval Church, and sought to replace

it with a purer, more original version of the faith. When the Reformation inaugurated by

Martin Luther began in Germany in 1517, many of these humanists became his strongest

supporters. In France, Christian humanism spread from the bishopric of Meaux as Bishop

Bri9onnet gathered Christian humanists around him. Nicola Sutherland goes so far as to

argue that the French Reformation started in 1512 with humanist scholar Jacques Lefevre

d’Etaples’ publication of a French translation of St. Paul’s Epistles. This eventually led to

his adoption of justification by faith alone, and the promotion of inner spirituality over

outward expressions of faith as embodied in Roman Catholic rituals.3 It was from this

group of humanists that French Protestantism was bom. A member of this group,

Guillaume Farel, was forced into exile after King Francis I began to crack down on humanists as a result of his growing fear of heresy in his kingdom. Farel immigrated to

Switzerland where he was influenced by the “Sacramentarian” ideas of Ulrich Zwingli.

Sacramentarianism rejected the traditional Catholic belief of the physical real presence of

Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, asserting instead that celebration of the

Lord’s Supper was a purely symbolic event. Never forgetting the Protestants of his homeland, Farel worked tirelessly to spread a more Sacramentarian form of Protestantism in France. This brand of Protestantism, more than Lutheranism which did not outright reject the real presence in the Eucharist, enflamed Catholic opinion against heresy, and

3 N.M. Sutherland, The Huguenot Struggle for Recognition (New Haven and London, 1980), 10-11.

4 by the 1530s, with Sacramentarianism spreading rapidly in France, persecution

increased.4

The situation was similar in the Netherlands, but the influence of humanism there

was even more pronounced. The emphasis on looking back to original languages to

discover the meaning of Scripture was the source of controversy in the universities.

Erasmus’ new edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516 and Johann Reuchlin’s

defence of Jewish books were widely debated among the learned. Furthermore, just as was the case in France, those who were sympathetic towards Christian humanism often embraced Protestantism. Many of the lay readers of Erasmus became active proponents of Lutheran reform.3 The influence of Christian humanism appears to have been even stronger in the Netherlands thanks to the pre-Reformation lay piety movement, the

Devotio Modema which encouraged a more introspective spiritual Christianity. Gary

Waite has noted that humanists and laymen inspired by theDevotio Modema challenged the corruption of a “church leadership that failed, they believed, to live up to its own spiritual standards” and the superstitious practices of the mass.6 Additionally, theDevotio

M odema's advocacy of inner spiritual reflection when receiving the Eucharist may have encouraged disregard of the traditional Catholic practice.7 At any rate, Alistair Duke notes that by 1526, accusations of Sacramentarian beliefs became much more common in

4 Mack P. Holt, The French Wars o f Religion, 1562-1629 (Cambridge, 1995), 19-20; Sutherland, The Huguenot Struggle, 22-23. 5 Alastair Duke, Reformation and Revolt in the Low Countries (London, 1990), 11-15. 6 Gary K. Waite, Reformers on Stage: Popular Drama and Religious Propaganda in the Low Countries o f Charles V, 1515-1556Toronto, ( 2000), 18. 7 Waite, Reformers on Stage, 15.

5 heresy trials. One regent ordered anyone who missed Easter Mass arrested as this was an

indication of who was a heretic.8

Two main similarities thus characterise the early French and Dutch Reformations: the importance of humanism, and the growth of Sacramentarianism. However, the

relative diversity of religious opinions in the Netherlands would prove to be a great

difference to the French situation. This difference is important in understanding why

French and Dutch Calvinism developed the ways that they did. It seems likely that lay piety movements like theDevotio Modema caused a great erosion of the authority of the

Roman Catholic Church in the Low Countries to the point that by the 1520s, it had little support from the population.9 Moreover, unlike the French King Francis I, the ruler of the

Netherlands, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, showed no reluctance in persecuting heretics in his lands. The result was that Charles’ inquisition decapitated the Protestant movement, targeting high profile heretics, but was ineffective against the population at large.10

Thus, while the inquisition could not prevent support for the Roman Catholic

Church from waning, it did prevent the formation of a unified Protestant movement. By contrast, in France, with the success of Guillaume Farel, French Protestantism began to

* Duke, Reformation and Revolt, 39. 9 Waite, Reformers onStage, 16-18,68-71; James D. Tracy, Holland under Habsburg Rule, 1506-1566: The Formation o fa Body Politic (Berkeley, 1990), 149; John van Engen,Sisters and Brothers o f the Common Life: The Devotio Moderna and the World o fthe Later Middle (Philadelphia, Ages 2008), 316- 320. Van Engen does not go so far as to say that theDevotio Moderna eroded traditional Catholicism, but demonstrates that their thought had a significant impact on the ideas of reformers. 10 Duke, Reformation and Revolt, 33-34.

6 look towards Geneva for its leadership. This Calvin was able to exploit in the ISSOs to

allow his brand of Protestantism to effectively take over the French Protestant

movement.11 Miijam van Veen pointed out that unlike France, the Netherlands did not

see the development of just two opposing confessions, but instead witnessed a profusion

of religious ideas. Lutherans, Sacramentarians, Anabaptists, and proto-Reformed

competed with one another. With so many differing confessions, none of them was able to dominate, and out of this situation arose a wide appeal for Spiritualism which regarded outward expressions of religion as unimportant.12 Waite notes the rise of Spiritualism in the plays put on by the chambers of rhetoric in Amsterdam and Antwerp after persecution

intensified in 1S39, following Anabaptist disturbances. What likely caused this turn to

Spiritualism was a combination of the emphasis placed on inner spirituality promoted by the devotio modema and a natural concern for personal preservation in the context of increasing persecution. As it was only the spiritual that mattered, outward conformity to one church or another was irrelevant and one should not risk one’s life for it.13

It was in this context that Calvinism began to appear in the 1550s. Robert

Kingdon in his Geneva and the Coming o f the Wars o f Religion in France, 1555-1563

" G.A. Rothrock,The Huguenots: A Biography o f a Minority (Chicago, 1979), 16; Sutherland, The Huguenot Struggle, 23-26. 12 Miijam van Veen, * Verschooninghe van de roomscke afgoderye De Polemiek van Calvijn met nicodemieten, in het bijzonder met Coornhert (Houten, 2001), 205. 13 Gary K. Waite, “Rhetoricians and Religious Compromise during the Early Reformation (c. 1520-1555),” Urban Theatre in the Low Countries, eds. Peter Happd and Elsa Strietman (Tumhout, Netherlands, 2006), 88-90. Miijam van Veen notes that Spiritualist ideas remained roughly the same throughout the sixteenth century in her comparison between David Joris and Dirck Volckertsz Coornhert: Miijam van Veen, “Spiritualism in the Netherlands: From David Joris to Dirck Volckertsz Coornhert,”Sixteenth Century Journal 33:1 (2002), 129-150.

7 provides some useful conclusions regarding the arrival of Calvinism in France. He

focuses on the 88 pastors whom the Geneva Company of Pastors sent out between 1555 and 1563. The records of the Company of Pastors reveal that these pastors were unified in their doctrine and training. While in Geneva, they were all subject to its discipline, and many had recently been expelled from Berne for their commitment to the doctrine of predestination, thus already demonstrating a strong commitment to Calvinist orthodoxy.14

Before being sent out, each minister endured a number of tests to demonstrate his suitability for the ministry. Evidence of what comprised these tests is scanty, but it is at least known that all pastors were tested for their orthodoxy and abilities. Thus, the ministers sent to France were fairly uniform in social status, experience, and orthodoxy.15

Geneva’s influence over French affairs continued over the course of the 1560s, as is noticeable in the response to Jean Mor61y’s challenge to Genevan church order. Morgly argued for more power to individual congregations over provincial and national synods.

Calvin and his successor, Theodore Beza, completely rejected this idea, and when Mor61y would not recant in Geneva, they had him excommunicated. Mor61y became reconciled in France several times, and even claimed to have recanted and promised to write a book correcting his errors. But Geneva remained adamant that without a complete recantation and apology, they would not readmit him to communion. With the help of French

Genevan trained ministers, Geneva’s point of view won out and Mor61y gave up after

14 Robert M. Kingdon, Geneva and the Coming o f the Wars o f Religion in France, 1555-1563 (Genfcve, 1956), 20-22. 1J Kingdon, Geneva and the Coming, 25.

8 years of conflict. With the deaths of so many of Moray’s followers in the massacres of

1572, Beza and Geneva found themselves in greater control of the French Calvinist

movement than ever before.16

Kingdon’s significant interpretation has been challenged since he published it in the 1960s. Philip Conner argues that in the early years of the coming of Calvinism to

France, church order did not conform to the Genevan model, and instead the Reformed

churches adapted to local circumstances. He compares the churches of Le Mans and

Montauban to show the varying development in different regions. At first both churches

did not conform to the Genevan model of church government. The church in Le Mans,

for example, created two consistories. However, as the fortunes of the northern

Huguenots diminished with continuing losses in the ongoing civil wars, northern churches conformed to the Genevan church order in an effort to create a stronger sense of community.17 By contrast, Montauban’s Protestants remained the majority in the town well into the seventeenth century, and with the support of local magistrates on their side, they persisted in their different methods of church governorship much longer.18 Sara

Barker has also recently challenged Kingdon’s interpretation in her study of the career of

French Reformed pastor Antoine de Chandieu. She argues that while Calvin was indeed

16 Robert M. Kingdon, Geneva and the Consolidation o f the French Protestant Movement, 1564-1572: A Contribution to the History o fCongregationalism, Presbyterianism, and Calvinist Resistance Theory (Madison, 1967), 46-122,202. Sara Barker, despite her challenge to Kingdon’s interpretation on other points, agrees that the S t Bartholomew’s Day massacres led to greater Genevan control over French Calvinism. Sara Barker,Protestantism, Poetry, and Protest: The Vernacular Writings o f Antoine de Chandieu (c. 1534-1591) (Surrey, England, 2009), 285. 17 Philip Conner, “Huguenot Identities During the Wars of Religion: The Churches of Le Mans and Montauban Compared,”Journal o f Ecclesiastic History 54:1 (2003), 31 -34. 18 Conner, “Huguenot Identities,” 36-37.

9 influential, his pre-occupation with Genevan affairs prevented him from becoming the

real leader of the French Protestant movement. Instead, French Protestantism went

without a spiritual leader at all, and the result was “that there were as many

interpretations of Reformed religion as there were adherents.”19

Nevertheless, in spite of this challenge in recent scholarship, Geneva’s influence

appears to have had a much greater effect in France than it did in the Netherlands.

Historians of Dutch Calvinism have been keen to point out the independence of the

Reformed movement in the Low Countries. Phyllis Mack Crew’sCalvinist Preaching and Iconoclasm in the Netherlands 1544-1569 provides a vivid contrast to the French

situation. By the 1540s, Protestantism in the Netherlands was completely without

leadership and divided. The Calvinists were new arrivals, and were initially unpopular since their beliefs often clashed with the Erasmian and Zwinglian views already entrenched in the region.20 However, by the 1540s, the Spiritualist ideas of Eloi

Pruystinck, which questioned the holiness of Scripture and the separation of God and humankind, were growing rapidly. Although Pruystinck was executed in 1544, his disciple Antoine Pocquet took over the movement and Spiritualist ideas spread rapidly in

Toumai, Lille, and Valenciennes where “orthodox” evangelical leadership was largely lacking. It was in this context that Protestants concerned with maintaining the biblical orthodoxy of the mainstream reformers turned to Calvinism. They insisted on the

19 Barker, Antoine de Chandieu, 2-3. 20 Phyllis Mack Crew, Calvinist Preaching and Iconoclasm in the Netherlands 1544-1569 (London, 1978), 53.

10 primacy of the scriptures as the authority in religious matters and the regular

administration of the two sacraments of the Protestant churches, infant baptism and die

Eucharist. Crew argues that Dutch Protestants accepted the theology of Calvin not

because of Calvinism’s doctrinal purity, but rather because Calvinism was the only

organized Protestant group which could tackle both Catholicism and ensure “the safety

and legitimacy” of the orthodox Reformed movement in the face of growing Spiritualist

influence.21

However, unlike the French pastors, the pastors of the Dutch Calvinist movement

were quite diverse. Their social backgrounds varied greatly, and they were in fact, largely

untrained laymen.22 They all had had experience in exile, having fled to several places

across Europe. Nonetheless, after examining their experiences, Crew concludes that they

“had virtually nothing in common” with each other even if they had been exiled to the

same place. For instance, the willingness to tolerate doctrinal differences, such as those of the Lutherans, appears to have been a matter of personal preference more than anything else.23 What the experience of exile did do was create some unity in the movement as the pastors began to perceive themselves as Calvinists. Edward VI used the exiled ministers

in England as a model Reformed community so these ministers had to develop an apostolic lifestyle. In Germany persecution had the same result. Calvin and Zurich reformer Heinrich Bullinger also influenced those that took refuge in Switzerland so that

21 Crew, Calvinist Preaching, 56-57. “ Crew, Calvinist Preaching, 60. 23 Crew, Calvinist Preaching, 100.

11 in the Low Countries in 1566, when persecution was stopped by the regent Margaret of

Parma, the ministers returned as Calvinists.24 In the Dutch case then, at least according to

Crew, it was the self-perception as Calvinists, rather than doctrinal uniformity which

powered the movement.

Other historians have pointed to the varied influences on the Dutch Reformed

movement. Francis Higman records that translation of Calvin’s works did not begin in the

Netherlands until the relatively late date of 1554. Even then, only a total of 18 works were translated into Dutch, compared to 19 into Italian, and 91 into English.25 To explain this, Higman cites the continued popularity of Luther, who had 41 of his works translated into Dutch by 1542, and the fact that Calvin’s ally, Bullinger, was translated just as often as Calvin. Alastair Duke comes to similar conclusions regarding the multiplicity of influences on Dutch Calvinism. The Reformed communities in nearby Emden and

England were important sources of support in the years of persecution from the 1550s to

1572. This is evident in the development of the institution of the consistory. The Dutch model came from various sources including John a Lasco and the Reformed churches in

Emden and London. These churches, despite Calvin’s refusal to declare discipline to be a sign of the true church along with Scriptural preaching and correct administration of the

Sacraments, followed Strasbourger Martin Bucer in declaring that discipline was one of the signs of the true church. The Dutch seem to have followed this example in the 1561

24 Crew, Calvinist Preaching, 102. 25 Francis Higman, “Calvin’s Works in Translation,” inLater Calvinism: International Perspectives, ed. W. Fred Graham (Kirksville, Missouri, 1995), 84-87. 26 Higman, “Calvin’s Works,” 84.

12 Netherlands confession by declaring that “la discipline ecclesiastique” was a sign of the true church.27 Duke also points out that the presence of a large Anabaptist (Mennonite) minority in the Netherlands may have inspired such an emphasis on discipline among the

Reformed. The rigorous Anabaptist discipline likely caused the Calvinists to put a greater emphasis on discipline than Calvin had in order to compete with their Anabaptist rivals.28

The formation of the Calvinist movement in both countries was evidently quite different. Its further development is revealed in the form of local studies, a trend in both

French and Dutch historiography. Comparing the conclusions of Philip Benedict studying

Rouen and Guido Mamef studying Antwerp reveals some of the typical differences

Calvinists faced in the two regional contexts. Both authors demonstrate that the cities they are studying were rising commercial centres in the sixteenth century, Antwerp being one of the premier trading cities in northern Europe.29 However, Benedict argues that

Rouen’s Protestant movement was handicapped by the strong presence of the central government in the city. It was a major administrative centre for the French government, and home to aparlement.30 Mamef notes that Antwerp had a strong tradition of local government and the magistrates fiercely resisted any outside interference. Inquisitor

Pieter Titelmans found this out in 1559 when he tried to extradite a heretic from the city

27 Duke, Reformation and Revolt, 284-285. 28 Duke, Reformation and Revolt, 276-271,281. The adoption of Bucer’s views on discipline also shows Anabaptist influence as Bucer’s views were a response to Anabaptist criticism in Strasbourg. See Kenneth R. Davis, “No Discipline, No Church: An Anabaptist Contribution to the Reformed Tradition,”Sixteenth Century Journal 13:4 (Winter, 1982), 43-58. 29 Guido Mamef,Antwerp in the Age o fReformation: Underground Protestantism in a Commercial Metropolis, 1550-1577, trans. J.C. Grayson (Baltimore & London, 1996), 3-5; Philip Benedict,Rouen During the Wars o fReligion (Cambridge, 1981), 45. 30 Benedict, Rouen, 49-50.

13 for trial. The city defended the right of its citizens to be tried locally, and with the support

of the Council of Brabant, Titelmans was forced to give up.31 The concern of the local

authorities was to preserve their status as an international trading city. Thus, in order to

maintain the status quo and not alienate Protestant merchants, the Antwerp magistrates

resisted Charles V’s edicts calling for stricter persecution. Instead, they mostly

persecuted the socially unrespectable Anabaptists as opposed to the more acceptable

Calvinists.32

Another major difference between Rouen and Antwerp, and the French and Dutch

Reformations in general, was the role played by popular violence. Natalie Zemon Davis

has noted a high degree of popular violence in France during the period of the Wars of

Religion (1562-1598). She argues that the goal of the religious rioters was not economic

or social in nature, but was rather to rid the community of moral “pollution.” Both

Catholics and Protestants believed the opposing party was guilty of committing God-

angering sins, whether it was worshipping idols or profaning the sacred through ridicule

and vandalism. The result of these sins would be the wrath of an angry God who would

punish the community through floods or storms.33 When religious or political authorities

31 Mamef, Antwerp, 21-22. 32 Mamef, Antwerp, 82-87. The popular support of the Calvinists is evidenced in the case of a Calvinist pastor whose execution actually incited a riot in the city. Natalie Zemon Davis, “Rites of Violence,” in herSociety and Culture in Early-Modern France: Eight Essays (Stanford, California, 1975), 157-159.

14 failed to do anything about this profanation of the body social, popular violence erupted

as members of the community felt they needed to take matters into their own hands.34

Benedict notes this practice in Rouen. The beliefs of the Protestants in the city

were simple: if one accepted that Christ’s death on the cross washed away one’s sins,

then one was among the elect and saved. The Catholic practices beyond this simple belief

were considered unnecessary and wrong. Protestants aggressively proclaimed their views

in petitions and letters to authorities and through public psalm singing. They also sought

to discredit Catholics through contradiction of priests in public and mocking the

inefficacy of Catholic “idols” and the Host in both word and print.35 Catholics were

greatly offended by the attacks on the Sacrament and the intercession of saints, and felt,

to avert divine wrath on the community, the city would need to be purified by killing the

Protestant offenders or at the very least through rituals such as community processions.36

When the wars broke out the situation became further aggravated. The crown now sought peace between faiths and their edicts sought to provide toleration for the Reformed. But

Catholics continued to disregard these edicts, and the government was powerless to stop these popularly supported breaches of the law.37 Benedict notes for Rouen, as does Penny

Roberts for Troyes, that these breaches of the law on both sides led to an accumulation of grievances which resulted in more violence, and further decline for the Protestant minority culminating in the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres. Thus, the confidence of

34 Davis, “Rites of Violence,” 160-162,165-168. 35 Benedict, Rouen, 59-61. 36 Benedict, Rouen, 62-64. 37 Benedict, Rouen, 121-123.

15 the Calvinists was destroyed in the city and they were reduced to a near powerless

minority.38

Mamef paints a very different picture of the Calvinist experience in Antwerp.

Around 1520, the Catholic Church in Antwerp began to rapidly lose power as an extreme

decline in income from donations demonstrates. Furthermore, the Catholic Church did

not engage in any effort at large-scale education of the community in the fundamentals of

the faith. This was owing to the poor administration of the Church since the local

government prevented the installation of a bishop, believing that it would interfere with their power. This situation allowed for the development of reformation ideas and a

committed evangelical movement. However, it also created a large “middle group” of moderates who, though favouring reform, were not willing to risk their lives as outright

followers of Luther or Calvin.39 This middle party proved a vital aid to the growth of

Calvinism in the Netherlands. Mamef points out that they prevented the mass popular resistance to Calvinism which characterised the French Calvinist experience. Secondly, in spite of Calvin’s condemnation of this middle group as Nicodemites, the large number of

Calvinist sympathisers in this middle group allowed the Reformed Church to expand rapidly in 1566 and 1578 when Calvinism emerged from persecution.40 It would appear then that the strength or weakness of support for the Roman Catholic Church and the

38 Benedict, Rouen, 239; Penny Roberts, “Calvinists in Troyes 1562-1572: The Legacy of Vassy and the Background to Saint Bartholomew’s Day,” inCalvinism in Europe, 1540-1620, eds. Andrew Pettegree, Alastair Duke, Gillian Lewis (Cambridge, 1994), 102-106. 39 Mamef, Antwerp, 48-58. 40 Mamef, Antwerp, 97-100,207. “Nicodemite” was a term coined by Calvin to refer to those who accepted the truth of the Reformation, but concealed their faith as the Pharisee Nicodemus did (John 3:1-21).

16 degree of local independence in the cities in which Calvinism spread were decisive in the

success of Dutch Calvinism and the weakness of northern French Calvinism. The French

city of Montauban, studied by Philip Conner, where Protestants became the majority as a

result of an alliance with magistrates and a weak pre-Reformation Catholic establishment,

is an exception which proves the rule.41

It appears then that the period of Calvinist growth in both countries in the 1550s

and 1560s had disparate beginnings and soon encountered very different obstacles as well. While the Huguenots were relatively more influenced by Geneva, they faced strong popular resistance from a population that was still largely committed to Catholicism. In contrast, the Dutch Reformed were much more eclectic in their influences, but grew amongst a population that was basically anti-Catholic, but still on the fence in terms of what brand of Protestantism, if any, to embrace. Mamef argues that in Antwerp this middle group arose out of sympathy for reform, but also a reluctance to be subjected to the discipline of the Anabaptists and Calvinists.42 While Mamef argues that the middle group benefitted Calvinism when it was no longer persecuted, historians have noted that it soon became an obstacle when Calvinism became established in the rebel United

Provinces.

1572 was the decisive turning point for both French and Dutch Calvinists. In the

Netherlands it marked the seizure of the port city of Brill by the rebel Sea Beggars, which

41 Philip Conner,Huguenot Heartland: Montauban and Southern French Calvinism in During the Wars o f Religion (Aldershot, 2002), 19-24,218-219. 42 Mamef, Antwerp, 206.

17 signalled a change in fortunes for the Dutch rebels whose 1566 rebellion against Spanish rule forced them into exile. The Calvinists, allied with the rebels, used the military victory to their advantage by establishing themselves in former Catholic churches in captured cities and towns. In France, the Protestants were enthused by this news and their political leadership began to pressure the king to intervene on behalf of the Dutch rebels.

This outraged Catholic opinion which saw the Dutch revolt as a military struggle between seditious heretics and loyal Catholics. With rising tensions, the king felt it prudent to assassinate French Protestant leaders to assert his authority. But, the situation soon got out of control, and massacres of Protestants began across the country. It thus came to be that from 1572 on the Calvinists in the Netherlands were engaged in a struggle to expand their church membership in a largely un-Reformed society, while the Calvinists of France were struggling for mere survival.

The greatest problem posed to Calvinists in the northern Netherlands after 1572 was building up their church. Andrew Pettegree has argued that after 1567, the exiled

Calvinists and rebels needed each other. Consequently, a co-operative relationship developed in which the Calvinists supplied the rebels with money and men, and after the rebels captured much of the northern Netherlands in 1572, they granted the Calvinists a favoured status in the conquered towns, eventually resulting in the Dutch Reformed

Church becoming the “public” church of the new independent United Provinces.43

However, elsewhere Pettegree points out that the Calvinists had difficulty “coming to

43 Pettegree, “Religion and the Revolt,” 78-79.

18 terms with the limitations of victory.” They found that as the public church, their

relationship with the magistrates led them into disputes and required them to make

compromises. The magistrates had given the Calvinists the chief churches in the

conquered towns, but in return they expected the Reformed Church to marry any citizen,

whether Reformed or not, and allow government officials a say in the appointment of

ministers. Further disputes arose over the allocation of money confiscated from the

Catholic Church, the administration of poor relief, and the role of the consistory.44 Why

were the magistrates so opposed to the Reformed Church? Duke has argued that, apart

from concern with defending freedom of conscience, some magistrates were reluctant to

concede too many privileges to the Reformed because the Genevan church model

undermined their own authority.45 Other historians have argued that it was because after

witnessing the consequences of religious persecution on civil order under Spanish rule,

magistrates were reluctant to engage in it themselves 46

Further problems for the Reformed church arose out of the continued strength of the religious middle group, or “Libertines” as they were known as by Calvinists.

Although the beliefs of this group are difficult to determine, and they certainly varied between individuals, Benjamin Kaplan argues that generally, the dominant elements were

Spiritualism and Protestant anti-clericalism. Libertines were anti-clerical in the sense that

44 Andrew Pettegree, “Coming to Terms with Victory: The Upbuilding of a Calvinist Church in Holland 1572-1590,” in Calvinism in Europe, 1540-1620, eds. Pettegree et al., (Cambridge, 1994), 161-174. 45 Duke, Reformation and Revolt, 234. 46 Derk Visser, “Establishing the Reformed Church: Clergy and Magistrates in the Low Countries, 1572- 1620,” in W. Fred Graham, Later Calvinism, 389; Christine Kooi, “Converts and Apostates: The Competition for Souls in Early Modem Holland,”Archiv flir Reformationsgeschichte 92 (2001), 196.

19 they took the “original Protestant message” to new lengths in believing that all religious establishments, both Catholic and Protestant, did not have the authority they claimed.

Their catechisms and confessions were “human additions” to the Word of God and the

Calvinist consistory was essentially a new inquisition.47 Apart from linking the Calvinist

Church with the Roman Catholic one in terms of illegitimate claims to authority, they also had strong Spiritualist criticisms. They argued that Catholic priests and Calvinist pastors alike attached too much importance to outward “ceremonies” and did not focus enough on the inward spiritual part that was essential to salvation. This led to especially strong criticism of Calvinist discipline as it was argued that it promoted the idea of salvation through works.48 Kaplan further illustrates the struggle between the Libertine middle group and the Calvinists in his study of Utrecht. In this cily, the Libertines had established a separate church under Hubert Duifhuis. Since Duifhuis’ church did not institute the discipline of the Calvinists, the issue of discipline came to define their struggle.49 The Libertines attracted the support of the magistrates in their goal to unite

Utrechters in one church embodying the sacral and civic unity of the city.50 It eventually became clear that the Libertine church would be incapable of uniting Utrechters. Only then, with the Calvinists remaining strong and unchanged in their principles, and with a

47 Benjamin Kaplan, “Remnants of the Papal Yoke: Apathy and Opposition in the Dutch Reformation,” Sixteenth Century Journal 25 (1994), 663. 48 Kaplan, “Remnants,” 664-666. 49 Benjamin Kaplan,Calvinists and Libertines: Confession and Community in Utrecht 1578-1620 (Oxford, 1995), 26-27. 50 Kaplan, Calvinists and Libertines, 111-112,155.

20 tendency towards centralisation arising in the IS 80s, did the city magistrates conform to the national norm.51

Throughout the Netherlands the Calvinists continued to press for “holy

uniformity,” an effort to make the church and the country conform to orthodox Calvinism

in both behaviour and belief. However, as Judith Pollman points out inReligious her

Choice in the Dutch Republic: The Reformation o fAmoldus Buchelius, 1565-1641, there

were many obstacles in their way. In this book, Pollman takes the life of Amoldus

Buchelius, a humanist lawyer, as a case study of the concerns that faced Dutch people in the confessionally uncommitted middle group. Buchelius began life as a Catholic, but

showed Spiritualist tendencies in his criticism of Catholicism’s emphasis on outward expressions of religion in the form of ceremonies.52 However, he did not yet outright abandon Catholicism, but rather remained uncommitted to a particular church until much

later in life. He resolved personal spiritual crises by coming to the realisation that God

loved and cared for him. He thus found that he could trust in God’s goodness, but he did not feel the need of organized religion to overcome his personal crises.53 In fact, it was not until the 1590s that he joined the Reformed Church. However, even then, he does not seem to have had an identifiable conversion experience. His acceptance of Calvinism was based more on his desire to see the Dutch Republic unified under one religious banner

51 Kaplan, Calvinists and Libertines, 225-227. 52 Judith Pollman, Religious Choice in the Dutch Republic: The Reformation o f Amoldus Buchelius, 1565- 1641 (New York, 1999), 44. 53 Pollman, Amoldus Buchelius, 75.

21 than any deep understanding of Calvinist doctrines.54 In this early period as part of the

Reformed Church, Buchelius was a moderate rather than strict Calvinist.

Arie Theodoras van Deursen argues that it was, in fact, quite common for Dutch

men and women to postpone their religious choice until later in life. This was not because

they were irreligious or unconcerned with the afterlife, but rather because the freedom to

choose in matters of religion was unhindered by persecution.55 Christine Kooi argues that

even Catholicism was accommodated to some extent, and because of this there was

intense competition between the major religious groups in the United Provinces. There was a high degree of “fluidity among confessions” in the Dutch Reformation as a result of frequent changes in confessional allegiance. Ecclesiastical authorities then, did not have much control over the religious choices of the ordinary Dutch citizen and everyone was relatively free to make major religious choices without fear of government retaliation.56

Why a person chose one or another confession is a question which several historians have sought to answer. According to van Deursen, each confession took advantage of certain popular beliefs already present in Dutch society. The Calvinists benefited from their emphasis on a wrathful all-powerful God which fit in well with the

54 Pollman, Amoldus Buchelius, 87-91. Pollman cites the fact that Buchelius’ extensive library contained very few distinctly Reformed books as evidence of his minimal understanding of Calvinism. 55 Arie Theodorus van Deursen, Plain Lives in a Golden Age: Popular Culture, Religion, and Society in Seventeenth-Century Holland, Trans. Marteen Ultee (Cambridge, 1991), 233. 56 Kooi, “Converts and Apostates,” 203-214.

22 common belief that natural disasters were God’s punishment for the sins of the nation.57

Similarly, Simon Schama has pointed out that this fear of God’s wrath became an

important part of Dutch culture in the seventeenth century. According to Schama, since

the Dutch had become so successful and affluent so quickly they attributed their new­

found power to God and his favour on the Dutch people as a sort of new Israel. In order

to maintain God’s favour and the wealth of the Republic, the Dutch had to resist the

temptations that this wealth brought. It is no surprise then that the Old Testament stories

of Potiphar’s wife tempting Joseph to commit adultery, and Jacob tempting his brother

Esau into giving up his birthright were common themes in Dutch texts and images of the

period.58 Calvinism with its emphasis on the Old Testament and God’s wrath fit well into

this culture, and indeed, helped create it.59 Pollman also concurs with van Deursen and

Schama that Calvinism was attractive for this reason. She argues that Buchelius joined

the Reformed Church in Utrecht because of his belief that society needed religious unity

to promote a public piety to save it from Divine wrath. Having a variety of beliefs was

detrimental since it led to disbelief and scepticism. Buchelius thus found the state

supported church the best remedy to this problem. As a result, over time Buchelius

became an increasingly strict Calvinist.60

57 Van Deursen, Plain Lives, 239-241. sg Simon Schama, The Embarrassment o fRiches: An Interpretation ofDutch Culture in the Golden Age (New York, 1987), 8,47-50. Schama, Embarrassment, 94-96. 60 Pollman, A m oldus Buchelius, 83-88.

23 The Dutch Calvinists continued their struggle for expansion in the late sixteenth

and seventeenth centuries in what has been called the nadere reformatie, or “further

reformation.” This further Reformation involved a narrowing of orthodoxy, and an

attempt to reform society along more “godly” lines. The drive towards a narrowing of

orthodoxy first led to a major schism within the Reformed Church. Kaplan argues that the

seventeenth-century Calvinists came to place a much greater emphasis on the doctrine of

predestination than they had in the sixteenth centuiy. It thus came to pass that when

Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius and his followers produced a remonstrance to the

States of Holland expressing their doubt in the doctrine of predestination and interest in

revising the Belgic and Heidelberg confessions, orthodox Calvinists were outraged.61

The battle line was then drawn between “Remonstrants” and “Contra-Remonstrants.” In

Utrecht, the ensuing controversy was in some ways similar to the earlier Calvinist-

Libertine one. Both were the result of factionalism in the town, but more importantly they were the result of Calvinist confessionalism, or their desire for “holy uniformity.”

However, the Arminian controversy was different in the sense that those who had been considered orthodox Calvinists in the earlier controversy, such as Johannes Wtenbogaert, were now deemed opponents of orthodox Calvinism.62 Although there was some struggle, and risk of civil war, again the Calvinists were ultimately successful in

61 Kaplan, Calvinists and Libertines, 233-234. These two confessions clearly defined what was considered orthodox in the Dutch Reformed Church, including the doctrine that some are pre-destined to salvation while others to damnation. 62 Kaplan, Calvinists and Libertines, 230-231.

24 narrowing orthodoxy after the 1618 Synod of Dort condemned Arminius’ opinions as

heretical.

Despite the schism within the church, and the exile of the Remonstrants,

Calvinism managed to consolidate its hold on society. In the province of Holland in 1600,

20% of the adult population were members of the Reformed Church. By 1650, more than

50% were members.63 Charles H. Parker examines the consistory records in the city of

Delft before and after the Synod of Dort in 1618 to determine to what extent Calvinists were successful in instilling their discipline on their congregants.64 Parker comes to the conclusion that church members andliefhebbers (sympathisers), after many years of

Reformed presence, “did indeed internalize the program of the Calvinist reformers.”65

This is evidenced in the nature of the disciplinary cases in the records. Before the Synod of Dort, records show many prolonged cases in which church elders and members argued and bargained with each other over accusations and punishments. As the century wore on, the cases became much more straightforward and entries “laconic,” which suggests that congregants more willingly accepted discipline.66

It is evident that the Dutch Calvinists in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries were largely concerned with capitalising on their position as the state church and trying to win converts from the large middle group and the other confessions in the

63 Charles H. Parker, “Two Generations of Discipline: Moral Reform in Delft before and after the Synod of Dort,” Archiv filr Reformationsgeschichte 92 (2001), 215. 64 Parker, “Discipline,” 222-224. 45 Parker, “Discipline,” 217. 44 Parker, “Discipline,” 225.

25 region. The French Calvinists, by contrast, had to simply try to survive in a hostile

Catholic country. Kingdon argues that after being sent to France, the pastors became

quickly embroiled in the political situation as a result of Calvin’s instructions to target the

nobility for conversion.67 Nicola Sutherland makes the case that the involvement of the

Calvinists in politics was forced on them by political circumstances. Henry II had been planning their extermination upon peace with Spain in 1559, and as a result they began

seeking out political allies in the high nobility and German Lutheran princes.68

Regardless of the cause, it is indisputable that the French Calvinists soon became politicised. The regent, the Queen Mother Catherine de Medici, agreed that for the sake of peace, the large Calvinist minority should be tolerated. Unfortunately, this was not acceptable for the hard-line Catholic faction led by the Guise family, and historians agree that the first civil war was caused by the Catholic reaction to the Edict of Januaiy 1562 culminating in the Due de Guise’s massacre of Protestants in the town of Vassy.69 The resulting civil wars followed a trend of the monarchy promulgating an edict of pacification which lacked popular support which in turn led to descent into further war.

Sutherland points the finger to the hard-line Catholic Guises who were so influential at court and among many Catholics.70 Holt admits that the Guises were influential, but argues that popular violence was also a cause, and as the St. Bartholomew’s Day

67 Kingdon, Geneva and the Coming, 55-59. 68 Sutherland, The Huguenot Struggle, 54-58. 69 Holt, The French Wars o f Religion, 47-49; Rothrock,The Huguenots, 81-85; Sutherland, The Huguenot Struggle, 137-138. 70 Sutherland, The Huguenot Struggle, 137-138,174-177,178-179.

26 massacres demonstrate, this was a factor out of the control of any political figure.71

Clearly, a significant number of Catholics found the continued presence of the Huguenots

unacceptable.

Both historians agree however that the weakness of the monarchy was a decisive

factor in the continued civil war and it was not until the strong leadership of Henry IV that peace could be established.72 Tragically for the French Protestants, it came at the cost of their most politically significant leaders, starting with Henry IV who abjured the

Protestant faith in 1593 followed by others soon after. Additionally, a strong monarchy was a double edged sword. Henry promulgated the Edict of Nantes in 1598 tolerating the

Huguenots and by his military and political strength made it a lasting peace. However, historians make it clear that it was not necessarily a triumph for Protestantism or toleration. Sutherland argues that Henry only passed it for the sake of peace, not for toleration, or even as a favour to his former co-religionists.73 Holt goes even further and claims that Henry did not even intend it to be a permanent settlement. He cites the statement in the preamble lamenting that the two confessions are “not yet ...one and the same form of religion” as evidence. For Holt, the edict was a temporary solution until

Catholicism could eradicate heresy.74

The seventeenth century provided ample opportunities for the Catholics to achieve their final victory over the heretics. It only required two small rebellions to allow

71 Holt, The French Wars o f Religion, 87-90. 72 Holt, The French Wars o f Religion, 71-73; Sutherland, The Huguenot Struggle, 4. 73 Sutherland, The Huguenot Struggle, 332. 74 Holt, The French Wars o f Religion, 162-166.

27 the monarchy to crush the political and military power of the Huguenots for good. The

aggressive Protestant Due de Rohan rebelled in 1620, with the disastrous result that Louis

XIII used this uprising as a pretext to station troops deep within the Huguenot

strongholds of the south. The war was soon renewed but the Huguenot forces were too

thoroughly weakened by defections of the nobility to Catholicism to pose a serious threat

to the crown and the rebellion was soon crushed.75 Louis XIII also used the wars as an

excuse not to renew thebrevets accompanying the Edict of Nantes which granted certain towns and fortifications to the Huguenots to use as garrisons.76 By 1629, the military

power, and therefore political clout, of the Huguenots had effectively been destroyed.

Many historians of French Protestantism in this period note a marked decline in the movement. In the southern region of Bdam, Mark Greengrass traces the local reformation there from the ISSOs to the 1620s. He points out that it was a largely top- down reformation, with local Calvinist elites attempting to promote their beliefs throughout the realm by legislation (i.e. a civic reformation).77 However, with the arrival of Louis XIII’s army in 1620, the semi-independence of the principality was stripped away, and Catholicism given new strength. Indeed, Protestant numbers declined dramatically, and by “the 1660s there was little that was distinctive in the fidelity of

Beam’s Protestants” compared to those in the rest of France. The civic reformation which

75 Rothrock, The Huguenots, 135-143; Holt, The Wars o f Religion, 181. 76 Holt, The Wars o f Religion, 181-182. 77 Mark Greengrass, “The Calvinist Experiment in B6am,” in Calvinism in Europe, 1540-1620, eds. Pettegree et al., (Cambridge, 1994), 124-130.

28 seemed so strong in the sixteenth century was apparently a failure.78 Edwin Bezzina

argues that many members of the noble Boisgu6rin family in Loudun converted to

Catholicism after they came to the conclusion that resistance against the monarchy was

futile in the 1620s.79 Additionally, Brian G. Armstrong argues that the French Reformed

Church which had no qualms with revising its confession in the sixteenth century, ceased

revisions after 1620. He cites the fact that the Edict of Nantes only provided tolerance to

one sect, and thus schism would be detrimental. Additionally, with their military power

stripped from them, the Huguenots feared government intervention if synods continued reform.80 There would be no narrowing of orthodoxy for French Protestants. It would

seem that the Huguenots were indeed weakening in the seventeenth century. Benedict concludes that since official toleration was only done out of necessity, with a weakened

Calvinist minority it is not surprising that Louis XTV revoked the Edict of Nantes in

1685.81

After examining the rise of Calvinism in France and the Netherlands, and the apparent intolerance which caused France to be wracked with civil war over the issue of religion while the Dutch Reformed sought to impose their vision on the whole of Dutch society, it would seem that there was little room left for the notion of religious tolerance

78 Greengrass, “The Calvinist Experiment,” 139-140. 79 Edwin Bezzina, “Caught between King, Religion, and Social Ambition: Marc-Antoine Marreau de Boisgudrin and His Family (ca. 1560-1680),” Sixteenth Century Journal 39:2 (2008), 331-356. 80 Brian G. Armstrong, “Semper Reformna: The Case of the French Reformed Church,” in W. Fred Graham , Later Calvinism, 120-121. 81 Philip Benedict, “Un Roi, une loi, deux fois: Parameters for the history of Catholic-Reformed Co- Existence in France, 1555-1685,” in Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation, eds., Ole Peter Grell and Bob Scribner, (Cambridge, 1996), 93.

29 in these two early-modern societies. In fact, the common view has been that religious

toleration in Europe did not arise until the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. Benjamin

Kaplan’sDivided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice o f Toleration in Early

Modern Europe is an attempt to rectify this misconception by looking at the practice of toleration in early-modern Europe.82 He first highlights several obstacles to tolerance.

First of all, confessionalism caused religious groups to draw dichotomies between their orthodoxy and the corrupt creeds of others.83 Secondly, civic unity was often associated with religious unity, and thus the existence of two confessions in a town was problematic.84 Furthermore, in the context of the nation-building taking place in early- modern Europe, rulers wished for their nation to be united through religion.85 Having exposed these obstacles, Kaplan then argues that because diversity of religious opinion was often unavoidable, people in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were forced to find ways in which they could co-exist with others of a different creed. To get around the connection between the sacral and civic community, the practice of dissenters leaving town to worship, theAuslauf, was a common arrangement.86 Another arrangement which became common in the Netherlands was to separate public and private spheres of worship. While publicly, no one could challenge the dominance of the Reformed Church,

82 Kaplan,Divided By Faith, 8. *3 Kaplan, Divided By Faith, 46-47. 84 Kaplan,Divided By Faith, 71-72. 15 Kaplan, Divided By Faith, 121. 86 Kaplan, Divided By Faith, 171.

30 “private” gatherings to worship in a different rite were completely tolerable.87 Kaplan

concludes that the practice of tolerance was well underway more than a century before

the Enlightenment, and that it was practiced in a deeply religious society, demonstrating

that tolerance is not simply a virtue of secularism.88

Calvin and the Calvinists have suffered a similar fate as the early-modern period

as a whole, being portrayed as ruthlessly intolerant. One of Calvin’s more recent

biographers, Alister McGrath gives some examples of the demonising that credible

scholars have undertaken when discussing Calvin. Honorg de Balzac, in hisLa Comidie

humaine, declared that as soon as Calvin took up his permanent pastorship in Geneva in

1541 “executions began, and Calvin organized religious terror,” while Aldous Huxley in

his 1949Proper Studies asserted that during Calvin’s rule in Geneva, a child was

publically decapitated for striking his parents. These myths are completely unfounded, without any evidence whatsoever, but scholars have taken the theocratic dictator myth for

granted.89 In reality, Calvin did not have the power to act as a dictator. The magistracy of

Geneva was fiercely independent and was not about to give up their authority to a foreign theologian.90 Bruce Gordon has argued that Calvin, far from being the strong man from

Geneva, was forced to act as “supplicant before the more established leaders of the Swiss

German Churches” in order to maintain allies in the complicated world of the Swiss

87 Kaplan,Divided By Faith, 195. ** Kaplan, D ivided By Faith, 355-358. 89 McGrath,Life o f John Calvin, 105-107. 90 McGrath, Life o f John Calvin, 114.

31 Reformation.91 Calvinism’s distinctive institution, the local church consistory, has,

meanwhile, been portrayed as a ruthless instrument of social control. Kingdon admits that

it was indeed intrusive, but it was also benevolent. It did not simply hand out

excommunications for every sin committed, but instead sought to instruct congregants in

the church’s doctrine, ensuring that everyone knew and understood the Lord’s Prayer and

the Apostolic Creed. Additionally, it attempted to counsel Christians, and help them

resolve their disputes with others, and then reconcile the two parties.92

If Calvin was not the ruthless and powerful theocrat which history has

remembered him as, where did this mythology come from and what was the real Calvin

like? The myth likely arose out of the one execution that did take place during Calvin’s

career in Geneva. In 1SS3 Michael Servetus was burned at the stake by the city council of

Geneva under the charge of heresy. McGrath apologetically argues that Calvin’s

complicity in the execution was no great crime in his day, as this method of punishment

was universally accepted across Europe. Furthermore, he was not involved to any great

degree, and it was in fact the city council which played the decisive role in the

execution93 However, this is no excuse to forgo an attempt to understand why Calvin

supported the execution.

91 Bruce Gordon, “Calvin and the Swiss Reformed Churches” Calvinismin in Europe, 1540-1620, eds. Pettegree et al., (Cambridge, 1994), 64. 92 Robert M. Kingdon, “The Geneva Consistory in the Time of Calvin”Calvinism in in Europe, 1540-1620, eds. Pettegree et al., (Cambridge, 1994), 24-34. 93 McGrath, Life o fJohn Calvin, 114-116.

32 William J. Bouwsma’sJohn Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait is an attempt to

understand Calvin on a deeper level, not simply his theological ideas. Although

Bouwsma mentions the Servetus affair only in passing, his conclusions regarding

Calvin’s beliefs and anxieties give us some idea about Calvin’s harshness towards religious dissent. Bouwsma argues that Calvin’s views were reflective of his time.

Bouwsma argues that the sixteenth-century was a period of conflicting impulses and thus this is how he portrays Calvin. Bouwsma identifies two conflicting internal anxieties within Calvin’s thought: fear of the past, of the traditional medieval world embodied by

Roman Catholicism, and fear of the future, of new destabilising ideas which would cause disorder in the world.94 Furthermore, because he saw the world as incredibly corrupt, he felt it was every Christian’s duty to not only conform to God’s commands, but reform the society in which they lived. Any deviance from this path was associated with disorder, which was not only damaging for the individual, but for the entire community.95 It was for this fear of disorder that Servetus was executed. Servetus argued against the Trinity, and perhaps even more deadly for him, against infant Baptism, thus associating himself with the Anabaptists who had demonstrated their animosity to order in their takeover of

Mtlnster in 1533-35 and similar civil disturbances elsewhere. Both McGrath and

Bouwsma point to fear of disorder as the chief motivating factor for both Calvin and the city council in the execution of Servetus.96

94 William J. Bouwsma,John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait (New York & Oxford, 1988), 47-48. 95 Bouwsma, A Sixteenth Century Portrait, 49-50. 96 Bouwsma, A Sixteenth Century Portrait, 27; McGrath, Life o fJohn Calvin, 118-119.

33 The story of Calvinism and religious toleration in France and the Netherlands is,

like Calvin’s relationship with tolerance, a mixture of intolerance and tolerance.

Historians of the early-modern Netherlands have long noted the practice of confessional

co-existence in the United Provinces which even in the seventeenth century remained

famous throughout Europe for its relative lenience in religious affairs. It is no surprise

then, that the concept of toleration has been studied extensively in the Dutch context. As

is often the case where study has been extensive, there is some disagreement surrounding

the nature of Dutch tolerance. First of all, there is a somewhat cynical interpretation of its

practice. Andrew Pettegree has argued that tolerance in the Netherlands arose out of the

power struggle between political and ecclesiastical elites. He argues that “toleration was a weapon” that was used in politics just as ruthlessly as intolerance.97 As the Reformed

Church was seeking more political power in an effort to reform society along Calvinist

lines, the magistrates recognised the danger of “uncontrolled clerical influence,” and by tolerating religious minorities, they could curb the influence of the public church.98

The more cynical view of Dutch toleration is also expressed in the collection of essays edited by C. Berkvens-Stevelinck, Jonathan Israel, and G.H.M Posthumus Meyjes,

The Emergence o f Tolerance in the Dutch Republic. The tone is set by Elisabeth

Labrousse’s opening address which declares that tolerance in the “age of absolutism” was

97 Andrew Pettegree, “The Politics of Toleration in the Free Netherlands, 1572-1620,” inTolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation, eds., Grell and Scribner (Cambridge, 1996), 183. 98 Pettegree, “Politics of Toleration,” 193-195.

34 simply a means of avoiding violence when differences became unavoidable.99 The

general view expressed in the essays in this collection is that Dutch toleration was simply the result of necessity and arose out of political circumstances. Jonathan Israel argues that the independence of the Dutch Republic was in a sense a “victory for toleration,” but it was also a defeat. The magistrates did everything possible short of outright coercion to ensure the success of the Reformed Church and promote confessionalisation.100 He admits that magisterial tolerance did allow for a certain degree of confessional co­ existence, but it came at the expense of stifling inter-confessional debate.101 M.E.H.N

Mout argues that “Erasmian” ideas were not a factor in the establishment of toleration in the Dutch Republic. It was from the experience of the disorder caused by Spanish persecution that the government refused to adopt a strict religious policy.102 James Tracy similarly argues that it was the particular context of the traditional civic privileges of the

Burgundian era that caused the Dutch to first resist the “tyranny” of the sixteenth-century persecution of heresy. Later, the religious toleration which did not compel anyone to join a church induced Coomhert to make his statements in favour of freedom of conscience.

99 Elisabeth Labrousse, “Adresse du Colloque,” inThe Emergence o f Tolerance in the Dutch Republic, eds., C. Berkvens-Stevelinck, J. Israel, and G.H.M Posthumus Meyjes (Leiden, 1997), 2. 100 Jonathan Israel, “The Intellectual Debate about Toleration in the Dutch Republic,” inThe Emergence o f Tolerance in the Dutch Republic, eds. Berkvens-Stevelinck, et al., (Leiden, 1997), 3-5. 101 Israel, “Intellectual Debate,” 33-36. 102 M.E.H.N Mout, “Limits and Debates: A Comparative View of Dutch Toleration in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries,” inThe Emergence o f Tolerance in the Dutch Republic, eds., Berkvens- Stevelinck, et al., (Leiden, 1997), 37.

35 Erasmus’ and Coomhert’s advocacy of toleration must therefore be understood as a product of their time.103

The general cynical view of Dutch toleration thus emphasises that tolerance was a product of social and political circumstances. A more positive view is advanced in

Ronnie Po-Chia Hsia’s and Henk van Nierop’sCalvinism and Religious Toleration in the

Dutch Golden Age. The tone of this volume is set by the first essay by Benjamin Kaplan.

He points out two extremes in the historiography of Dutch toleration. On the one hand, many Dutch writers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries argued that their tolerance was the result of their tradition of freedom and toleration embedded in their national character and heritage.104 This “mythologizing” has led to a misunderstanding of “the religious life” in the Dutch Republic, but it has recently caused an extreme revisionist reaction as well, which is equally misleading.103 He rejects the theses of Israel and

Pettegree which consider toleration to be nothing more than a “stratagem requiring no conviction.” Kaplan argues that principles did have an effect on the demands for toleration.106 He argues that this cynical revisionism is the result of the disparity between the modem and early-modern definitions of tolerance.107 Some of the other essays in the collection take up this less condemnatory approach and argue that it was not simply

103 James Tracy, “Erasmus, Coomhert and the Acceptance of Religious Disunity in the Body Politic: A Low Countries Tradition?” inThe Emergence o f Tolerance in the Dutch Republic, eds., Berkvens- Stevelinck et al., (Leiden, 1997), 62. 104 Benjamin Kaplan, “Dutch Religious Tolerance: Celebration and Revision,” Calvinismin and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age, eds., Ronnie Po-Chia Hsia and Henk van Nierop (Cambridge, 2002), 11-13. 105 Kaplan, “Dutch Religious Tolerance,” 10. 106 Kaplan, “Dutch Religious Tolerance,” 22,24. 107 Kaplan, “Dutch Religious Tolerance,” 25.

36 circumstances which caused Dutch toleration. Willem Frijhoff argues that the Union of

Utrecht, which was the foundation for Dutch law, only permitted freedom of conscience.

It was the magistrates’ acceptance of the arguments of Coomhert that “tacit connivance”

would create “strong concord” in the state that allowed for tolerance beyond the simple

provision of freedom of conscience.108 Judith Pollman argues from the example of

Amoldus Buchelius that while Calvinists often publicly criticised the government for

permitting the existence of dissenting religious groups, privately they could adopt an “a-

confessional” approach to their personal relations with dissenters which could lead them to even accept the possibility of salvation outside the Reformed Church as is evidenced in

Buchelius’ letters of reassurance to a remonstrant friend who doubted his salvation.109

Pollman’s argument is reflective of a more nuanced approach towards Calvinism and religious toleration which some historians have adopted. Often times, especially in historiography of Dutch toleration, the Calvinists have been portrayed as major opponents of tolerance, advocating greater confessionalisation and demonising their opponents.110 Such accusations are not untrue nor without evidence, but there is more to the story. Gary Waite points out in Eradicatinghis the Devil's Minions: Anabaptists and

IM Willem Frijhoff, “Religious Toleration in the United Provinces: From ‘Case’ to ‘Model,’”Calvinism in and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden eds., Age, Ronnie Po-Chia Hsia and Henk van Nierop (Cambridge, 2002), 29-30. 109 Judith Pollman, “The Bond of Christian Piety: The Individual Practice of Tolerance and Intolerance in the Dutch Republic,” in Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Eds., Age, Ronnie Po- Chia Hsia and Henk van Nierop (Cambridge, 2002), 70-71. 110 Frijhoff, “Religious Toleration,” 52; Pettegree, “Politics of Toleration,” 189-190,193; Malcolm R. Thorp, “William Cecil and the Anti-Christ: A Study in Anti-Catholic Ideology,”Politics, in Religion & Diplomacy in Early Modern Europe, eds., Malcolm R. Thorp and Arthur J. Slavin (Kirksville, Missouri, 1994), 290-298;Visser, “Establishing the Reformed Church,” 389.

37 Witches in Reformation Europe that whereas Catholics and Lutherans frequently resorted to demonising Anabaptists for their unorthodox views on baptism and the Lord’s Supper,

Calvinists tended to steer clear of such language in describing them. Their polemical

literature regarding Anabaptism generally focused on more rational, biblically based arguments. Waite attributes this to the fact that Calvinists and Anabaptists had similar views on the foolishness of Catholic and Lutheran beliefs surrounding the Lord’s Supper, and their common commitment to discipline.111

Although the debate over early-modern toleration in the context of Dutch

Calvinism is extensive, the issue has received less attention in French historiography. A comparative approach would provide some useful conclusions, but as of yet, veiy little effort has been made to compare the two national contexts. The most concentrated effort remains the 1999 volumeReformation, Revolt and Civil War in France and the

Netherlands 1555-1585 edited by Philip Benedict, Guido Mamef, Henk van Nierop, and

Marc Venard. However, the problem with this volume is that it simply pairs specialists of each region together to write two separate chapters on a similar theme. It does however provide a useful starting point for further research. The essays comparing Calvinist militancy and the nature of moderates in the two national contexts are particularly useful for examining the somewhat understudied topic of tolerance and Calvinism in France.

111 Gary K. Waite,Eradicating the Devil's Minions: Anabaptists and Witches in Reformation Europe (Toronto, 2007), 39-60. A similar perspective on Calvinism and toleration has been applies to England by Wayne Baker, who argues that John Locke’s famous advocacy of religious toleration was based on the ideas of Calvinist theologian John Owen. Wayne Baker, “Church, State, and Toleration: John Locke and Calvin’s Heirs in England, 1644-1689,” in W. Fred Graham, Later Calvinism, 532-543.

38 Benedict, in his essay on Calvinist militancy in France challenges the traditional view in

French historiography portraying the Huguenots as a deferent and persecuted minority,

with the Catholic extremists being the true cause of the violence in France. Benedict

argues that the French Calvinists were much more akin to their Dutch co-religionists, and

were in fact quite revolutionary.112 He takes as evidence early petitions to the monarch to

abolish the mass and establish the true religion, as well as the recorded actions of

Calvinists in the cities in which they had the power to overthrow Catholicism. From this

he concludes that because the aspirations and goals which arose in the brief period of

rapid success before the first civil war were so short-lived and only partially fulfilled,

“their full scope has not always been clear.” The strong insistence by Calvinist leadership of their respect for authority in the early years of the Calvinist Reformation has further

skewed our perception of the movement.113

Nevertheless, elsewhere Benedict argues that French Calvinists did change their tune as the Wars of Religion wore on. As war weariness set in, Protestants, as well as some Catholics, began to advocate toleration for the sake of peace. Indeed, many

Calvinists continued to advocate religious tolerance well into the seventeenth century, and some, such as Pierre Bayle, even extended the principle to atheists.114 Mario

Turehetti’s essay inReformation, Revolt, and Civil War examines the development of a

112 Philip Benedict, “The Dynamics of Protestant Militancy: France, 1555-1563” in Reformation, Revolt, and Civil War in France and the Netherlands 1555-1585, eds. Philip Benedict, Guido Mamef, Henk van Nierop, Marc Venard (Amsterdam, 1999), 35-36. 113 Benedict, “Protestant Militancy,” 49-50. 114 Benedict, “Un Roi, une loi, deux fois,” 71-73.

39 moderate position in France. He defines the “middle party or parties” as anyone who

sought to “maintain civic peace and religious concord” as their chief goal.115 Turchetti

identifies three different goals which can be attributed to this moderate group: concord,

toleration with the goal of concord, and finally, toleration as a principle. Concord, or

some sort of peaceful agreement uniting Catholics and Protestants, was the initial

objective. This group was known as themoyenneurs and counted Michel L’Hopital

among their number until he realised that such a course was impossible. Instead, two

faiths could be permitted within the kingdom temporarily, until unification could be reached. Calvin, Beza and many other Calvinists came to accept this view as well.116

Eventually, a third more radical view came about through Sebastien Castellio’sConseil a la France disolie which advocated toleration as a principle, since consciences could not be forced. Calvin and Beza fiercely opposed this view. Why? Were they not also seeking toleration? Their view of toleration was that it was a limited necessity while religious concord (i.e. the complete reformation of France) was the ultimate goal.117 Advocates of toleration were thus not united in one camp by any means.

However, before ending this introduction it would be prudent to define more precisely what advocating “toleration” means in the context of this study. Indeed, in the

French language at least, the noun Tolerance and the verb Tolirer were rarely used until

1,5 Mario Turchetti, “Middle Parties in France during the Wars of Religion” in Reformation, Revolt, and Civil War in France and the Netherlands 1555-1585, eds. Benedict et al., (Amsterdam, 1999), 165. 116 Turchetti, “Middle Parties,” 167-170. 117 Turchetti, “Middle Parties,” 171-172. Interestingly, Castellio’s advice on the French situation was translated into Dutch by Coomhert to support his own principled advocacy of toleration.

40 Voltaire gave them the definition which we think of today.118 In fact, tolerance had a very negative connotation, and those who advocated some form of it rarely resorted to using the word.119 It must be remembered that the modem definition of religious toleration was only in its infancy.120 Thus, historians Hans Guggisberg and Mario Turchetti, although using different terminology, basically define early-modern toleration in two components: the psychological and the legal. The psychological form of toleration is an attitude of leniency towards those who hold differing beliefs.121 The legal definition is synonymous with religious liberty, the permission by the government of differing religious groups to practice their beliefs.122 Although some of the pamphlets that will be studied in this thesis may seem intolerant by modem standards, they will be examined according to these early-modern definitions of “tolerance.” However, it must also be remembered that

“tolerant and intolerant are by no means absolute categories...The tolerant did not oppose the intolerant; instead there were varying degrees of tolerance and intolerance.”123

1U William H. Huseman, “The Expression of the Idea of Toleration in French during the Sixteenth Century,” Sixteenth Century Journal 15:3 (Fall 1984), 293-294. 119 Huseman, “Idea of Toleration,” 307-308. In my translations for this thesis I have tried to use the closest English equivalent to the French word used. Hence, although the French “endurer” might be translated into English as “to tolerate” I have opted to use the verb “to endure” instead. 120 Hans R. Guggisberg, “The Defence of Religious Toleration and Religious Liberty in Early Modem Europe: Arguments, Pressures, and some Consequences,”History o f European Ideas 4:1 (1983), 35. 121 Guggisberg, “Defence of Religious Toleration,” 37; Mario Turchetti, “Religious Concord and Political Tolerance in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century France,”Sixteenth Century Journal 22:1 (Spring 1991), 18. 122 Guggisberg, “Defence of Religious Toleration,” 37; Turchetti, “Religious Concord,” 18. 123 Juliaan Woltjer, “Political Moderates and Religious Moderates in the Revolt of the Netherlands,” in Reformation, Revolt, and Civil War in France and the Netherlands 1555-1585, eds. Benedict et al., (Amsterdam, 1999), 185-186.

41 With this in mind, the question may now be posed how did Calvinists view other religious groups? How did their views of others effect their opposition or advocacy of toleration? Additionally, taking into account the varying contexts of the French and

Dutch Reformations, how did the Calvinist experience in the two countries shape their views on other religious groups and the desirability of the tolerance? Did the national contexts cause them to deviate from Calvin’s views? These are difficult questions and will require a thorough examination of the writings of both French and Dutch Calvinists to answer.

42 Chapter 2: Calvinism and Religious Toleration in France 1559-1598

The nature of Calvinist discourse regarding toleration in France is a subject that has not

been studied extensively. Philip Benedict has outlined its development in his contribution

to the collection of essaysTolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation. He

argues that early Calvinist petitions to the monarchy reveal that, in general, Protestants

sought to supplant Catholicism as the sole religion in France in the early 1560s. Their

advocacy of toleration for both Catholics and Protestants only increased after years of

war.124 Unfortunately, Calvinism and toleration is just one part of Benedict’s far-ranging

chapter. This chapter will take a closer look into the changing character of Calvinist

discourse on the desirability of tolerant and peaceful solutions to the religious strife in

France. From an examination of the treatises, petitions, and books published by French

Protestants between the period 1559 and 1598, there is a notable change in tone between

the early 1560s and the years following the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres in 1572. It

appears that after this date, Calvinists were more willing to accept toleration of Catholics.

This change is likely the result of the diminished Protestant confidence of complete

victory in the near future. Nevertheless, some features of Protestant toleration discourse,

such as strong anti-Catholic rhetoric, remained constant throughout the period.

124 Philip Benedict, “Un Roi, une loi, deux fois: Parameters for the history of Catholic-Reformed Co- Existence in France, 1555-1685,” in Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation, eds., Ole Grell and Scribner, (Cambridge, 1996), 69-73.

43 Furthermore, while Catholics became more tolerable in Calvinist discourse, this was not

necessarily true for other groups.

Another question might be posed as well. To what extent did French Calvinist

ideas on toleration conform to Calvin’s? Some idea of Calvin’s relationship with religious toleration has been given in the previous chapter; however it is necessary to expand upon it here. William Bouwsma identifies “the labyrinth,” the corruption of medieval culture and Catholicism in particular, and “the abyss,” new ideas threatening to destabilise society, as the two conflicting anxieties which comprised Calvin’s thought.125

What made these two anxieties so strong in Calvin was his belief that he was living in an

increasingly corrupt world. He wrote “luxury increased daily, lawless passions are inflamed, and human beings continue in their crimes and profligacy more shameless than ever.”126 So far the Lord had been merciful on his children, but if these sins continued, it was only a matter of time before punishment was wrought upon the people of Europe.127

It was because of this fear of disorder, and the imminent punishment of society by God, that Calvin so vehemently berated sins of unrestraint such as drunkenness and fornication. He attacked the Church vigorously since it was supposed to represent Christ on earth, but its clergy were just as sinful as anyone else.128 But, the greatest enemy were the “Epicureans,” irreligious persons who had no goal in life but self-service. Calvin confessed “I am far more worried today by the fury of the Epicureans than of the

125 William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait (New York& Oxford, 1988), 49-50. 126 John Calvin as quoted in Bouwsma,A Sixteenth-Century Portrait, 65. 127 Bouwsma, A Sixteenth-Century Portrait, 65. 122 Bouwsma, A Sixteenth-Century Portrait, 59-61.

44 papists...I cannot but be tortured and anxious when I see this diabolical conspiracy

extinguishing all fear and worship of God, rooting out the remembrance of Christ, or

exposing it to the jeers of the rabble.”129 It was not simply that he detested the actions of

corrupt clergy and “atheists”, but feared that their sin would destroy society as a whole.

The manner in which these ideas affected Calvin’s writings on the situation in

France is evident in the 1536 prefatory address to King Francis I in hisInstitutes o f the

Christian Religion. This address was written in the context of increased persecution of

French Protestants following the Affair of the Placards and the Anabaptist takeover of the

German city of Mtlnster both in 1534. Alister McGrath has argued that the purpose of the

Institutes was in fact to refute the rumours that French Protestants were seditious religious fanatics, comparable to the Anabaptists of Mtlnster.130 Whatever the case,

Calvin’s concern with the corruption of Roman Catholicism and the destabilisation caused by new ideas is clear. After a brief defence of Protestant doctrine, Calvin turns to

“our adversaries,” that is the Roman Catholic clergy. The clergy are not motivated by any zeal for the Gospel as are the Protestants. Instead, they care not what a person believes provided “he submits to the judgement of the church.” Why then do they fight so fiercely for the mass? In a damning interpretation of their motives Calvin declares it is because

“their belly is their God, and their kitchen their religion.”131 He thus portrays the clergy

129 Calvin as quoted in Bouwsma,A Sixteenth-Century Portrait, 64-65. 130 Alister E. McGrath, A Life o f John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping o f Western Culture (Cambridge, Mass., 1990), 76-77. 131 John Calvin,Institutes o f the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody, Mass., 2008), xxiii.

45 as corrupt, self-serving, and irreligious in comparison with the Bible-following

Protestants.

On the other hand, Calvin has harsh words for those who take Christian liberty

too far. In response to various Catholic criticisms of the French evangelical movement,

he addresses their concern that the preaching of their doctrine causes disorder. He does

not deny that the Reformation has caused disorder, but the reason behind this is not the

reformers’ doctrine itself, but Satan’s reaction to it. “It is one of the characteristics of the

divine word, that whenever it appears, Satan ceases to slumber and sleep.” There has

been no religious discord in Europe for so long because it has been wallowing in

ignorance. However, now with the revival of the truth, Satan is using whatever means he can to stop this spiritual enlightenment. Calvin identifies one of Satan’s instruments as the inquisition, but it has failed to put an end to the truth. Realising it to be ineffective,

Satan then “turned to snares, exciting dissensions and disputes about doctrine by means of his Catabaptists, and other portentous miscreants, that he might thus obscure, and, at length, extinguish the truth.”132 Calvin thus considers the Anabaptists to be his opponents as much as the Catholics, since they had gone too far in their Christian liberty, and had done a disservice to the Reformation by corrupting and confusing its doctrine. Calvin thus sought to strike a balance between the extremes of conservative Catholicism, and the novelty of Anabaptism.

132 Calvin,Institutes, xxxi. A “Catabaptist” is one who is opposed to baptism, or especially infant baptism. It is basically synonymous with Anabaptist, which is one who re-baptises.

46 This combative language did not necessarily make Calvin a militant however.

Sebastian Castellio, in his Concerning Heretics, used quotations from Calvin to support his anti-persecution stance. In it, he quotes Calvin from Chapter II ofInstitutes the as

saying that one should seek to bring excommunicated Christians back into the faith by means of “teaching, clemency, and mildness.” Additionally “Turks and the Saracens and other enemies of the true religion” should be engaged in similar peaceable dialogue in order to bring them into the faith. Calvin continues: “Far be it that we should approve of the means which many have employed hitherto to force them to our faith by denying them fire and the common elements and all the offices of humanity and persecuting them with the sword and arms.”133 Furthermore, when it was suggested that Geneva should support the Conspiracy of Amboise, an attempt by several Huguenot nobles to seize the person of the king to save him from the counsel of the Catholic Guises, Calvin was adamant that the French Reformed avoid engaging themselves in such intrigue, and exhorted them to endure persecution as part of God’s plan.134 Thus, Calvin’s views on toleration and the desirability of peaceful solutions to religious differences range from his support of the IS S3 execution of Michael Servetus to the admonitions of friendly dialogue towards lapsed Christians, and even Muslims. Indeed, one historian has termed

133 Sebastian Castellio, Concerning Heretics whether they are to be persecuted and how they are to be treated: A collection o f the opinions o f learned men both ancient and trans. modern, Robert H. Bainton (New York, 1965), 203. 134 Robert M. Kingdon, Geneva and the Coming o fthe Wars o fReligion in France, 1555-1563 (Genive, 1956), 68-71; Sara Baiiker, Protestantism, Poetry, and Protest: The Vernacular Writings o f Antoine de Chandieu (c. 1534-1591) (Surrey, England, 2009), 87-88.

47 Calvin an “enigma.”135 It is no surprise then that the Huguenot writers approached the

issue of religious tolerance in a variety of ways and were shaped considerably by the

context in which they wrote.

The Conspiracy of Amboise, the Colloquy of Poissy, and the First Civil Wars: 1559-

1572

Calvin’s doubts about the Conspiracy of Amboise were justified, as the plot was foiled in

March 1560. Nevertheless, enthusiasm for Calvinism did not wane with this political set­ back. In the early 1560s, Reformed Protestants made up roughly 10% of the population of

France. The nobility were especially attracted to the doctrine, some historians estimating that as much as 40% of the French nobility were Protestant by 1560.136 In the Norman city of Caen, up to 50% of the population were Protestant in the early 1560s. Maryelise

Lament has noted however, that it was in the wealthiest districts where professors, government officials, and merchants resided that the movement was most represented.137

Thus, while the Protestants were a numerical minority nationally, they held a disproportionate amount of power within the kingdom as a consequence of its adoption by many powerful persons. It is in this context of strength in the early 1560s that

Protestant writers vehemently attacked Catholicism and Epicurism, but went much

135 McGrath, Life o f John Calvin, 15. 136 Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History o f Calvinism (New Haven, 2002), 137. 137 Maryelise Suffem Lament, “French Protestants in a Position of Strength: the Early Years of the Reformation in Caen, 1558-1568,” Sixteenth Century Journal (1978),9:3 35-55.

48 further than Calvin and adopted a much more militant stance regarding religious affairs in

the kingdom.

First of all, there are a few common themes in the pamphlets of the 1560s.

Catholic corruption, response to the accusation of novelty, and the frustration that the truth is being suppressed all figure prominently in the pamphlet literature from this period. Arguably the most prominent and consistent of these themes is criticism of

Roman Catholic corruption. The 1561The Manner to Allay the Troubles, whichcare now

in France is a petition to the Queen-Mother Catherine de Medici suggesting some

solutions to the tumult which was engulfing the kingdom. The author argues that the

reason that the monarchy has been unable to ensure peace and stability in the realm is

because many of the powerful want the tumults to continue since through “this darkness

of ignorance they abuse the world at their pleasure.” In an apparent parallel to Calvin, the

author declares that it is the clergy that are especially guilty of this since they have “no other God but their stomach.”138 Even in the preface to the Confession of Faith that the

Reformed Church sent to Francis II in 1560, which, for the most part, humbly requests toleration, the authors do not shy away from strong criticism of Catholicism. The

Catholic Church, they say, is nothing short of a mixture of “superstitions, deceptions, fallacies, and illusions of Satan...the confusion of Babylon was never so great.”139

138 La Maniere d'appasier les troubles, qvisont maintenant en France, Aypourront estre cy apres. Auec m e Harengue d ’vn Prince Chrestien, sur lespoincts de la Religion. A la Royne, Mere (1561), du Roy 4. 139 “Confession de Foy faite d’un commun accord par les Francois, qui ddsirent vivre selon la puretd de l’Evangile de Nostre-Seigneur Jesus-Christ. Et prdsent6e au Roy Francois deuxiesme & Amboise 1560” in

49 In fact, criticism of Catholic corruption is constant in the writings of this period.

However, it is also evident that this rhetoric was a response to persecution.Just The

Complaint o f the Faithful o fFrance is a clear example of the important influence

persecution had on Protestant discourse. The tone of the document is apparent from the

verse on the title page: Psalm 11:6. It reads “Upon the wicked He shall rain snares, fire

and brimstone, and a horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.” 140 The

implication from the title page then is that the persecutors of the truth will face the

punishment of God in due time. The rest of the document paints a picture of innocent

God-fearing Protestants being persecuted by corrupt Roman Catholic clergy who care

little for true religion. The author remarks that Protestants assemble in small groups,

believing in Christ’s statement that where two or three are gathered together in his name,

he will be with them also. The Catholic clergy meanwhile, as soon as they are alerted of the presence of Protestants begin spewing forth “all sorts of slanders and outrages in their

synagogues to their listeners.”141 The term synagogue emphasises the doctrine of

salvation through works of the Old Testament Jews, implying that Catholicism is as false as the Jewish religion, the practice of which had been forbidden in France since the fourteenth century. But the reason the Roman Church is so vehement in its attacks on the

Reformed, according to the author, is because its leaders are afraid. They are not afraid of

M. De Thou, Mimoires de Condi, servants d ’iclaircissement de Preuves a I’Histoire Vol. (Paris: 1 1743), 415. 140 Psalm 11:6 (King James Version). 141 Juste Complainte desfideles de France. Contre leurs adursaires Papistes, & autres. Sur I’qfflication & faux crimes, dont on les charge it grand tort. Ensemble les inconueniens, qui en pourrqyent ftnalement auenir it ceux, qui lew font la guerre (Avignon, 1560), 3-5.

50 doctrinal challenges, of course, since the Bible says Christ will protect his sheep, but

rather being a “gang from Satan” they are afraid that reformation would “interrupt their

Epicurism.” The author then proceeds to list the many sins of unrestraint the clergy

frequently commit.142 The author concludes that the most powerful clergyman in France,

the Cardinal of Lorraine - who is frequently referred to as the “Cardinal Epicurien” - and

all of his followers in the French clergy and nobility will be punished for their “tyranny

and cruelty” just as Pharaoh and the Egyptians were punished in their day for their

oppression of Israel.143 Thus, vengeance against Catholic persecutors played an important

role in the formation of Reformed writings about Catholicism.

One of the chief accusations Catholics used against Protestants was that their

doctrine was new and that they were thus the cause of disorder. Like Calvin, the French

Reformed detested novelty and disorder and as a result they took this accusation

seriously. However, they did not simply claim that their doctrine was not new, but that it was instead the Roman Catholic Church that had created new doctrine and was therefore the source of the disorder.The Manner provides a good example of the sort of rhetoric that was often used. In discussing the lies that the corrupt Catholic clergy tell monarchs to dissuade them from reforming the church, the author mentions the charge that “new doctrine” is causing nothing but discord where there formerly was unity. The monarchy, the Catholics argue, should punish the Protestants for being “irreligious” and “seditious.”

142 Juste Complainte, 6-9. 143 Juste Complainte, 35-37. Interestingly then, the Protestants identified themselves with the people of Israel, while also identifying Catholic corruption with Judaism.

51 The author turns this argument against the Catholics. Despite Catholic claims that their

doctrine and religious practices come from their predecessors and are supported by

ancient authors, the author ofThe Manner declares that “the doctrine maintained as

catholic in the Papacy, is false in several articles.” Although he does not go into detail

what these articles are, he declares that the ancient texts they use to justify their practices

contradict the Apostles and Prophets themselves. The author then defends the Protestant

position: “we do not want therefore to establish false and new doctrine, but ask that the

ancient and Apostolic be put in place of that false and newly introduced one.”144

Simultaneously, the author refutes Catholic claim to their Apostolic Succession, while

arguing that it is the Protestants who are the true heirs to the Apostles.

The Christian and Defensive Response to certain Calumnious Points Contained in

certain Letters Sent to Bailiffs, Sineschaux, & Lieutenants o f the provides King a similar

example of turning the accusation of novelty against the Roman Catholic Church. The

author, writing some time after the discovery of the Conspiracy of Amboise in March

1S60, defends the Protestant practice of meeting illegally in secret conventicles. He argues that it would not be necessary to meet in secret if the “cruel and ravaging Roman wolves did not make war against them so harshly.” It is the work of Satan that people fear and suppress the truth the way they do. Slanderers have accused the Protestants of being part of a nouvelle“ institution de Secte” which is simply a misunderstanding since the

Protestants are in fact not a new sect, but the followers of the Patriarchs, Prophets,

144 La Martiere, 5.

52 Apostles, Evangelists and Martyrs. This fact would be made apparent by a “holy and free

council” which would quickly show “which Church is the more ancient, that of Jesus-

Christ which began at least a thousand five hundred and thirty years ago, or that of the

Pope, which had its beginning long after the deaths of the Holy Apostles.”145 To the

author of this pamphlet, it is simply an easily correctable misunderstanding that the

Protestants seek to establish a new sect, when it is really the Roman Catholics who have

created a new doctrine.

So far it would appear that Calvinist discourse in France in the early 1560s conformed closely to that of Calvin. Calvinist writers ranted against the corruption of the medieval church, the disorder caused by Epicurism, and the dangers of novelty. But it was in their perceived necessity to defend themselves against being misunderstood that they went much further than Calvin and adopted a more militant, and therefore more intolerant, approach to bringing about reformation. The French Protestants of this period were strongly convinced of the truth of their doctrine. They believed that if they could simply demonstrate to the French public that their doctrines were consistent with

Scripture, the country would abandon its Catholic superstitions and willingly start on the path to reform. This is the purpose the French Reformed Church had in mind when they sent their Confession of Faith to Francis II in 1560. In their preface the Reformed supplicate the king to read carefully their confession, since it will prove defence enough

145 Response Chrestienne & diffensrve sus aucuns poincts calomnieux contenus en certains Lettres envoyies aux Baillifs, Sineschaux, & Lieutenans du (1560?), Roy in M. De Thou, Mimoires de Condi, servants d'iclaircissement de Preuves a VHistoire Vol. (Paris: I 1743), 375-377.

53 against the slanderous lies of their opponents. This is because in it there will be “nothing which is adverse to the Word of God, nor the homage to you that is our duty.”146 The point the Reformed are trying to make here, is that the Protestants, contrary to Catholic

lies, are both heirs to the early church, and loyal subjects of the king.

On the one hand, the confidence of the truth of Protestantism often led the

Protestants to encourage authorities to merely tolerate them. The author ofJust the

Complaint supplicates any magistrate, whether he be a king, lord, judge, or pr6vdt, who is willing to listen, to cease the persecution against the Protestants. He argues that the books, confessions, and statements of martyrs demonstrate that the Protestants simply desire that freedom be accorded to them so that they and their posterity may worship God as they please.147 They also request an “open and free council” where the reformation of the Church might be debated without fear of persecution. A council would reform the corruption of doctrine and practice, which is what so disturbs the Protestants.148

This theme of a reforming council is a common one in the literature of this period and is reflective of the confidence in the impending triumph of truth over ignorance which the Calvinists held. The belief expressed in theChristian Response that a council would prove the validity of Protestantism as more in line with the early Church has

146 “Confession de Foy faite d’un commun accord par les Francois, qui d&irent vivre selon la puretg de l’Evangile de Nostre-Seigneur Jesus-Christ. Et pr£sent6e au Roy Francois deuxiesme & Amboise 1560” in M. De Thou, Mimoires de Condi, servants d'iclaircissement de Preuves it I’Histoire Vol. (Paris: 1 1743), 419-421. It is also worth noting here that the authors of the preface take this opportunity to show that they practice the most ancient form of Christianity, compared to that of the Catholics who have introduced “new Commandemnts, and new form of Service of God.” 147 Juste Complainte, 24. ,4* Juste Complainte,25- 26.

54 already been noted. A similar argument is made in theHarangue o f a Christian Prince on

Points o f Religion. Although the author does not identify himself as a Protestant, this

short pamphlet was published with the militantly ProtestantThe Manner and the

argument of the author implies that it was written by a Protestant posing as a Catholic.149

The author argues that while it is important to resolve religious differences, it is

necessary to use “all mildness and benignity” to encourage those in error to receive

proper instruction and there is nothing more contrary to this purpose than “force and

violence.” This persecution has only caused the Protestants to grow in number since

“conscience is of such a nature that it cannot be forced: but must be taught.” One cannot

do this by referring to ancient councils since these newEvangelistes “ ” are not

Manicheans or Arians, but rather their difference from Roman Catholicism arises from their desire to see the modem Church reformed along the lines of the primitive church.

What must be done, to avoid calamity in the realm is to “put an end to the past persecutions” and resolve the differences through a “good council, not taking offence against said Evangelistes.,,m Unity of religion is indeed desirable, but it should be pursued peacefully is the argument put forward here. Once tolerated, the Calvinists would then be able to demonstrate the righteousness of their doctrine, and then reform the church.

149 Philippe Duplessis-Momay would use the same tactic of posing as a Catholic inRemonstance his aux esats pour la Paix in 1576. See below. 150 Harengve d ’un Prince chrestien sur lespoincts de la Religion, 26-28.

55 On the other hand, this confidence in the truth of the Calvinist cause also led to

more than advocacy for mere toleration. More militant ideas are also commonly

expressed in Calvinist pamphlets of this period. AlthoughJust the Complaint claims that the Reformed only want to be tolerated, it also encourages the seizure of churches for

Calvinist services to proclaim to the public that the Protestants do indeed teach the truth.151 The Manner also suggests that a council would solve the troubles engulfing the realm, but goes much further than many other pamphlets in outlining how it would do so.

The author takes the premise that justice ultimately comes from God, and thus it is “sin which opens the coffers of God to send all miseries.” To overcome the problems in

France it is necessary to curb the increasing sins in the kingdom, and while the monarchy cannot regulate the sins of individuals, it can remedy “general sins” which provoke God’s anger against the entire nation.152 After describing the corruption and abuses of the

Roman Church, the author concludes that in order to please God, and receive his blessing upon the nation, it is necessary that “his word be put back in honour, and that everything which is contrary be abolished.”153 To achieve this, the author suggests a council where religious leaders and respectable and wise men assemble and discuss the reformation of the Church according to the Bible. If learned and respectable men are present, and the truth of Scripture followed, “many things held in the Papist Religion will be changed in

France.” With a purified church, the question of what is to be done with the corrupt out-

151 Juste Complainte, 18-21. 152 La Maniere, 1-3. 153 La Maniere, 6 .

56 of-work clergy and their ill-gotten wealth will arise. The author suggests that the money

can be used to help the poor, and pay the new pastors. The corrupt clergy could be

pressed into the army, where they would be well employed as soldiers.

The author does not stop there however. Once the church is well-ordered it will

then be necessary to continue the reformation and bring order to society by driving out all

“blasphemies, peijuries, and irreverent opinions.” Indeed, all “Epicureans, contempters of

God...Magicians and fortune tellers” must be driven from the kingdom because “God wants such people to be exterminated.”154 For some Protestants then, a council would not

simply peacefully resolve the differences between Catholic and Protestant, but complete the reformation of the country along Calvinist lines with little mercy being shown to any religious deviance. Thus, while advocacy for a council may at first appear to be a peaceful and tolerant solution to the religious differences between Protestant and

Catholic, its purpose in the French Calvinist mind was to bring about the ultimate victory of Calvinism, to do away with the intolerable abuses in the Roman Catholic Church, and begin a campaign against inreligion and superstition in the kingdom.

Furthermore, support for the Conspiracy of Amboise also demonstrated that at least some of the French Reformed in this period supported active resistance to persecution even if Calvin discouraged it.The Manner, apart from its radical reform agenda, also defended the Conspiracy of Amboise against Catholic detractors. Catholics argued that such a conspiracy to rise up against the king was the natural “fruit” of

i

154 La Maniere, 18-22.

57 Protestant secret assemblies. The author replies that it was not against the king that the

Conspiracy was directed, but against his evil Guise councillors led by the Cardinal of

Lorraine.155 The Christian Response develops this argument in greater detail. The author

begins by stating that everyone in the kingdom knows that it is not the underage King

Francis II who rules, but rather the “tyranny” of the Cardinal of Lorraine and the Guises.

The rest of the pamphlet is concerned with defending Protestant involvement in the

Conspiracy of Amboise, and what needs to be done for the pacification of the kingdom

(not surprisingly, the author suggests a council which would restore Biblical

Christianity). The author defends the right of the subjects of the king to bear arms, not against the person of the monarch of course, but instead for the defence of their “natural

Prince when he is oppressed, for the conservation of the law, and to guard the peace.”

This was the case at Amboise, the author argues, since the king was being ruled by the

Guises. Additionally, rebellion against tyrannical advisors is even more justified when the issue of religion is at stake. The Cardinal of Lorraine and his family by means of their false doctrine force the French people to “completely forget God, to follow any idolatry, superstition & error that they please.” He continues: “What danger is there then to take up arms, to deliver an infinity of people out of the grasp of Satan, by way of the death of those satellites of the Antichrist, which violently prevent it, that the will of God be known, his Word proclaimed, and the sole Saviour of the world recognised as he

155 La Maniere, 14- 15 .

58 must?”156 It would appear then that while most French Calvinists were seeking to reform

all of France, there was a division between those following Calvin who sought a peaceful

reformation and those willing to take up arms in the cause of reformation.

At any rate, the French Calvinists were eager for a council where they might

proclaim their views. There was evidently a great confidence that once they had

publically demonstrated that their doctrine was consistent with Scripture and the practices

of the early church the reformation would begin. The Protestants would get their

opportunity to present their case at the Council of Poissy in 1561 organised by the Queen

Mother and her chancellor Michel L’Hopital. Needless to say, the Council was an

ultimate failure ending in October 1561 after months of fruitless discussions. Out of this

failure, Mario Turchetti has identified two conflicting concepts of concord and tolerance which would dominate French politics for the rest of the century. Concord he defines as the goal of seeking to end religious conflict through unification, either through compromise or force if necessary.157 Poissy was thus a failed attempt at finding concord.

L’Hdpital, now realising that reunification was an impossible goal, adjusted his position.

He became a supporter of toleration: the permission of two religions to worship as they will within the state for the purposes of peace, at least temporarily until concord could be

156 “Response Chrestienne,” 365-366. 157 Mario Turchetti, “Religious Concord and Political Tolerance in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century France” in Sixteenth Century Journal 22:1 (Spring 1991), 17,24.

59 found.158 The result of this change of policy was the Edict of St. Germain, granting legal

toleration to the Huguenots in January 1562. Thus began the battle between concord and

toleration which would define the French Wars of Religion.

The edict in fact did exactly the opposite of its intention and ignited a war after the Duke of Guise massacred a group of Protestants worshipping in the town of Vassy. It

is difficult to determine what Protestants thought of the Edict of St. Germain, or the Edict

of January as it is commonly known.159 What is certain, however, is that they were

prepared for war when it came. Robert M. Kingdon argues that Huguenot mobilisation

actually started before the massacre at Vassy. This mobilisation was carried out by the

French Reformed churches on a local level. In November 1560, the Guyenne Provincial

Synod of Clairac ordered the province’s churches to begin organising “military cadres.”

This was completed by November of the following year.160 Benedict has suggested that armed bands hired by the Calvinists may have originally been organised as a means of

self-defence when pastors began preaching in public. Even so, the actions of these armed cadres soon demonstrated that they could be used for more than self defence, as they were reported to have engaged in iconoclasm and pillaging in southern France in 1560.161

Thus, by 1562 when the leading Protestant noble Louis de Bourbon, Prince de Cond6

158 Turchetti, “Concord & Tolerance,” 18; Mario Turchetti, “Middle Parties in France during the Wars of Religion” in Reformation, Revolt, and Civil War in France and the Netherlands 1555-1585, eds. Philip Benedict, Guido Mamef, Henk van Nierop, Marc Venard (Amsterdam, 1999), 167. 159 Philip Benedict has argued that the Huguenots, like their Catholic opponents, were unhappy with toleration. However, his evidence is drawn frombefore the publication of the edict so it remains difficult to decipher what Protestants thought of it after the fact. Benedict, “Un Roi, Une Loi, deux Fois,” 70-71. 160 Kingdon, Geneva and the Coming, 109. 161 Philip Benedict, “The Dynamics of Protestant Militancy: France, 1555-1563” in Reformation, Revolt, and Civil War in France and the Netherlands 1555-1585, eds., Benedict et al., (Amsterdam, 1999), 45.

60 began mobilising forces against the Guises, he had a considerable military force

organised by the Reformed Church upon which to draw. At this point at least, the

Protestant movement, including even the clergy, was militant in defence of the true

church even before immediate threats had manifested themselves.

The first war ended with the Edict of Amboise in 1563. Although this edict was

not as generous as the first one, the Huguenots largely acquiesced to its provisions and

the kingdom was pacified until 1567. At least some of the Reformed seem to have

accepted religious toleration as a necessary measure since concord would not be found

through war. The popular pastor Pierre Viret gives some idea of Protestant thinking in

this period in an excerpt from his 1564Interim Made by Dialogues. He writes:

It is true that the faithful would prefer that there was no such interim measure, which gives idolaters and the superstitious license and liberty to live entirely as they please, and that they would wish instead that all were well united in the true religion. But since this cannot be obtained at once, and since they know that idolaters and the superstitious cannot be attracted by force but must be won over by good doctrine and good example, they are content to wait and put up with the situation with mildness and good will.162

Although complete reformation remained the ultimate objective, it was better to live in peace with Catholics than resort to armed conflict.

In the meantime the Calvinists were not idle. With the new doctrine known throughout the kingdom, and churches established in almost every region, the leadership of the movement turned towards consolidation. Contrary to earlier scholarship, Philip

162 Pierre Viret, as quoted in Turchetti, “Middle Parties,” 171-172.

61 Conner has noted that the Reformed Churches in France did not conform to the Genevan

model of Church governance in the early 1560s, and in fact adapted according to local

conditions.163 The church in Le Mans, for example, instead of instituting one consistoiy

of elders and deacons created two: one of so-calledsurveillans who regulated morality of the church members, and the other of electedsenieurs who dealt with the political affairs

of the church. This gave the laymen significantly more power than they would have had

following the Genevan, or presbyterian, model of church governance.164 Geneva and the pastors were aware of the variations in church governance across the kingdom, but in the early years tolerated it since they were pre-occupied with establishing new churches and then fighting the first civil war. 1564 brought them an opportunity to promote a narrower form of orthodoxy in the kingdom’s churches, and attempt to solidify a national movement.

The French Confession of 1559 already outlined the Genevan model of church governance and discipline as the official practice of the French Reformed Church. The church government was based on regional, provincial, and national synods to decide matters relating to doctrine and politics. At the individual church level, a method of co­ optation, in which the outgoing pastors, elders, and deacons would select the new

163 Philip Conner, “Huguenot Identities During the Wars of Religion: The Churches of Le Mans and Montauban Compared,”Journal o f Ecclesiastic History 54:1 (2003), 24. 164 Conner, “Huguenot Identities,” 27-29.

62 consistory, leaving the laymen with little say in who led the church.16S French nobleman

and active Reformed layman Jean de Morgly challenged this model in hisTreatise on

Christian Discipline and Order published in 1562. In the treatise, Mordly used extensive

Scriptural quotations to argue in favour of a more democratic ecclesiastical order in which local congregations would elect their pastors and assist in regulating morality.

Even the power of excommunication was given to the entire body of the congregation.166

His views were quickly condemned, and he was excommunicated in Geneva. He fled to

Paris where he was reconciled temporarily with the Reformed Church there. However, he would not sufficiently apologise to Geneva for the disturbance he caused, or publish a corrected version of his critique as he promised. The fifth National Synod in Paris in

1565 permanently condemned Moray’s work and charged one of Moray’s chief adversaries, the Genevan trained pastor Antoine de Chandieu, to publish a refutation of the Treatise on Christian discipline.167

Chandieu published The Confirmation o f Ecclesiastical Discipline in 1566 and it remains an excellent example of the concerns of the French Reformed clergy during the years of peace between 1563 and 1567. His work refutes the arguments of four opponents: those who do not want any discipline, those who prefer that of the Roman

Church in the selection of ministers, those who claim to be ministers but are not

165 Robert M. Kingdon, Geneva and the Consolidation o f the French Protestant Movement, 1564-1572: A Contribution to the History o f Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, and Calvinist Resistance Theory (Madison, 1967), 37-42. 166 Kingdon, Consolidation, 50-56. Additionally, Mordly was “suspicious” of larger councils such as provincial and national synods. 67 Kingdon, Consolidation, 63-73.

63 “legitimately called,” and finally, those who argue that Calvinist discipline is inconsistent

with that of Scripture. The first two opponents are the same as those in earlier Reformed

writings. The first group simply opposes anything that is “contrary to their licence and

abandon.” They claim that the Gospel is regulation enough. Chandieu criticises this view

since discipline is an important part of the doctrine of the Gospel. They simply use the

Gospel as a cloak for their unrestraint.168 These opponents were the familiar “atheists,” or

more accurately, the Epicureans, those who behaved with no reverence of God. Against

the Catholic criticism that Protestant pastors do not have the Apostolic succession of

Roman Catholic clergy, and are therefore promoting new doctrine, Chandieu argues that

the Protestants are actually the true successors. Succession is actually based on

continuation of the practices of the early church, which the Roman Church has

abandoned.169 In this period of peace the old opponents of corrupt Catholicism and

unrestrained behaviour remained important.170

However, the focus of this work is obviously elsewhere. The first two opponents

receive 16 and 26 pages of discussion respectively. The next two, dealing with internal

adversaries receive 26 and 160 pages of discussion. The weight of Chandieu’s argument

is obviously directed towards dissention within the Reformed movement.171 Those

168 Antoine de Chandieu, La Confirmation de la discipline ecclesiatique, obseruee es eglises reformees du rovaume de France, avec la response aux objections proposies d I ’encontre (1566), 5-7. 16 Chandieu, Confirmation, 15-35. 170 1566 was, after all, the year of the Nicole Obry exorcism which started an intense Catholic proselytizing campaign to convince Protestants that God supported Catholicism. See Sarah Ferber,Demonic Possession and Exorcism in Early Modern France (London & New York, 2004), 3-6. 171 Barker, Antoine de Chandieu, 201-202.

64 pastors which are not “legitimately called” need not be “received or listened to” since they have disobeyed God. Chandieu argues, following Ephesians 4:11, that God has given differing gifts to different believers. God made these distinctions because he intended certain people to fulfill certain roles.172 Chandieu warns the faithful to be wary of these false prophets, and not to be “too desirous of novelty” that they fall prey to their teachings.173 Chandieu’s target here is unorthodox preachers and teachers, such as

Mordly, who challenged the accepted points of Calvinism. Certainly they may appear to preach good doctrine, but they can only hide for so long that they in fact seek to provoke division amongst the faithful.174 In fact, there had always been divisions in the French

Reformed movement. These divisions were indeed hidden, or at least ignored, in the years of expansion and civil war, but when Mor61y highlighted them in peacetime, orthodox Calvinists used the opportunity to promote their views across the kingdom’s churches.

The final section of Chandieu’s argument is the one most directed at Mor61y, yet it does not mention his name once, although his book is mentioned.175 Chandieu begins by stating that the doctrines of the“Discipline and Order o f the Church” are indeed appealing since “new things are normally pleasing” but the Devil uses such schemes to lead the faithful astray.176 From the beginning of his argument then, Chandieu associates

172 Chandieu, Confirmation, 41-43. 173 Chandieu, Confirmation, 59-62. 174 Chandieu, Confirmation, 62. 175 Barker, Antoine de Chandieu, 201. 176 Chandieu, Confirmation, 69.

65 Moray’s work with the dangers of novelty and the schemes of the Devil. Chandieu then

continues by demonstrating the orthodoxy of his own view. First he points out that the

discipline observed in the French Reformed Church was not “drawn up according to the taste of one man or two: but by the sage advice and judgment of a large and notable

assembly of Ministers of this kingdom... these Ministers having no other goal but the

glory of God, and the edification of his Church.”177 Chandieu’s point here is that the

Reformed doctrine he espouses is not simply his personal interpretation of Scripture, but rather the conclusion of the foremost Protestant clergy in the realm. This is a clear contrast to Mordly’s work which is merely his own interpretation from reading the Bible.

Chandieu continues his exposition of orthodoxy by pointing out that Scripture, contrary to Moray’s opinion, supports Genevan style discipline and church governance. He first shows that the Bible does not support rule by the entire congregation, but rather by a select number of the congregation, along with the pastor, who governs the entire body of the church.178 He moves on to refute the argument that since the Holy Spirit guides all

Christians, then he will guide the entire congregation to make the right choices. Chandieu admits that the Holy Spirit guides all believers, but this direction does not manifest itself equally in everyone, instead imparting different gifts to different people. Thus, some are gifted to be the leaders of the church, and others to perform other roles.179 Additionally, since pastors are called to be the “administrators of the word of God” it is they, not the

177 Chandieu, Confirmation, 70-71. 171 Chandieu, Confirmation, 74-76. 179 Chandieu, Confirmation, 82-83.

66 entire church, which has the authority to excommunicate and censure members.180

Chandieu’s Confirmation thus seeks to demonstrate that it is the presbyterian church

order which is most consistent with the Bible, and with the interpretations of the church

leaders. In the context of tension after the first war, and the uncertainty of Calvinism’s

future in France, Chandieu and other pastors were keen to ensure conformity of

individual churches to the national norm, to pose a united front against external

adversaries.181

Confidence in expansion of the church had somewhat dissipated since the wars began. This led to the consolidation emphasised in Chandieu’sConfirmation. However, the French Calvinists did not travel long on the path of narrowing orthodoxy. War

resumed in 1567, and erupted again in 1569. The controversy with Mor61y continued

during these years, but was forcibly resolved in 1572 with the St. Bartholomew’s Days

Massacres when most of the supporters of Moray’s views were killed.182 After the Edict of Nantes gave the Protestants a semi-permanent tolerance settlement in 1598, some further disputes arose, and the French confession was modified to narrow orthodoxy further. Even so, there would be no schisms as happened in the Netherlands.183 It was in this early period of confidence, when the reformation of the kingdom did not seem to be a

180 Chandieu, Confirmation, 150-152. 181 Barker,Antoine de Chandieu, 199. 182 Kingdon, Consolidation, 122. M oray’s side was particularly devastated because they were less numerous than those favouring the Genevan model. 183 Brian G. Armstrong, “Semper Reformanda: The Case of the French Reformed Church,” in W. Fred Graham, Later Calvinism, 120-138. The fact that the Edict of Nantes provided for the existence of only two confessions within the kingdom prevented Calvinists from becoming as schismatic as their Dutch co­ religionists.

67 distant goal that the Calvinists were noticeably intolerant in their rhetoric. The call to

seize Catholic churches of theJust Complaint or the support of armed rebellion against

persecuting advisors of theChristian Response are examples of the intolerance that this

confidence caused. The Calvinists were sure of the truth of their beliefs, and were at first

convinced that if the population at large, and the monarch especially, knew their doctrine,

it would only be a matter of time before Roman Catholic corruption was abolished. The

same confidence is exhibited when the Calvinists dealt with internal dissent. It was the

model of ecclesiastical government developed in Geneva that was seen as the most

Scriptural. To challenge it was bound to cause controversy. The Calvinists, confident in

seeing the truth triumphant at least within their own church, did not fear this controversy

and were aggressive in their attacks on dissenting opinions. The situation would change

greatly in 1572.

The French Calvinists and Religious Toleration after 1572

Historians have long debated the causes of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres. Mack

Holt has argued that they were a result of the 1570 Peace of St-Germain which provided measures to integrate Huguenots into society which greatly upset many Catholics culminating in the massacre of their Protestant countrymen.184 Nicola Sutherland meanwhile has blamed it on the Huguenot leader Gaspard de Coligny’s campaigning for war in the Netherlands. The only way to avert foreign war was to have him assassinated,

184 Mack P. Holt,The French Wars o f Religion, 1562-1629 (Cambridge, 1995), 77-78.

68 but with the news of the crown assassinating prominent Huguenots, ordinary Catholics

took matters into their own hands and began killing any Protestants they could find.185

Whatever the cause, historians agree that the massacres were a major turning point for the

French Reformed movement. Holt estimates that more than 2,000 Protestants were killed

in Paris, while another 3,000 were massacred in other parts of France. Reformed political

leadership was especially hard hit, but the number of deaths was only the tip of the

iceberg in loss of manpower as many abjured the faith in despair.186 In Rouen for

instance, the grand vicars of the cathedral requested to be relieved of their duties of performing regular services so as to administer the conversions of the Huguenots.187

These mass conversions are reflective of another one of the great effects of the massacres on the French Reformed movement: a distinct change in behaviour and attitudes. Benedict has noted in his study of Rouen that after the massacres the

Protestants lost the confidence which so characterised their behaviour in the 1560s. No longer would there be public Psalm singing, or the open ridicule of Catholic priests and processions which were common before 1572.188 It is not surprising then that Calvinist discourse on tolerance noticeably changed in this period. The French Calvinists felt betrayed by King Charles IX and as a result, they developed a well-articulated resistance theory in this period, as opposed to the blaming of evil advisors which characterised the

1,5 N.M. Sutherland, The Huguenot Struggle for Recognition (New Haven and London, 1980),209-210. 186 Holt, The French Wars o f Religion, 94-96. 1,7 Benedict, Rouen During the Wars o f Religion (Cambridge, 1981), 130. 188 Benedict,Rouen, 147-150.

69 1560s.189 One might think that because of this setback the Protestants would become

more militant than ever against their Catholic countrymen in vengeance. This is

somewhat true in the southern portion of the kingdom, which was dominated by the

Protestants. It is also true that much of the old Calvinist rhetoric against the corruption of

Catholicism continued. Nevertheless, Calvinist authors of this period show a marked

support of toleration for both Protestant and Catholic in the kingdom which was not

present in earlier discourse.

Protestant backing of toleration in post-1572 France comes as a surprise when one

reads the radical political tracts which began to appear in the years after the massacres.

One of the most famous of these is theVindiciae Contra Tyrannos, or theDefence o f

Liberty against Tyrants. It was not published until 1579, but was written sometime

between 1575 and 76. Its authorship is debated with the two most likely candidates being

the statesman Philippe Duplessis-Momay and diplomat Hubert Languet, both French

Protestants.190 Regardless of its authorship, it is certainly a reflection of the effect of the

massacres had on French Reformed political thought. The treatise is representative of the growing “monarchomach” opinion amongst Calvinist circles which saw the monarch not only answerable to God, but also the people he or she governs. The author begins his argument by demonstrating through Old Testament scriptures that a prince’s authority is derived from God, just as a vassal derives his authority from the king in this earthly

189 Holt,The French Wars o f Religion, 97. 190 Hugues Daussy, Les Huguenots et le ro i: le combat politique de Philippe Duplessis-Mornay (1572- 1600) (Genfcve, 2002), 229-254. Daussy presents a strong argument in favour of Momay’s authorship at this point in his book.

70 realm. The king, like his own vassals, can lose his privileges if “he commits felony”

against his lord.191 He commits this “felony” if he exceeds the authority given to him. A

prince is given authority over the “bodies” and earthly possessions of his subjects, while

God has authority over both the bodies and the souls of his subjects. The author writes

“Princes may exact tribute from the bodies and goods of their subjects for the benefit of

the kingdom, but only God may exact tribute from the soul.”192 What the author means

by this is that if a prince commands his subjects to be “Idolaters” or blasphemers, then

disobedience to the king is not only justifiable, but necessary. To obey blasphemous

commands of princes would be adore them as “earthly Gods,” giving unto Caesar that

which “belongs properly and only to God.”193

This is essentially a justification of the civil disobedience Protestants had been

committing in the years of persecution with the addition that a prince forfeits his

authority when his commands contradict God’s. But, the author goes much further than this in this tract and advocates activeresistance to authorities which disobey God. The author cites the example of the instance when the ancient Israelites adopted monarchy to govern themselves. The prophets of ancient Israel, when the king became wicked, beseeched the people not only to continue to follow God, but also to destroy the idols of

191 Vindciae contra tyrannos, a defence o fliberty against tyrants, or, O fthe lawful power o fthe Prince over the people, and o f the people over the Prince (London, 1648), 1-6. Evidently this work, product of the French Wars of Religion would become relevant to the Calvinist Puritans of England during the English Civil War. 192 Vindiciae, 12. 193 Vindiciae, 15,2.

71 Baal and kill his priests.194 Thus, it is moral to resist the king when he breaks his covenant with God, and if as a subject, one is assaulted verbally, one should reply verbally, but if assaulted with arms, then one is to arm oneself against such an attack.195

However, the author observes that if every subject did this on his or her own accord then there would be chaos. Thus, he argues that “Magistrates, which are inferior to the King,” who obtain their authority from the people, must resist the king’s wicked orders on behalf of the people.196 The author then addresses the dilemma of the French Protestants in asking, what is one to do when the king seeks to “abolish the Law of God, or ruin the

Church” and the vast majority of people and inferior magistrates agree with him? He answers that if the minority wishes to “serve the Law of God entirely and inviolably” then the inferior magistrate, regardless of the support for the king nationwide, is to resist the king in the town which is under his authority.197 Indeed, what better use of the power of the sword given by God to magistrates than “that which is taken in hand by the command of a superior for the defence of the Church, and the preservation of the faithful?”198 By examining tracts such as these, it would appear that the French Calvinists became even more militant in their rhetoric and theories than they had been in the 1560s.

The continued publication of theological treatises and books attacking the corruption and novelty of the Roman Catholic Church and its doctrine also seem to

194 Vindiciae, 24-25. 195 Vindiciae, 28. 196 Vindiciae, 28. 197 Vindiciae, 31-33. 19,1 Vindiciae, 42-44.

72 suggest continued militancy on the part of the Calvinists. Antoine de Chandieu, who had

played such an important role in the development of the French Reformed movement,

was forced into permanent exile after 1572. Despite this setback, he continued his

polemic against Catholicism, engaging Jesuit scholars in theological battles in Latin. He

did not forget his homeland, however, and in 1586 he published hisResponse to the

Profession o fFaith o f the Monks o f Bordeaux criticising the corruption of Catholicism in

France.199 Philippe Duplessis-Momay also composed a theological work in 1578 entitled

Treatise on the Church. In his preface dedicated to Henri de Navarre he makes it clear that the purpose of the work is to show the errors of Catholicism and contrast them with the truth of Protestantism. He briefly describes the Pope as the antichrist, and the Papacy as the work of the Devil. It is Navarre who, raised in the truth, has been chosen by the

Lord to overthrow the darkness of Roman Catholicism and allow for the preaching of true

Christianity in France, and all of Europe.200 This sort of language certainly does not give off any sense of diminished confidence, or even desire to compromise with Catholic opponents.

In the body of his treatise, Momay expands on this point. His attack on

Catholicism becomes ever clearer as his argument progresses. He first differentiates between the invisible church (the entire body of believers, both on earth and in heaven) and the visible church, being comprised of those who claim to be Christians on earth,

199 Barker,Chandieu, 244,257. 200 Philippe Duplessis-Momay,Traicte d ’eglise ququel sont disputees lesprincipalles questions, qui esti meues sus ce point en nostre temps (Londres, 1578).

73 including those who are false Christians.201 The visible church is thus divided between

the true Church, commonly known as “pure” or “orthodox” and the others, who do not

truly profess Christ, known as “heretics.”202 How is the true church defined? It is where

one finds charity, faith, the Gospel faithfully preached, and the two sacraments accepted

by Protestants, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, are properly administered.203 Churches that deviate from these marks, and when Christ is no longer recognised as the sole mediator between God and humankind, stray into heresy.204 The “Latin Church” is guilty of straying into heresy since the Word of God, “the one meat that God gave for the daily

food of his children” is in the Catholic Church “buried in the ground” and if through shame it is uncovered, it is “covered in poison.” What is more, he then likens the Roman

Church to a “wife who provokes God to divorce, a mother who feeds her children to the

Devil” and finishes up by boldly declaring that among the “Heretic Churches” which are

“impure in doctrine” the Catholic Church is of the “first degree.”205 The rest of his argument is, for the most part, equally vehement against Catholicism showing that

Momay remained convinced of the truth of Calvinism, the error of Catholicism, and did not lose confidence in the ultimate triumph of his cause.

French Calvinist lawyer Innocent Gentillet, who was also exiled temporarily after

St. Bartholomew’s Day, composed his own treatise in 1578 defending Protestant doctrine

201 Momay,Traicte d ’eglise, 3-4. 202 Momay,Traicte d ’eglise, 13. 203 Momay,Traicte d ’eglise, 16,29. 204 Momay,Traicte d ’eglise, 22-23. 205 Momay, Traicte d ’eglise, 25-27.

74 called Apology, or Defence for the Christians o fFrance, who are o f the Evangelical or

Reformed Religion. It was published in the same year as Duplessis-Momay’sTreatise on

the Church and like that treatise, its prefatory epistle is dedicated to Henri de Navarre who had from his youth “undertaken the defence” of the Reformed Religion.206 Hughes

Daussy has pointed out in his study of the political thought of Momay that after 1577,

Momay saw in Henri de Navarre a potential leader for the Calvinists who might allow for the toleration of Protestants within the kingdom, and then promote their cause throughout

Europe.207 Gentillet apparently shared the same opinion as his prominent co-religionist and hoped that Henri would promote the Reformed cause in the kingdom. The fact that an

English edition of the book quickly followed the French in 1579 also suggests that

Gentillet was fishing for support for the Huguenots abroad as well. It would appear then, like Momay, Gentillet continued the fight for reformation in France, undaunted by the great setback of 1572.

This certainly appears to be the case when reading Gentillet’s argument throughout the book. He continues in his preliminary epistle by comparing France to a sick man who can “neither suffer his disease patiently, nor willingly receive the medicine that should do him good.” This medicine is “reformation,” which most find “too

206 Innocent Gentillet, An Apology or defence for the Christians ofFrounce which are o f the Euangelicall or reformed religion, for the satisfiing o fsuch as wil not liue in peace and concord with them... Written to the king ofNauarre and translated out o f French into English by Sir Jherom Bowes (London, Knight 1579). 207 Daussy, Les Huguenots, 148-151,206-208. In 1577, Henri had a major image problem throughout Protestant Europe since he had forcibly converted to Catholicism in 1572 and only returned to Protestantism after his escape from court in 1576. The faith Momay (and Gentillet) placed in such a man is reflective of the loss of high-profile noble leaders after St. Bartholomew’s Day.

75 irksome” to take, and thus the turmoil which has engulfed France continued.208 He then

begins his the body of his argument by differentiating between two types of Catholics.

There are those who, being lovers of peace above all, live in friendship with their

Protestant neighbours, and attempt to understand them but “tarry the tune” until God has

“enlightened” them to the errors of Catholicism. The other type of Catholic hates the

Reformed, and, led by “unreasonable rumours,” cannot live in peace with them. Because

Gentillet believes that the more moderate former group of Catholics will eventually convert anyway, it is to this latter group that Gentillet writes, in an effort to give them

some understanding of Protestantism before they condemn it209 He therefore sets up three maxims by which to govern his argument: that the purest religion is the one in which God is most honoured, the second that the best doctrine is the one founded upon

Scripture and is therefore the oldest, and finally that Roman Catholics cannot condemn a doctrine as heresy if it is approved in their own Canon Law.210 This last point is what makes Gentillet’s Apology a unique work. He proceeds to examine various disagreements between Protestants and Catholics, and using these three maxims, demonstrates that

Protestant doctrine is superior. For example, when discussing the means by which humankind is saved, Gentillet contrasts the Catholic position of salvation by works with the Protestant position of salvation by faith through grace alone. The Catholic view does not honour God as much as the Protestant one because it implies that God’s sacrifice was

m Gentillet, Apology. 209 Gentillet, Apology, 1-2. 210 Gentillet, Apology, 7.

76 insufficient for humanity’s salvation. He then points to Romans 3:20-23 to show that

Scripture supports the Protestant view.211 Turning to Canon Law he quotes Cyprian that

there is no true grace, “saving that which commeth by faith” and Augustine: “men’s sins

are forgiven by the holy Spirit, which he [the Lord] has given to the faithful, and not by

their own merits.”212 Gentillet concludes hisApology by arguing that if a Catholic

rationally reads it the whole way through, he or she must change their opinion of

Protestants since their doctrine is neither wicked, heretical, nor new. With this

knowledge, Gentillet hopes that “it may be a just occasion for them...to incline to live

henceforth in peace and concord” with their Protestant neighbours.213

Gentillet’s argument thus features some of the same confidence exhibited in

earlier French Calvinist writings that the truth of their doctrine will triumph over the

corruption of Catholicism. Complete reformation of the kingdom remained the goal. But, there is also an added element: a desire for peace between Catholic and Protestant above all. Gentillet recognises promotion of Protestantism and interconfessional peace to be the dual objectives of his work. He argues in his conclusion that if Catholics cannot learn to

live in peace with their Protestant neighbours, France “will not only run wholly to ruin, but also come to utter undoing and destruction” which is always the result of continued

211 Gentillet, Apology, 18; Rom. 3:20-23 (KJV), “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Eve the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” 212 Gentillet, Apology, 21-22. 213 Gentillet, Apology, 131.

77 civil wars.214 However, he does not simply advocate peace between the two sects solely

for the sake of saving the realm. Earlier in his apology he is keen to point out the

similarities between Catholic and Protestant. They both accept the doctrine of the Trinity,

that Christ was both human and divine, and that Holy Scripture is comprised of both the

Old and New Testaments. He concludes that both Catholics and Protestants are thus

Christians “howbeit the one more aptly than the other.”215

The importance Gentillet places on the recognition of both Protestants and

Catholics as Christians is demonstrated in his most famous work, the 1576Discourse on

the Means o f Well Governing, more commonly known as theAnti-Machiavel. The book

is a series of refutations of various maxims from Niccold Machiavelli’sThe Prince. In responding to Machiavelli’s alleged assertion that paganism is superior to Christianity,

Gentillet poses the question: “What religion ought to be accounted Christian, whether the

Catholic or Reformed?” He answers “we ought not to make two of them, and that it is but one and the same Religion.” The differences between them are minor, and largely not understood by ordinary Catholic and Protestant believers.216 Nevertheless, in spite of this written recognition of Roman Catholicism as Christian, Gentillet still considers

Protestantism to be the true way, and a result hopes that Catholic readers of his work will

214 Gentillet, Apology, 131 -132. 215 Gentillet, Apology, 1. 216 Innocent Gentillet, A Discovrse vpon the Meanesw oel f governing and maintaining in good peace, a kingdome, or other principalitie. Divided into three parts, namely, the Counsell, the Religion, and the Police which a Prince ought to hold and follow. Against Nicholas Machiavell the Florentine trans. Simon Patericke (London, 1602), 80-83.

78 realise that they have a “soul to save” and accept the truth of Protestant doctrine, the

“doctrine of Christ.”217

Gentillet’s argument for toleration is thus notable for several traits. First, that

peace between Protestant and Catholic is necessary since the only other option is

continued civil war which will destroy the kingdom that they both hold dear. Second, that peaceful co-existence between Protestant and Catholic is desirable because, while they have certain differences in belief, they are both to be considered Christian because they agree upon the essential points of the religion. Finally, that while such a peace between

Christians is desirable, it is not the best solution. Reformation of the entire realm is still the objective of the Calvinists; the method of doing so has changed. These same themes are also present in the works of other Calvinist authors in this period.

Duplessis-Momay’sTreatise on the Church, for all of its vehemence against the corruption of Catholicism, also recognises that ordinary Catholic believers can be sincere

Christians as well. Momay notes the great “difference between the people adhering to the

Roman Church, and the faction of the Antichrist [the Pope]...We say that in this poor people, who have been abused such a long time under the darkness of the Antichrist, are a portion of the body of the visible Church.”218 Momay’sRemonstrance to the Estates for

Peace published in 1576 makes a similar argument. The purpose of the work is to encourage the representatives of the Estates General assembled at Blois to maintain peace

217 Gentillet, Apology, 132. 211 Momay,Traicte de I ’eglise, 228.

79 in the realm amid calls for a renewal of war against the Protestants. Taking on the guise

of a Catholic nobleman, Momay attempts to show that a good Catholic should not desire the renewal of war. One of the main arguments in favour of renewed war was that two

religions could not be permitted to exist within one kingdom. Momay replies that this is not an issue since “there is naught but one, following which God is served in everything and everywhere.”219 What separates the two parties is that the Protestants, seeing many abuses in the Roman Catholic Church, decide according to their conscience that they must leave that church. Catholics too recognise that these abuses exist, but following their consciences decide to wait within the church for reformation to come.220 Peace between Christians who disagree in this way is quite possible according to Momay, and he cites the German experience as an example. Charles V in spite of crushing the

Protestants in the 1540s and 50s, wishing to avoid further fighting and the naissance of new grievances, permitted freedom of religion for the Protestants in the German territories. Since that time “Germany is everywhere peaceful and tranquil, and observes at its ease, the rain of its neighbours.”221 It is therefore evident that Momay had come to accept Catholics as fellow Christians as Gentillet had done. Apparently, the Huguenots began to recognise their enemy in the civil wars as not Catholics in general, but rather a small minority of extremists.

219 Philippe Duplessis-Momay,Remonstcmce aux estats pour la Paix (1576), 6. 220 Momay,Remontrance, 10-11. 221 Momay,Remontrance, 6-8. Momay ignores the fact that the peace in Germany was between Catholics and Lutherans only. Calvinism was not an acceptable form of religion in the Holy Roman Empire, and its existence continued to cause problems into the seventeenth century.

80 Momay’sRemonstrance exhibits the other traits noted in Gentillet’s work above.

It has already been noted that Momay somewhat begrudgingly remarked that the

Germans, in their religious peace, observe the ruin of their neighbours, chief among them

France. Additionally, Momay opens his discourse by comparing France to a sick man

with a malady that must be cured by a wise doctor’s hands (evidently a common theme in

French Calvinist literature both before and after 1572, perhaps reflective of a high

proportion of doctors in the Reformed Church). War causes this malady, and it effects the whole kingdom, all three of the Estates. Thus, if “we desire the Estates, we must embrace peace” otherwise all of society will collapse.222 Nonetheless, he still hopes for Protestant triumph. His recommendation to avoid the war and deal with the Protestants is that Bible- based preaching be increased and that a “free Council” be called, to allow the Protestants to explain their position.223

Did Momay share the same confidence as earlier Calvinists in the effectiveness of councils in bringing about the ultimate victory for the Calvinists? His opinion is revealed in a letter to Henri de Navarre in 1576. When Henri de Navarre’s Catholic wife

Marquerite moved to Nerac in the Protestant region of B6am she found the mass forbidden, and sought the help of her brother the king in having it re-established. Henri meanwhile sought the advice of Momay. Momay replied by first outlining the problems involved. If Henri refused to restore the mass altogether, then the king would have

222 Momay,Remontrance, 5. 223 Momay,Remontrance, 12.

81 grounds to revoke the tolerance of Calvinists in the rest of France. If Henri agreed to his

wife’s demands, then Calvinist support would be lost. What must be done instead is to

call a council inviting the great Catholic and Protestant theologians to a debate in B£am.

If the Pope refuses, then it is obvious he is simply fleeing from the truth. Momay then

argues that the Reformed will win this debate, as they hold the truth, and thus

Catholicism will be defeated.224 Thus, while Momay did advocate toleration for

Catholics, recognising them as fellow Christians and feared the destruction of the state, he continued to press for a Calvinist reformation of the kingdom via religious councils.

The Huguenot soldier Francis de la Noue demonstrated similar opinions in his

lengthy Political and Military Discourses. Published in Geneva in 1587, la Noue wrote this collection of essays whilst in Habsburg captivity in the Netherlands where he had been fighting for William of Orange. In the first discourse he attempts to show that

France, which has until the reign of Henry II been a very profitable and glorious realm, is now heading into a period of chastisement for its sins. Many refuse to believe that such a period of disaster is upon them, so la Noue attempts to “show the fire in the house to those that do not see it.”225 He identifies the problem of discord as one of the major causes for this path of destruction demonstrating through history and the Bible that discord destroys formerly prosperous kingdoms, while concord strengthens them.226

224 Daussy, Huguenots, 186-187. 225 Francois de la Noue, Discours politiques militaires. Publies avec une introduction et des notes par F.E. Sutcliff (Genb\&, 1967), 17-19. 226 La Noue, Discours, 60-86.

82 La Noue places great emphasis on the impending collapse of the realm from the

civil wars. He argues that to remedy the problems, tolerance, both in a political sense, and

on an individual level, is needed by both Catholics and Protestants. What about the

objection that it is impossible for two religions to co-exist in one kingdom since their

disagreements will cause “perpetual contentions?” To this la Noue responds that

Christians in the Roman Empire after Constantine were careful not to persecute Pagans,

Jews, and Arians to avert wars. He quotes Augustine: “He who persecutes is of the Devil, and he who is persecuted is of God.”227 The reason the French, both Protestant and

Catholic, resort so often to violence is the result of their misdirected “zeal” which causes them to consider any contrary opinions to be impious and consequently they abhor such opinions and “those who profess them.” La Noue then argues that zeal is not a bad thing, but that the Christians of France need to look to the Bible to see how to properly direct it.228 Furthermore, la Noue sees no reason why two Christian sects cannot live in harmony with one another. They should not “consider each other as Turks” since both profess the same Saviour, Scriptures, and basic fundamentals of the faith.229 Thus, a

“moderate procedure” should be adopted in religious affairs, and a “national open and free council” be called, without the interference of the Pope, to find “some gentle means” to achieve the Christian union that everyone desires.230

227 La Noue, Discours, 52-54. 221 La Noue, Discours, 88-89. 229 La Noue,Discours, 20. 230 La Noue, Discours, 121-125.

83 La Noue then, like Momay, recognised Catholics as fellow believers and saw

France heading for destruction if a policy of toleration was not adopted. Interestingly,

both of them advocated for a council. Neither the failure of Poissy in 1561, nor the

counter-Reformation conclusions of the Council of Trent in 1563 dampened the spirits of the Protestants to the extent that they considered councils an ineffective means of finding

concord. They still placed their faith in the ultimate victory of Protestantism, in spite of the disasters which had befallen their cause. Many of the prominent Calvinist writers of the post-1572 period thus line up with the second category of “Middle-parties” defined by Mario Turchetti: advocates of toleration who hoped that peace would eventually bring religious concord and the union (with Protestantism triumphing) of the two sects.231

However, to conclude with this is to simplify Calvinist discourse in this period. Although many had come to accept Catholics as fellow Christians, they did not extend the principle of toleration to everyone. Enemies of the faith still remained, and they could not be permitted to defile the state.

The chief opponents for the Calvinists remained atheists and blasphemers. This was not so much atheism in the modem sense, but focused rather on irreligious behaviour. Such behaviour was offensive in and of itself, but post-1572 Calvinists agreed with Calvin that the reason atheism was not to be tolerated was not simply because

Christians found their lack of belief upsetting, but because God hates atheism and

m Turchetti, “Middle Parties,” 170-171.

84 blasphemy to such a degree that punishment will be wrought on the entire nation that tolerates them.

La Noue’s first Discourse is representative of the distaste Calvinists held towards

irreligiosity, both before and after 1572. For la Noue, “God is the author of political govemments...it is he who maintains them in splendour, power, and dignity, up until men, having scom for the laws and corrupted their manners, he comes to deploy his ire upon them, in which follow changes and ruin of monarchies and republics.”232 Thus, the troubles which currently engulf France are the result of God’s punishment of a sinful nation. Afterwards, la Noue, following Calvin’s arguments, identifies three sins which provoke God’s judgement of a nation: impiety, which destroys the conscience, injustice which destroys government, and thendissolution which causes the destruction of normal social relations.233 Tackling first the issue of impiety, he argues that Catholics and

Protestants must stop their fighting because they create three sins of impiety: atheism, blasphemy, and the use of magic. Atheists are dangerous because, without fear of God’s punishment, they live without restraint committing innumerable sins. La Noue argues that the king must purge society of these atheists because they multiply like venomous weeds.234 Furthermore, blasphemy is a form of “lese majesty divine” so if it is widely accepted that the punishment for treason against an earthly king is death, why is France so lenient on those who commit treason against God? Citing Leviticus 24, that

232 La Noue, Discours, 17. 233 La Noue, Discours, 19-20. 234 La Noue, Discours, 20-22.

85 blasphemers were to be stoned to death by the community, la Noue argues that it is a sin

which affects the entire community and should be punished as such.23S Finally, witchcraft

is displeasing to God since it leads others astray from the truth, seeking their own means

of salvation, but condemning themselves through alliance with Satan.236 Thus, the sin of

impiety is not to be tolerated for the sake of society.

The dangers of atheism also figure prominently in Gentillet’sAnti-Machiavel.

Gentillet refutes Machiavelli’s opinion that a prince should seem devout, but not

sincerely believe. This is essentially promotion of atheism, argues Gentillet. Many at

court consider atheists to be “people of service” since they have no scruples about

committing any task assigned to them. “Command them to slay and massacre, they slay

and massacre; command them to rob and spoil good Catholics, and Clergymen, they rob

and spoil all.” They use Machiavelli’s atheist precepts to continue the civil wars. A prince

should be feared, they argue, so he should not seem to give into his subjects’ demands by giving provisions to them in edicts. Furthermore, the king need not keep his promises.

Indeed, Gentillet implies that, instead of the traditional militant Catholic enemy, it was the atheists who were responsible for the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres: “True it is, that if such a peace could be made with them [the atheists], as it might again procure another St. Bartholomew’s day, nothing were so good & pleasant as that.” It is their atheism that makes them so ruthless, since they do not fear God’s punishment for their

235 La Noue, Discours, 24-25. 236 La Noue, Discours, 26-27.

86 sins. But, atheists, apart from being dangerous for their activities, also cause trouble by

their very existence. The entire nation is to blame for the turmoil in the realm, because

they tolerate atheism. Those which “should resist such impieties, lest they should take

root, do suffer them to increase and augment...Therefore most righteously does God

punish us all. For Atheism and impiety is so detestable and abominable before God, that

it never remains unpunished.”237

Thus, whereas Catholics could be considered acceptable within a Christian

society without provoking the ire of the Lord, atheists, practitioners of witchcraft, epicureans, and blasphemers would destroy society through their provocation of God’s anger. But French Calvinists also directed their intolerance towards other targets as well.

Gentillet’s Anti-Machiavel not only attacked Machiavelli on the basis of his atheism, but also criticised him on the basis of his nationality. Gentillet generalised his distaste for

Machiavellian ideas by pointing the finger at Italian immigration as the cause of France’s troubles. He argues that Machiavelli’s ideas had gained wide credence at court, and that since the death of Henry II, France had not been governed in the “French” way, but in the

Machiavellian manner. It was the Italians who brought these foreign ideas and destroy the good French way of governance. Gentilliet asks the nobility why, when seeing France

“tom in sunder by strangers” who “sow Atheism and Impiety” do nothing to stop it. To those who doubt his word, Gentillet poses the question “For are they not Machiavelists,

Italians, or Italianized, which handle and deal with the seals of the kingdom of France? Is

237 Gentillet, Anti-Machiavel, 92-94.

87 it not they also, which draw out and stamp Edicts?”238 Furthermore, although Gentillet

generally refutes Machiavelli’s opinions, there is one exception in the maxim that it is

unwise for a prince to take the advice of strangers. Gentillet wholeheartedly agrees with

Machiavelli on this piece of advice, and entreats the king to expel all Italians from

advisory positions.239 He tries to defend his harsh treatment of Italians by saying that

there are indeed virtuous Italians. But, “as precious stones...are esteemed to be the most

singular, as they are the most rare: so the good and virtuous Italians are so much the more to be praised and commended, because they are rare.”240

This sort of argument likely struck a chord with a large number of people across

France. Henry Heller has noted that anti-Italian sentiment played an important role in the events of sixteenth-century France. Italian merchants, because of their desirable luxury goods began to play a dominant role in the French economy in the early sixteenth century. With French military involvement in Italy, Italian manners, ideas, and political advisors became common-place at the French court. The result was a situation in which a small number of Italians came to dominate the chief political, economic, and ecclesiastical roles in the kingdom.241 Heller argues that Anti-Italianism began in the cosmopolitan trading city of Lyons where Catholic and Calvinist humanists were angered by the Italian cultural influence in the city. It spread from there and played a role in the

Prince of Condi’s 1568Protest o fMonsieur le Prince de Conde in which he justified his

231 Gentillet, Anti-Machiavel, iii-v. 239 Gentillet, Anti-Machiavel, 74-75. 240 Gentillet, Anti-Machiavel, v. 241 Henry Heller,Anti-Italianism in Sixteenth-Century France (Toronto, 2003), 228.

88 rebellion not only on the basis of persecution against the Huguenots, but also claimed it

was to inspire the king to stop the fiscal oppression of the French people by Italian

financiers.242 By the 1570s, the influence of Italians at court, in the church, in finance, and the growing tension rising from the 1560s exploded in an “outburst of anti-Italian xenophobia” directed first against the Italian Catherine de Medici and her advisors, but also against Italians in all sectors of politics and finance. While this xenophobia did not crystallise into an articulate ideology, it did express itself in a flood of anti-Italian discourse 243 Part of the purpose of this discourse, especially for the now weakened

Huguenots, was to unite both French Catholics and Protestants against a common foreign enemy. Heller cites several examples of this including Henri Estienne’sMarvellous

Discourse on the Life, Actions, and Behaviour o f Catherine de Midicis, Queen-Mother and Gentillet’s Anti-Machiavel?** In Heller’s opinion, “Huguenot anti-Italianism served to deflect hostility away from them and toward the foreigners.”245 Considering the way

Gentillet reached out to Catholics in hisApology, this interpretation of the motives of the

Huguenots seems very probable. Intolerance then, could be redirected against undesirable nationalities instead of honest Frenchmen and women who happened to be

Catholic in an effort to bring about unity.

La Noue, in hisDiscourses, also found another target towards which to divert intolerance: Muslims represented by the Ottoman Turks. La Noue thus blends religious

242 Heller, Anti-Italianism, 50. 243 Heller, Anti-Italianism, 115. 244 Heller, Anti-Italianism, 124-134. 245 Heller, Anti-Italianism, 229.

89 intolerance with xenophobia. This enmity towards the Turks arose out of the alliance between France and the Ottoman Empire which began in 1535. La Noue argues that this alliance was one caused by poor advice, and the misguided view that preservation of the

state required whatever means possible. An alliance with “barbarians” is never a good

idea. La Noue then recounts the rise of the Ottoman Empire, attributing its success to its role as God’s instrument of punishment for a sinful Europe.246 What makes the Turks so terrible? First and foremost “their sect (Islam) is very full of impieties and blasphemies against God, against Jesus Christ, and his doctrine.” But in addition to this, their government is the most “horrible and cruel tyranny” that ever was, seeking wherever they may to upset laws, discipline, and honesty. Hence, whenever Christians have allied with them, the Turks have betrayed them.247 In fact, citing the opinions of some theologians, la

Noue argues that the Ottomans are the empire prophesised in Daniel 8 which will emerge from the dust of the four kingdoms of Alexander’s successors and make war against the elect and will have great victories.248 In la Noue’s opinion, the Ottoman Empire is one of the greatest threats to Christianity of his day.

What then is to be done about this threat? Since the Ottoman sultans mean to destroy Christendom, Christendom needs to unite and fight back. La Noue gives a detailed plan of how this is to be done, estimating that it would take only four years to drive the Turks from Europe if all went according to plan. This war would be made not

246 La Noue, D iscours, 418-419. 247 La Noue, Discours, 420. 241 La Noue, Discours, 431.

90 for vengeance of some minor injury, but “to preserve the souls of so many thousands of

people from the mortal infection of the doctrine of Muhammad” and to save the laws,

virtue, wisdom, and discipline of the west from the barbarian horde.249 To undertake a

successful campaign against these barbarians, it will be necessary for all, or at least most,

of Chistendom to unite and take up the cause. For this to be achieved, persons who “have

great authority” will need to accept the task. Interestingly, la Noue argues that the first person that must do this is the Pope. Although often considered the Anti-Christ by

Calvinist writers, la Noue nonetheless admits that the Pope commands much authority, and despite being the head of a corrupt church, if he would simply stop calling on

Catholic princes to “cut the throat of your subjects that do not want to recognise me” and directed his attention to a crusade against the Turks, as his predecessors had done, his instructions would have “much virtue.”250 La Noue continues: “it is a deplorable thing to see those who adore a same Christ” persecute one another “and yet allow these horrible mahumetistes to triumph over countries, lives, and despoil the poor eastern Christians.”

Indeed, la Noue even calls for France to join forces with their long-time Habsburg rivals in this crusade.251 Thus, while war between Catholic and Protestant, or between

Christians, is deplorable, a holy war against Islam embodied in the Ottoman Empire is a just and noble cause for la Noue, and one which could stop civil war between Catholic and Protestant.

249 La Noue,Discours, 440-441. 250 La Noue, Discours, 445-446. 251 La Noue, Discours, 451-453.

91 La Noue’s views were part of a wider anti-Turkish and anti-Islamic trend across

Christian Europe. Daniel Viktus notes that the misperception of the barbarity of Muslims

arose in the Middle Ages from the popular crusade literature and the scholarly attempt to

refute Islam. The distortion of European literature on Islam was not the result of lack of reliable sources, but rather it came from the Christian anxiety of being colonised by an expansionist Islam. These fears were only solidified in the early-modern period as the

Ottomans expanded rapidly in the Balkans and the Mediterranean. This Christian anxiety of being colonised by Islam is what Viktus defines as early-modern Orientalism.252

Initially, Protestant leaders such as Luther rejected the idea of a crusade against the Turks since crusades were part of that corrupt penitential system of the medieval church. But, as the Turks continued their conquest while Christians killed one another in civil wars, anxiety about Muslim conquest set in and many Protestants began advocating for Christian unity against the Turkish invasion. Thus, the writings of La Noue should be viewed alongside those of the Lutheran theologian Philip Melanchton who in 1560 pennedDe Origine imperii Turcoum which laments “We behold the Turkish power being extended over the human race while the kings and other princes of Europe dissipate their strength in domestic warfare.”253 Similarly, in 1574, English diplomat Sir Philip Sydney upon arriving in Vienna as an envoy to Don Juan of Austria, wrote “These civil wars which are wearing out the power of Christendom are opening the way for the Turk to get

252 Daniel J. Viktus, “Early Modem Orientalism: Representations of Islam in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth- Century Europe,” in eds., David R. Blanks & Michael Frassetto,Western Views o f Islam in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Perception o f Other(New York, 1999), 208-210. 253 Viktus, “Early Modem Orientalism,” 212-213.

92 possession of Italy; and if Italy alone were in danger, it would be less a subject for

sorrow, since it is the forge in which the cause of all these ills are wrought.”254 La Noue’s

advocacy of a crusade against the Turks was therefore no voice in the desert, nor was it just an attempt to divert Catholic ire against Muslims instead of Protestants. La Noue,

like Protestants and Catholics across Europe, was genuinely concerned that Christianity was threatened by the powerful rival of Islam.255

After 1572 then, there is a noticeable change in the nature of Calvinist discourse regarding religious toleration and co-existence. Despite the blow to the cause brought about by the massacres, the Calvinists did not lose their confidence in the truth of their doctrine, and the corruption of Catholicism. However, the civil wars had taken a great toll on Calvinist numbers, and this had a major effect on the thought of the remaining faithful. They came to recognise in their writing that Catholicism, while corrupted, was still Christian. Consequently, civil war between not only Frenchmen, but fellow

Christians, became undesirable. The Calvinists still desired complete reformation, but decided it was best to try and bring it about through peace, not through violence.

Nevertheless, while Catholicism could be accepted as a tolerable error, atheism and other forms of irreligion could not, since toleration of these things only provoked God’s anger on the entire nation. Additionally, a new focus was placed on the danger of foreigners,

254 Viktus, “Early Modem Orientalism,” 211. 255 Nevertheless, Viktus also remarks that the call of a crusade was a “rhetorical formula frequently employed but rarely leading to large-scale military mobilization against the Ottomans.” Indeed, Francis Walsingham, a friend and frequent correspondent of La Noue, encouraged Queen Elizabeth to seek an alliance with the Turks against Spain. In this context, no crusade occurred in early modem Europe. Viktus, “Early Modem Orientalism,” 214.

93 and their pernicious ideas. For some Calvinists at least, violence and intolerance was not

condemned as all bad, just so long as it was directed against non-Christians or non-

French people. Indeed, intolerance could even be used as a political tool to unite

Catholics and Protestants against common enemies.

Conclusion

It is at this point apparent that French Calvinist discourse on toleration evolved

significantly over the course of the late sixteenth century. The decisive factor in these changes was the violence brought about by the Wars of Religion. In the years before the first civil war, Calvinism expanded rapidly in spite of persecution. This gave Calvinists a great deal of confidence that they would soon triumph over their Catholic persecutors.

Frequent advocacy for a council and support for seizure of Catholic churches are reflective of their vision that they simply had to promote their doctrine publically to bring about the reformation they thought was so needed. With the failure of the Colloquy of

Poissy, and the first civil war, confidence in the nearness of victory was diminished.

However, Calvinist clergy remained convinced of the truth of their views and turned their attention to the task of combating dissention within the Reformed Church.

A major change was effected by the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres which brought another blow to Calvinist confidence. It resulted in wider acceptance of Catholics as fellow Christians. Catholic corruption did not need to be so urgently purged to save the nation, and instead the Calvinists came to adopt a more tolerant approach to their fellow

Christians. Indeed, the Calvinists needed moderate Catholics as allies against the more zealous Catholics who opposed any sort of toleration. Besides, there were much more

94 dangerous threats to the nation in the form of Machiavellian atheists and the expansionist

Muslim Turks. However, the blow to Calvinist confidence must not be overestimated.

Certainly the Huguenots became committed proponents of religious toleration (at least

for Catholics) after 1572, but they were still confident in their ultimate victory. The

continued frequent encouragement of a free council to debate religious affairs is strong

evidence of the survival of their confidence and desire to reform the French Church along

Calvinist lines.

How do their views on toleration compare with those of Calvin’s? Throughout the period in question the French Reformed shared Calvin’s anxieties of old medieval

corruption and the dangers of new disorders. Like Calvin, the prominence of these anxieties in their writings was greatly influenced by the context of the time and place in which they were written. Certainly their ideas did not always line up with Calvin’s, but the same thought processes that characterised Calvin’s views on religious toleration were used by French Calvinists. However, Calvinism proved to be very adaptable, and as the century wore on, French Calvinist views on toleration adapted to the changing context brought about by continual civil war. To what extent was this process repeated in the

Netherlands is the subject of the next chapter.

95 Chapter 3: Calvinism in a multi-confessional Society: Dutch Calvinists

and Religious Toleration 1566-1609

Like the arguments of their French co-religionists, Dutch Calvinist toleration discourse

greatly evolved over the course of the sixteenth century. The writings of the Dutch

Calvinists in the 1560s and 70s showed a resemblance to the themes in French writings of

the period. They insisted on their loyalty and deference to authority, the importance of

ending religious civil war, and they advocated for a council to unite Christians under one

Bible-based faith. However, the Calvinists in the northern Netherlands encountered a

situation that the Huguenots never did. The Reformed Church, through its alliance with the rebel cause, became the dominant religion in the rebel provinces after 1572. Although the Calvinists now had a favoured political position, they still had to deal with the numerous other religious groups already present within these provinces. Catholics, although politically weaker and less numerous than in France, still persisted in their faith.

Additionally, other religious groups predating the Calvinists, such as the Lutherans and the Anabaptists, were largely unwilling to join the new Reformed Church. This situation had a major impact on Reformed views of toleration. As a number of members of the

Reformed movement sought to bring about further reformation of Dutch society, tensions were created within the church, with magistrates who wanted a more open church, and with other competing religious groups. The Dutch Calvinists thus formed their own views regarding toleration based on their own particular political circumstances. However, amongst Dutch Calvinists there always existed a diversity of opinion regarding religious toleration. It is useful to remember here that in the 1540s, Evangelicals turned only

96 reluctantly to Calvinism in their desire to preserve orthodox Protestantism in the face of

the growing popularity of Spiritualism.256 The result was a division between moderates

favouring an incremental peaceful reformation, and militants who sought a faster route to

reformation, even if this resulted in civil disobedience, violence, or intolerance.

Before outlining the development of Calvinist tolerance discourse in more detail,

some explanation is necessary regarding the time frame. The period between 1566 and

1609 has been chosen because it is most comparable to the period of the French Wars of

Religion which was the focus of the last chapter. In both cases civil war along

confessional lines was ongoing while the pamphlets under study were written.

Additionally, 1609 was chosen as the end date not only because that is the year in which

Spain and the United Provinces signed a truce, but it was also when the Remonstrant

controversy ignited, resulting in a massive growth of pamphlet literature. It would be

difficult to cover the years of civil war and the Remonstrant controversy in one chapter,

and thus this chapter will end its analysis before the controversy. In the time-frame of this chapter then, the moderate would-be Remonstrants (those who remonstrated for revision of Reformed confessions) were part of the Reformed Church alongside the less moderate would-be Contra-Remonstrants (Those who opposed revising Calvinist doctrines). With these explanations in mind, it is now time to turn to the development of Dutch Reformed toleration discourse.

256 Phyllis Mack Crew, Calvinist Preaching and Iconoclasm in the Netherlands 1544-1569 (London, 1978), 56-57.

97 Spanish Tyranny, Papal Inquisition, and Civil War, 1566-1584

Calvinism was a relative new-comer in the Dutch Reformation. By the time the Calvinists became numerous in the 1560s, Catholicism had already lost many supporters and the

Inquisition had become greatly unpopular. Guido Mamef has noted the weakness of the

Roman Catholic establishment in Antwerp, which was partly the result of the magistrates who resisted the interference of outside ecclesiastical authorities in defence of local privileges. Although Protestant ideas spread to the city as a result, the magistrates resisted the Inquisition more so for economic reasons, fearing persecution would disrupt trade with the largely Protestant German merchants.257 Pamphlets from the period bear out

Mamef s conclusion that opposition to the Catholic Church and the Inquisition was widespread. In 1566 the subjects of Antwerp and Brabant sent a remonstrance to the

King beseeching him to stop the Inquisition in the Netherlands. In the remonstrance, they argue that the King has been misled to continue the Inquisition by his evil councillors, who seek the destruction of the Netherlands and falsely believe that they can save

Catholicism through persecution.258 However, it is impossible to save the Roman

Catholic Church through such means. Instead, the petitioners argue, continued religious persecution only impoverishes the people of the country, depopulates it, and disrupts foreign trade.259 This last point is particularly emphasised in the remonstrance. It cites the

257 Guido Mamef, Antwerp in the Age o f Reformation: Underground Protestantism in a Commercial Metropolis, 1550-1577, trans. J.C. Grayson (Baltimore & London, 1996), 48-58; 82-87. 2:1 Remonstrance a la Maieste dv Roy Catholique faite par ses suiets des pays has, sur les inconueniens qui sepresentent, par I’establisement de I'inquisition d ’Espagne esditspays (1566), 6. 259 Remonstrance a la Maieste, 12-14.

98 example of Antwerp, where the foreign merchants, hearing news that a new bishop would

be appointed and fearing this would bring the Inquisition, declared that if this bishop was appointed they would leave. When the bishop took up his post, they removed their business to France and England. “Where the inquisitor places his foot, the merchant removes his.”260 The opinion that the King’s policy of persecution was politically and economically damaging was an important factor in weakening support for Catholicism.

The pensionary of Antwerp, Jacob van Wesembeek, also showed his distaste for the Inquisition. In his Description o f the Successive State and Occurrences, which

Happened in the Low Countries for Reason o f Religion, published in 1569, he recounts two points about the Dutch. First, they hold many religious opinions differing from

European norms. Second, more so than most people, the Dutch are lovers of their freedoms and privileges as evidenced in their frequent rebellions against past princes. For this reason, the Inquisition did nothing but incite unrest.261 Wesembeek emphasises the cruelty of the provisions of the placards against heresy in which over a thousand people, he claims, were taken prisoner, executed, drowned, burned, strangled, tortured to death, and the list goes on.262 The Inquisition became so unpopular that Antwerp, followed by several towns across Brabant, refused to register the royal placards proclaiming the

Inquisition. With the towns of Brabant openly disobeying the placards, the governor of

260 Remonstrance a la Maieste, 18-21,14. 261 Jacob van Wesembeek,La Desciription de I 'Estat Succes et Occurrences, advenues au Pais bas du faict de la Religion. Premier Livre (August, 1569), 11-12. 262 Wesembeek, Description, 15.

99 the province was already remonstrating to the Emperor in 1550 to have the stipulations of

the placard reduced.263

With widespread disapproval of Royal policy by the population and even local

governments, the new Reformed movement encountered wide support. Phyllis Mack

Crew argues that it was not so much the doctrine preached by the Calvinists, but rather their ability to portray themselves as legitimate authorities in a time when the people were searching for leaders outside of the traditional Church and magistracy that led to the

Calvinists’ success. The Calvinists actively sought to appear as such authorities and, consequently, their propaganda is legalistic in tone, calling for the end of the Inquisition on the basis that it interfered with Netherlandic privileges.264 This behaviour and propaganda seems to have garnered the admiration of many within the Netherlands. For example, the remonstrance from the subjects of Antwerp and Brabant opposes the

Inquisition not only on the basis that it is damaging to the Netherlands, but also that the targets do not warrant such persecution. The authors ask “what heretics?” The

“Evangelists” (Reformed) is the answer. But amongst these Reformed “modesty is so well known in so many places, and forbearance proved in your country, that we are surprised by it.”265

However, as Wesembeek records, continued provocations by the government led to more seditious activities on the part of the Reformed. In July 1566, a new placard was

263 Wesembeek, Description, 39-40. 264 Crew, Calvinist Preaching, 157-161. 265 Remonstrance a la Maieste, 38-39.

100 published calling for the arrest of preachers and the ending of religious deviance. This

“surprised and irritated all the people” and it was at this point that the Reformed began to

carry arms.266 Despite the unrest the placards were causing, the government continued to

publish new ones. After one placard forbidding Protestants to hold assemblies in towns,

the “most zealous and enflamed in their Religion” began to destroy Catholics images in

the countryside, then in small villages, and finally in the cities of the Netherlands.267 The

Calvinists soon used this iconoclasm to seize churches and began to preach, but in so

doing they destroyed their appeal as a mass movement and many who had come to

respect the Reformed for their apparent deference and loyalty turned on them.268

Wesembeek admits the sedition of at least the militants in the Reformed camp, but places the blame chiefly on poor government policies insisting on the continuation of the

Inquisition for the Reformed disturbances of 1566. Even after the iconoclasm, the

Reformed leaders continued to insist on their respect for the government and the law.

When iconoclasm broke out in Antwerp, the magistracy summoned three Reformed ministers and ordered them to tell their congregations to stop their violence against the

Catholic Church. Wesembeek records that the ministers replied that this violence took place without their knowledge, and certainly without their encouragement. They explained that while these Roman idols did indeed deserve to be destroyed, they disapproved of the manner in which it was done since the actions were without

266 Wesembeek, Description, 174-176. 267 Wesembeek, Description, 220-223. 2M Crew, Calvinist Preaching, 174.

101 magisterial authorisation. In fact, they stated in their sermons that they took every effort

“to teach to the people that they must abstain from” any sort of insolence and act in

complete “obedience and peaceful modesty.”269 The Reformed pastors in Antwerp appear

to have desired a slower and more peaceful reformation, even while their more militant

adherents demonstrated a very different perspective on the urgency of removing Catholic

idolatry. Already by 1566 division between militant and moderate Calvinists was

apparent.

Philips Mamix van Sint Aldegonde was, as an eloquent nobleman, one of the

higher- ranking Reformed spokesmen, and he published a defence of his co-religionists in

1567. The stated purpose of his account of the events of 1566 is to demonstrate to the

King the folly of using armies to “destroy his poor and humble subjects” and instead to

allow the people their “free consciences, to serve God according to his Word, employing the rest of our bodies and goods for the service of his Majesty.”270 The Reformed are

indeed loyal subjects in Aldegonde’s mind. The origin of this unjust persecution does not come from the sedition of the Reformed, but rather other causes. First, the most obvious enemy is the Roman Catholic Church. The avaricious clergy hid the truth of the Bible from the laypeople in an effort to maintain their corrupt traditions, the “foundation of their riches, grandeur, standing, and reputation.” Through Luther, the Scriptures became

269 Wesembeek, Description, 244-246; Philips Mamix van Sint Aldegonde records similar statements by Calvinist preachers in which they insist that it is a lie that they encourage iconoclasm in their preaching. See Philips Mamix van Sint Aldegonde, “Recveil des choses advenves en Anversm touchant le fait de la Religion, en l’an 1566” in Vraye Narration etApologie des choses passes au Pays-bcts, touchant le Fait de la Relion en I’An 1566par cevs qvi font profession de la Religion reformie audit(1567), Pays D5. 270 St. Aldegonde, Vraye Narration, A2-A4.

102 known to the people once again and as a result the Catholic clergy needed to find a new

way to maintain their power. Seeking to override the privileges of the Netherlands, they

established “new inventions, sometimes new Bishops, sometimes new sermons,” all a

means to one end: “they tried every means in the world to introduce the Inquisition of

Spain” in order to usurp power from the King and his magistrates.271 The chief blame for

disorder in the Netherlands should instead be placed on the Church, and specifically on

its leader in the country, the Cardinal de Granvelle.272

However, Aldegonde does not identify the Roman Catholic Church as the only

enemy of order in the country. The pure Biblical message that began to be heard in the

Netherlands in the 1520s was further damaged by “some frenetic spirits known as

Anabaptists.” These Anabaptists, under the guise of acting according to the Gospel, entirely abolished the authority of magistrates. News of their actions was used as propaganda by the Church to convince good Emperor Charles V that anyone who opposed the “abuse of the Roman Church” was seditious like these Anabaptists. With this belief, magistrates willingly carried out Charles’ misguided placards against all

Protestants. However, as the executions went on, it became clear that the true evangelicals were loyal to the crown: crying out from the flames that they committed their lives and goods to the king, but their conscience to God.273 This sentiment, echoing

Calvin’s belief expressed in theInstitutes that the Anabaptists were used by Satan against

271 St. Aldegonde, Vraye Narration, A4-A6. 272 St. Aldegonde, Vraye Narration, B l. 273 St. Aldegonde, Vraye Narration, A4-A6.

103 the true religion, demonstrates that from an early period in the Calvinist Reformation in

the Netherlands the chief opponents of the Reformed Church were already clearly

identified.

Even while Aldegonde sought to show the Reformed to be loyal subjects of the

king his rhetoric demonstrates that while the Calvinists portrayed themselves as

respectful of existing authorities, their agenda was indeed intolerant towards other forms

of belief. Aldegonde seeks to prove that those who attend the Calvinistpreches are not

disloyal to the King, but rather simply place their loyalty to God first.274 He argues that

by 1S66 it had become widespread knowledge that the Catholic Church was corrupt, and

if the people were denied “some better doctrine” there would be even worse trouble as

many would become “Atheists, Libertines, and sectarians.”275 Such deviant beliefs were

an evil to be avoided at all costs. Aldegonde then responds to the charge that the

Reformed should be suppressed because they destroy images. Aldegonde denies the

charge: “those of said Religion have always been of the opinion that individuals are not to knock down images erected by public authority.” Reformed preachers made this point

clear time and time again.276 While he denies that the Reformed support the destruction

of idols without the authority of the magistrate, he then goes on to defend those that do take part in illegal iconoclasm. Against the argument that they break images of the true

God, and not some pagan false gods, Aldegonde argues that all images are false gods,

274 S t Aldegonde, Vraye Narration, E2. 275 S t Aldegonde, Vraye Narration, n.p. 276 S t Aldegonde, Vraye Narration, F5.

104 since false gods are nothing more than whatever man makes with his own hands.277 He

goes even further than this and argues that it does not have to be the magistrates that

orders them removed, God can override their authority. In the Old Testament, the Prophet

Elijah “an individual man, against the authority of the King, incited the people not only to

tear down their idols, but what is more, to kill the Priests and Prophets of Baal.” So too in the Netherlands, it was God who caused just a few people to destroy so many idols in a

short period of time. The speed of the iconoclasm was a miracle that demonstrated God’s

favour of the Calvinist cause.278 Aldegonde, as a Calvinist himself, demonstrates the confidence of the Reformed in the righteousness of their cause. Consequently, intolerance towards the unholy could be acceptable even while claiming to respect the authority of the nominally Catholic government.

It comes as no surprise then that King Philip did not accept the arguments of the

Reformed that they were loyal to him, and it was the Catholic Church that was inciting the violence. In 1567 he sent the Duke of Alva with an army of over 10,000 men to restore order to the Low-Countries. Alva’s rule was unpopular and many Netherlanders fled into exile to join the rebel forces led by William of Orange. Orange and his followers opposed the King on political rather than religious grounds. But Orange needed men and money to continue the struggle against “Spanish Tyranny.” For this reason Orange turned to the exiled Reformed Church for aid. In return for their support, the Reformed Church

277 St. Aldegonde, Vraye Narration, G2. 27* St. Aldegonde, Vraye Narration, G5-G6.

105 would receive a favoured status in rebel territory.279 The re-conquest began in 1572 with the seizure of Brill by the Sea-Beggars, rebel privateers in the pay of Orange. The

royalists put up fierce resistance for a time, but then Spanish troops went unpaid after the

King’s bankruptcy, mutinied, and sacked several towns, culminating with Antwerp in

1576. This caused negotiations for a peace arrangement between the northern rebel provinces and the southern royalist ones, completely independent of the Crown. The agreement became known as the Pacification of Ghent. It provided for temporary tolerance of both Catholic and Protestant in the southern provinces while the mutinous

Spanish troops were driven out.

In that same year, Don Juan of Austria was appointed the new Spanish governor of the Netherlands. With the Estates General acting independently to make peace with the rebels, it was Don Juan’s goal to re-assert Spanish control. He attempted to sway the southern Catholic nobles with his charm, but they were wary of him. He subscribed to provisions of the Pacification of Ghent in an effort to gamer support. He even removed the Spanish troops, only to call up new ones in 1577 and seize the fortress of Namur when he grew frustrated with the lack of progress. This action renewed hostilities with support firmly on the side of Orange.280 Orange however had major problems with

“national” rivalries between the northern and southern provinces, and more importantly, religious divisions between Calvinist and Catholic. Orange, having himself accepted

279 Andrew Pettegree, “Religion and the Revolt,” in,The Origins and Development o f the Dutch Revolt, ed., Graham Darby (London and New York, 2001), 78-79. 280 C.V. Wedgewood,William the Silent: William o f Nassau, Prince o f Orange 1533-1584 (New Haven, 1944), 190-199.

106 Calvinism, had to prevent violence from his militant Calvinist allies disrupting his

Catholic support. To greatly simplify the situation, he had to gain the support of the

Catholic south without losing the support of the Calvinist north.281 It is not surprising that

in this context of complicated political and religious issues, Calvinist pamphleteers were veiy active in discussing issues pertaining to religious toleration.

Calvinist discourse in the years 1576 to 1579 closely resembles the writings of the

Huguenots in the same period. This is not surprising since the mixture of politics and religion was very similar in both countries in these years. Additionally, important

Huguenots, such as Philippe Duplessis-Momay and Francis de la Noue, who contributed much to French Calvinist toleration discourse, were in the service of William of Orange at this time. The most obvious expression of this French connection is the publication of

Discourse on the Permission o f Freedom o f Religion, Religions-Vrede, in the Netherlands in 1579. Portions of this treatise directly copy passages from Momay’sRemonstrance to the Estates for Peace from 1576. Historians have argued that the work was actually published by Momay while he was in the service of the Prince of Orange, but Hugues

Daussy challenges this view citing a letter written by Momay stating that theDiscourse on the Permission was not his work, and that others simply copiedRemonstrance the .282

Regardless, the publication of theDiscourse on the Permission demonstrates the influence of the Huguenots on the Dutch toleration debate. TheDiscourse on the

2.1 Wedgewood, William the Silent, 204-206. 2.2 Hugues Daussy, Les Huguenots et le ro i: le combat politique de Philippe Duplessis-Momay (1572- 1600) (Genfcve, 2002), 159-162.

107 Permission follows Momay’s argument that the best remedy for the country’s problems was peace and rest from civil war. Additionally, it refutes the argument that two religions

cannot peacefully co-exist in one realm by stating that there is but one religion in which

God is served even if there are disagreements over some doctrinal issues.2®3

However, theDiscourse on the Permission is not a carbon copy of the

Remonstrance. Unlike the Remonstrance, in which Momay poses as a Catholic and gives advice solely to Catholics, theDiscourse on the Permission also outlines what the

Reformed must do to maintain peace. To those Reformed “who have difficulty enduring amongst them the exercise of the Roman Catholic Religion” the author explains that they must not destroy images or rob ecclesiastical property because this only incites Catholics to violence as they see from such events that the Reformed will not tolerate them, and this makes them retaliate in like manner. Thus, in Catholic towns formerly favourably disposed to the toleration of the Reformed religion, Protestants were refused entry within their walls. To put it briefly, the Reformed who complain of the Inquisition and demand freedom of conscience should be careful not “to impose the same servitude on others...and if they respond that the Romanists drive out the truth, and lie to them: that is to presuppose the question, seeing that that is the main thing that they object of them.”284

This demonstrates the tolerant attitudes of some Reformed, but also the intolerance of

2,3 Discours svr la Permission de iiberte de religion, dicte religions-vrede, au Pats (1579), bas 3-5. 2M Discour svr la Permission, 42-43.

108 others. Once again, a clear division on the issue of tolerance in the Reformed camp is

noticeable.

There are a couple of other points made in Discoursethe on the Permission which

should also be mentioned. In responding to those who cannot “endure” two religions, the

author also stresses the need for unity. One could not abolish the exercise of one or the

other religion without resorting to force and the use of arms and thus “enter into war

against each other, instead of unanimously taking up arms against Don Juan and his adherents, and deliver ourselves from the unsupportable tyranny of foreigners.”285 This is one of the major themes of toleration discourse in this period. Catholics could be tolerated, at least until a council could decide religious matters in favour of a purer faith, just so long as they were Dutch. The real enemy which all Netherlander must unite against was the tyranny of evil Spaniards (excluding the king at this point). The second important point is that while the author advocates for toleration and peaceful co­ existence, he does state that “it is truly a worthy goal of all Christians, to advance the true

Religion, and chase out the false.” In this case, the author emphasises that this is to be done through brotherly love and peaceful teaching.286 These two points, uniting against the Spanish enemy, and the need to chase out false religion, would appear frequently in the pamphlets of the late 1570s and other authors would be less forbearing towards dissenters.

2,5 Discour svr la Permission, 28. 246 Discour svr la Permission, 44.

109 Such is the case in the short pamphlet published with theDiscourse on the

Permission entitled I fEveryone Must be Allowed Liberty to Serve God According to

Their Way and Fantasy. The author opens by responding to the opinion that everyone

should be permitted “without exception, to live according to his conscience” and that one

should not force people to change their mind through coercion, but only through

persuasion. Such a view, the author writes, is contrary to the word of God, as is shown

through God’s grievous punishments of the “Kings and Princes of his people, who themselves contaminated the purity of Religion, or endured it to be defiled by others.”

Rationally as well, toleration is not desirable, since allowing freedom to any sort of

divine service only confirms people in their errors and “multiplies the sects, opening the way to all impiety.”287 It would seem then thatI fEveryone Must be Allowed completely contradicts the theDiscourse with which it was published. In fact, the pamphlet is exactly

in line with the argument of the previous tract as becomes apparent with further reading.

The author continues by refuting the view that it is necessary to “entirely repress and punish” heresies with “rigorous laws, even by force of arms, if it is necessary.”

Experience has shown that such methods are ineffective, and if one uses such force against those with the wrong opinion, would not “most of the human race be exterminated and put to death?” Instead, what must be done is that “postponing all other thoughts and affairs, all Princes must study and employ all diligence...so that all debates

2,7 “Si Ton doit laisser a vn ch&cun la libertd de seruir Dieu selon sa manidre & phantaise” Discoursin svr la Permission (1579), 51.

110 and differences be decided and put to rest by the sole word of God and Catholic

traditions.” Furthermore, it is not necessary to approve of these differences “but to endure

and bear this evil which cannot be in an instant changed.”288 In both cases tolerance is

only an interim measure, an unfortunate necessity until Christian unity can be restored.

The author does not stop there, however. There remain some exceptions to the

toleration suggested. Certain opinions should be exempt from this liberty. Why?

“Because who will justly endure Anabaptists who oppose the Magistrate, and introduce

community of all things...or Epicureans, or Atheists, and other similar monsters, to have

public assemblies, and publically affirm each other, and attract others to themselves and

amass disciples?”289 Anabaptists and other unorthodox opinions were not acceptable

since they were dangerous to the social order. The Anabaptists, “enemies of the holy

Trinity,” may be “tolerated until the decisions of the Council”, but they must be

forbidden all assemblies so as not to spread their blasphemy. When the council is called, they may take part, but only “to be heard, judged, and condemned according to the word of God.” If they refuse these conditions, they are to be punished as seditious.290 Atheists

do not even receive this leniency. Those who are “manifestly wicked and unfaithful, without any Religion” should be neither “tolerated nor endured.” Instead, whenever they are found, they should be “very rigorously punished as public enemies of the human

2“ “Si l’on doit laisser,” 52-53. 219 “Si Ton doit laisser,” 53-54. 290 “Si l’on doit laisser,” 54-55.

I ll race.”291 Similar to France then, the so-called “Atheists” were those who lived an

irreligious lifestyle, without the fear of God, rather than those who explicitly denied his

existence. Toleration was thus very limited in the mind of the authors of these pamphlets.

It was first a temporary measure. Second, it applied only to the two main religious

groups, the others were too unorthodox, and must therefore also be seditious.

A Friendly Warning to all Lovers o f Freedom and Religions-vreden published in

1579 follows a similar argument. The author begins by saying that it is against all laws,

modesty, and the revelation of God that one person would “plunder, or oppress all who

follow different paths.” If someone is in darkness, one should light the way for him, not

bum him. The problem in the Netherlands is that both sides see the other as on the path of darkness, and seek to force them to conform to their own view by force, and this only brings further violence.292 What must be done, the author argues, is “as rational people we must win over others through reason, through gentle and loving manner and business, through a free Council and assembly.”293 A peaceful solution to the problem is vital in the author’s mind, but not simply for political considerations but also because “there is no reason neither divine nor human, that can move the conscience to bring into slavery of another.” This has been tried against the Reformed, and it failed miserably. Therefore, instead of intolerance, the author declares “let us then in general consider all of us the

291 “Si l’on doit laisser,” 54. 292 Een Vriendlijcke vermaninghe tot alien Liefhbbers der vryheyt ende des Religions-vreden (1579), Aii. 293 Vriendlijcke Vermaninghe, Aii. “Ghelijck als redlicke menschen/moeten wy andre ghewinnen door reden, door saechten een lieffelicken wandel ende handei, door een vry Concile ende versamnighe.”

112 same, that we are people that are all called Christians, all lovers of ourselves, of the

churches, and of the Fatherland.”294

This is certainly a very pro-tolerance argument. But the author of Friendlythis

Warning, like the author of theDiscourse on the Permission, stresses the point that the

“intention of all Christians must be to establish true religion and chase out the false.” This author makes clear that false religion is to be chased out through brotherly love and good example to those gone astray, but nevertheless, tolerance is clearly a temporary measure.

The current freedom is to allow deliberation which will produce the best solution. At the moment the religious question is not solved.295 Moreover, the author ofFriendly the

Warning agrees with his co-religionist who wroteI f Everyone Must be Allowed Hast certain groups should not be tolerated. Chief among these intolerables are, again, the

Anabaptists who “with their peijury and teaching strive against all Magistrates, will allow neither Magistrate nor government in a Christendom and following this will institute community of all goods, which can in no way be allowed, but merits heavy punishment.”296 Others believe in three, or at least two, separate gods and many

“Epicureans, Libertines, and D. Nicolaiten” strive against all good consciences.297 Such

294 Vriendlijcke Vermaninghe, Avii. “Laet ons dan int generalle alle te samen aenmercken dat wy menschen ziin alle Christenen genaemt/alle liefhebbers van ones seluen/van der kercken/ende van den Vaderlande.” 29 Vriendlijcke Vermaninghe, Av. 296 Vriendlijcke Vermaninghe, Avii. “Want dat sonuninghe van den ghenen, die men wederdoopers noemt/met harer meynighe ende leeringhe strijden tegen alle Magistrates noch gheenen Magistraet ofte Overheyt in eene Christenheyt toe laten/een dies volghende willen invoeren eene ghemeynheyt van alien goeden, dat is gheensins toe te laten, maer is grootelick toe straffen.” 7 “D. Nicolaiten” appears to be a reference to Revelation 2:6, “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate” (KJV). Who the Nicolatians are remains somewhat of a

113 people should “receive no religious freedom, but are enemies of all Religion, and whom

are rigorously punished, especially since they are public and rebellious enemies against

all human families.”298 The advocacy of tolerance by Calvinists in the late 1570s was

common, but also limited in scope. Catholics should be temporarily “endured” to avoid

further war. A religious council based on the Bible would soon show them the true way

anyway. Anabaptists lumped in with Atheists, however, were not to receive such treatment. Their beliefs were too dangerous for the social order in the mind of the

Calvinists.

Meanwhile, Calvinists were attempting to divert the ire of their co-religionists and their reluctant Catholic allies against a common enemy: the corruption of Spanish government and the Inquisition. TheRequest Presented to his Highness and the Lords o f the Council o f the State by the Inhabitants o f the Netherlands, Protestants wanting to live according to the Reformation o f the Gospel is demonstrative of this sort of rhetoric. The

Protestant authors of this remonstrance ask for an end to the Roman Catholic persecution against them. However, very little of the tract actually deals with the Catholic Church as an enemy. It rather places the blame on the Spanish council who where ever they go, seek to make “the subjects their slaves and tributaries.” The Inquisition thus has little to do with religion, but rather evil Spanish councillors use it under the guise of “devotion” to

mystery as their beliefs are not defined in the Bible. Seen alongside “Epicurean” and “Libertine” the use of the term is probably something akin to “Nicodemite.” 291 Vriendlijcke Vermaninghe, Avii. “ende in gheene Religions-vrede begrepen/maer zijn vyanden van alle Religie, ende by dien rigoreuselick strasbaer/midtsgaders dat sy openbare ende opzoeringhe vianden zijn teghen alien menschelicken gheslachten.”

114 steal the goods of the King’s Dutch subjects, and subject them to their will. Don Juan, in

this Spanish fashion seeks to bring the country into “that miserable condition of

servitude” through “ruses and guile” in the same way Alva sought to do so through his

blatant cruelty.299 Don Juan, through his placards, letters, and his subordinates the Jesuits,

seeks to create division in the rebel camp as a result of religious differences. He spreads

rumours amongst Catholics that the Protestants have no other intention but “at the first

opportunity” to rob them of their possessions, and bum them as heretics.300 To put an end

to these rumours, the Protestant authors of the pamphlet recommend that they should be

given freedom to practice their religion which will show Catholics that they mean no

harm, but simply want toleration.301 Continued persecution will bring distaste for religion

and lead to atheism “thus following complete violation of human and divine justice” or at

least bring division of the people into two warring parties. Either way, the state is

severely damaged.302 Allowing “equal exercise” of each religion until a general council resolves the religious differences is the only way to maintain the peace and prosperity of the country.303

Mamix van St. Aldegonde illustrates the changes in Calvinist discourse between the 1566 “ Wonderjaar” and the turmoil of the 1570s. Whereas in his 1567 Vraye

Narration Aldegonde stressed the loyalty of the Calvinists to the government, vilified the

299Reqveste Presentee a son Alteze & messeigneurs du Conseil d ’Estat par les habitans des pals Bas, Protestans vouloir viure selon la Reformation de I'Euangile* low ('22 de Ittin, 1578), 1-3. 300 Reqveste, 3-5. 301 Reqveste, 8. 302 Reqveste, 10. 303 Reqveste, 17.

115 Catholic Church as corrupt and self-serving, and defended iconoclasm as God’s will, in his 1578 Response to a Little Book Recently Published and Entitled, Declaration o f the

Intention ofDon Juan o f Austria he seeks to unite Catholics and Protestants against a corrupt and malicious governor. The pamphlet is a response to Don Juan’s own publication of his support for the Pacification of Ghent and his alleged desire for peace.

Aldegonde sees through Don Juan’s fa9ade, and argues that while he may indeed say these things publically, Don Juan’s letters and actions reveal it is his desire to see civil war resumed. Indeed, while Don Juan asserts peace, he summons the States General to make war on William of Orange and the heretical provinces of Zeeland and Holland, citing their obligation to maintain the Roman Catholic faith and their duty to obey the

King.304 He continually declares that if Holland and Zeeland would only return to the

Roman Catholic fold, there would no war. Aldegonde argues that Don Juan does this in the knowledge that Holland and Zeeland will never abandon their religion. Thus, the rhetoric of making war over religion is “nothing but a pretext” to encourage the States

General and Catholics to make war “against their brothers and compatriots.”305 In an attempt to appeal to Catholics, Aldegonde argues intolerance towards Protestants is not the means by which to preserve Catholicism. Taking the example of Germany,

Aldegonde argues that the best way to maintain Catholicism “lies in a good union and firm mutual association, without taking offense over the issue of Religion.” He claims

304 Philips Mamix van St. Aldegonde,Response a vn petit livret n ’agveres pvblii, et intitvli, Decvlaration de I'intention du Seigneur Don Jehan d ’Autrice...En laqulle la vraye intention dudit Sr. Don Jehan manifestement descouuerte (Anvers, 1578), 3-4. 305 Response a vn petit livret, 5-6.

116 leading Catholic bishops and universities agree with him on this point.306 In contrast to

1S66, the Aldegonde of 1578 ignores Catholic corruption and seeks to find allies in

Dutch Catholics against Spanish tyranny.

Unfortunately for Aldegonde, Momay, and other Reformed proponents of the toleration of Catholics, the actions of their more militant co-religionists made their goals difficult to reach. Hugues Daussy, in his examination of Momay’s career in the service of

William of Orange, recounts that while Momay was popular with moderate Calvinists, he was very unpopular with the radicals of Flanders. These radicals were wary of Orange, who governed with a few close advisors, some of them, like Momay, foreigners.307

Opinion was further enflamed with the arrival of the cunning Spanish nobleman

Alexander Famese who would become the new Habsburg governor and shortly afterwards the Calvinist adventurer John Casimir on the side of the rebels. Casimir’s pillaging angered many Catholics who turned to Famese, leaving Orange with increasingly militant Calvinist support.308 Catholics then had good reason to believe Don

Juan’s rumours that Calvinists were seeking to overthrow their religion. Hence, the

Estates of Hainault in 1578 forbade Protestant worship on the basis that the Protestants intended to “suppress and absolutely destroy our said Holy Faith and Religion.”309 The rhetoric of the Calvinist leadership seems not to have been in line with the actions of

306 Response a vn petit livret, 18-21. 307 Daussy, Les Huguenots et le roi, 167. 308 Wedgewood,William the Silent, 215-221. 309 L ’Advertissement et Response des Estats de Haynault sur la request faicte pour la liberte de la Religion, e tl’exrcice d'icellem, 1578, n.p.

117 ordinary Calvinists. Catholics chose to believe that the actions, rather than the words of

the Calvinists were reflective of their true nature and sided with the new governor

Famese. The result was the creation of a seemingly irrevocable division between the

northern and southern Netherlands on religious lines.

With the failure of the Pacification of Ghent and its tolerant religious policy,

Dutch Reformed writers of the early 1580s seem to have taken a much stronger stand

against Spanish tyranny and the abuses of the Papacy and its Inquisition. The 1580Books o f the Three Popes firmly argues that the Roman Catholic Church is the source of all trouble in Europe. The pamphlet outlines the history of Papal interference in the affairs of the Netherlands since the reign of Charles V. For example, in 1548 when Charles reorganized the Netherlandic provinces to improve tax income, the Pope promptly tempted him to make war to abuse the country. Meanwhile, the Emperor “also through the temptations of the Popes” established certain ordinances introducing the “tyrannical

Inquisition of Spain.”310 But it was not just in the Netherlands that the Catholic Church was conspiring. The author describes a sort of unholy Trinity, with the Father being the

Pope in Rome, Cardinal Lorraine in France being the Son, and Cardinal Granvelle of the

Netherlands as the Holy Ghost. The author links the ascendency of the Guises with

Granvelle’s influence in the Netherlands culminating in a Europe-wide Papal

310 7” Boecxken van de dry Pausen/met een warachtighe verklaringe van de menichsuldighe loose practijcken/zoo van d'Inquisitie/als van het onderhouden der Placcaten ende anderssins/by den Cardinael Granvelle met syned adherenten gheinveteert... (Roomen, 1580), n.p.

118 conspiracy.31' For this author, the Catholic Church, or at least the higher clergy, was a

dangerous enemy, certainly not potential allies against Spanish tyranny.

Other writers direct their ire towards tyrannical Spanish governance. After all, in

1581 William of Orange published hisApology in which he gave up all pretence of

loyalty to the King of Spain, arguing that the King had forfeited his rightful authority

through his tyrannical behaviour.312 William had supported the French Duke of Anjou as

a new sovereign, but when the Duke’s troops sacked Antwerp, opinion was roused

against this candidate. At this time, seeing an opportunity, the Spaniards encouraged the

rebels to make peace. Calvinist pamphleteers were consequently keen to remind the

people of the Netherlands of the tyranny of the Inquisition.Warning The to all the

Inhabitants o f the Provinces o f the Netherlands seeks to show that the “Spanish party”

while claiming to be seeking a “lasting” peace, will seek to use an end to hostilities to

totally destroy the “true Religion and...our ancient liberty.”313 Such was the case not long

ago, when the Spanish officially accepted the Pacification of Ghent, but afterwards daily

sought to “eradicate the Religion” by any means they could, as is evidenced by the

execution of those of the Reformed religion in Valenciennes.314 What is more, the

311 Boecxken van dry Pausen, n.p. 312 Wedgewood, William the Silent, 251-254. Wedgewood also notes that Orange may have been influenced by the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos in his argumentation. 313 Advertenc a tovs les inhabitans des Prouinces du Pays bas, estantz vniz A confederez pour la defence de la liberti de leur Religion, personnes, Priuleges, A anciennes coustumes, contre la tyrannie des Espaignolz, A lews adherens (1583), A2. Advertenc a tovs les inhabitans, B.

119 Spanish regard those who abandon popery, as “worse than Moors and Saracens” and will

as a result torture and kill all those who profess the Reformed religion.313

The Response o f a Good Patriot and Citizen o f the City o f Ghent to a Famous

Libel similarly ties together persecution and Spanish governance. Responding to a call for

peace with Spain, the author of the pamphlet wishes to make it clear that making peace

with Spain will only allow the Spanish to revive the “fires of the Inquisition of Spain”

across the entire country.316 The author continues for the rest of the pamphlet to show the tyranny of Spain and how the Spaniards have continuously sought to destroy any dissent

from Catholicism. The author makes an interesting parallel between the persecution of the Reformed, and that of the Jews and Muslims of Spain. In the 1560s the Reformed were given toleration, and everyone remembers how that turned out. “Those of Grenada

similarly massacred and sold as slaves against sworn oath serves us as a second example.”317 For the Reformed in the 1580s there was no turning back. The Catholic

Church and Spain were inseparable enemies. To allow Spain to rule over the Netherlands again would be to destroy the Reformed religion. The desire to seek allies among Dutch

Catholics was gone. The Catholics had chosen the side of the enemy against freedom and the true religion. The failure of toleration in the south thus created a stronger confessionalisation among the Calvinists in the northern Netherlands, identifying their own faith as fighting for liberty and true religion, while their opponents were identified

315 Advertenc a tovs les inhabitans, n.p. 316 Responce d'vn bon patriot & bourgeois de la ville de Gand au libelle fameux(1583), A2. 317 Responce d ’vn bon patriot, B.

120 with tyranny and corruption.318 This increasing confessionalisation would have an

important impact on the developments in the northern Netherlands.

Calvinists, Magistrates, and the Religious Other in the Early United Provinces 1572-

1609

With the failure of both the rebels and the Crown to unite the northern and southern

Netherlands, two separate political entities developed: the southern Netherlands became the Spanish Netherlands, while after 1572 the north became the new United Provinces of the Netherlands, or the Dutch Republic. In the United Provinces, the Reformed Church became the public church as a reward for its role in supporting the rebellion in the years of exile. However, membership in this public church was not mandatory. A national church without forced membership was almost unheard of in this era. Benjamin Kaplan has pointed out that in the early-modern mentality, the connection between sacral and civic community was vital. Religion was the social chain that kept the community in order. If this chain was broken through a multiplicity of religious groups, the city would see no end of trouble as a result of God’s anger against it.319 The magistrates, for various reasons, felt the risk of God’s wrath was worth it in order to accommodate the diverse religious opinions in the Netherlands and allowed a certain degree of religious freedom

318 Benjamin Kaplan,Divided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice o f Toleration in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, Mass. & London, 2007), 46-47; Benjamin Kaplan, Calvinists and Libertines: Confession and Community in Utrecht 1578-1620 (Oxford, 1995), 193-195. Kaplan noted that the Calvinists in Utrecht converted their confessionalism into “socio-political” terms during their coup of the city government in 1586, but it appears that this association of their confession with the cause of the Revolt, and that of their opponents with loyalty to Spain occurred in the early 1580s. 319 Kaplan,D ivided by Faith 71-72.

121 for dissenters as long as they left the public domain of religion to the official Reformed

Church.320 In this context, the Reformed found themselves in a now dominant position,

but also with much reformation still to be done. First, the church itself needed to be

strengthened through a narrowing of orthodoxy. The magistrates across the towns of the

Netherlands were often opposed to this further reformation, however, and instead wanted

an inclusive church to restore those important bonds of religious and civic unity. Hence a

rivalry often developed between the Reformed Church and local magistrates. Finally, in

their quest for further reformation along Calvinist lines, the Reformed often had a tense

relationship with the other now tolerated religious communities in the country.

The first point that must be made clear is that the Reformed movement of the

1560s was a very diverse one, and much less influenced by Calvin and Genevan

organization than the later movement of 1572. Phyllis Mack Crew has pointed this out in

her study of the Calvinist preachers of 1566. She noted their varied social backgrounds,

doctrinal positions, and experiences. In fact, most of them were largely untrained laymen.

The decisive factor in uniting them in a single movement was their self-perception as

Calvinists after their common exile experiences.321 H. ten Boom also has noted the

320 Kaplan,Divided by Faith, 195. Historians of the United Provinces have written extensively on the reasons why Dutch magistrates refused to give full privileges to the Reformed Church. Some examples of the varied interpretations include Derk Visser, “Establishing the Reformed Church: Clergy and Magistrates in the Low Countries 1572-1620” in W. Fred Graham, Later Calvinism, 389-402; Andrew Pettegree, “Coming to Terms with Victory: The Upbuilding of a Calvinist Church in Holland 1572-1590,” in Calvinism in Europe, 1540-1620, eds. Pettegree et al., (Cambridge, 1994), 161-174; Alastair Duke, “The Reformation in the Backwoods: The Struggle for a Calvinist and Presbyterian Church Order in the Countryside of South Holland and Utrecht,” Reformationin and Revolt in the Low Countries (London & Ronceverte, 1990), 230-266. 321 Crew, Calvinist Preaching, 42; 100-102.

122 unorthodoxy of some of the leaders of the 1566 Reformed movement in his study of the

Reformation in Rotterdam. Comelis Boon and Lenert Say, who both became magistrates

in the Rotterdam city government in 1572, are prime examples. Boon supported Petrus de

Zuttere for appointment as pastor in 1574, even though the Synod of Emden had declared

him a Libertine (i.e. a Spiritualist) and unfit to preach. Boon also maintained

correspondence with Spiritualist and critic of Calvinism Dirck Volckertsz Coomhert until

1580, although it seems he was not completely in accord with Coomhert’s ideas. Lenert

Say seems to have held Anabaptist sympathies, and would not allow his new-born son to

be baptised until later in life.322 At least on some level then, the future conflict between

Reformed and magistrates was based on contrasting beliefs of orthodox Calvinists in the

Church, and magistrates whose beliefs led them to a more tolerant approach in religious affairs.

While in exile, church synods such as the Synod of Emden in 1571 defmed

Reformed doctrine and organization more clearly. Thus upon regaining power following the rebel takeover of the northern Netherlands, the Reformed church returned with a narrower form of orthodoxy and a more defined presbyterian church organization.

Unfortunately, this development created two opponents. First, those Reformed clergy who, although formerly acceptable, now were no longer within the bounds of orthodoxy.

The second enemy were the many magistrates looking for a more inclusive church. As

Ten Boom has pointed out in the case of Rotterdam, and Benjamin Kaplan in Utrecht, the

322 H. ten Boom,De Reformatie in Rotterdam 1530-1585 (1987), 121-122.

123 magistrates of these communities sought to maintain the religious and civic unity which

characterised the relationship between local governments and the Catholic Church before

the Reformation. They also wanted to maintain the same control over the Reformed that

they had had over the local Catholic establishment.323 These two opponents were often

closely linked.

Examining just a couple of the many local studies undertaken by historians of the

early-modern Netherlands is a good way to demonstrate the turmoil caused within the

church by the narrowing of Reformed orthodoxy and the strengthening of the church

order. Controversy began early in Rotterdam. By 1573, the Reformed Church of

Rotterdam had created its firstkerkeraad, or consistory, dominated by orthodox

Calvinists. The magistrates meanwhile were mostly comprised of the leaders of the 1566

Reformed Church, who were influenced by Coomhert and held some Spiritualist sympathies which predisposed them to favour a more open church. Thus, when a new candidate for a third pastor was presented, the magistrates supported Pieter Overdhage

(Petrus Hyperphragmus). His Spiritualist views lined up with their own goal of a more inclusive church. The Calvinist consistory however opposed Overdhage since he was not sufficiently orthodox. As a result, a crisis developed over who was in charge of selecting pastors: the government of the town, or the church itself? It would take the interference of

323 Kaplan, Calvinists and Libertines, 111-112,155; Ten Boom, Rotterdam, 219-220.

124 Orange and the Calvinist leadership in Delft to solve the differences and remove the

unorthodox preacher.324

A similar situation developed in the important city of Leiden. Christine Kooi has

noted that at first the Reformed acquiesced to the influence of the magistracy in the

appointment of pastors and the direction of the diaconate’s poor relief. However, once the

church was firmly established, and the “immediate preoccupations with war” gave way as

the Spaniards retreated following the relief of Leiden in 1574, the “discordant visions” of

the Calvinists and magistracy became apparent.325 In 1579, the Reformed Church leaders

in electing their new elders and deacons, presented a list to the congregation for approval,

and only then did they consult the magistrates. The magistrates were furious that they were not consulted first, so that they could reject certain candidates without “the knowledge of the whole world.”326 Just as in Rotterdam the question of who was in charge in religious affairs, the city government or the church ignited a major controversy.

The controversy expanded when Leiden’s magistracy dismissed all but one of the consistorial candidates after they refused to serve on the consistory under magisterial guidelines. The magistrates found an ally in pastor Caspar Coolhaes, who they charged with forming a new list of more suitable candidates. Coolhaes, in contrast to his more orthodox colleague, Pieter Comelisz, believed that the magistrates were indeed justified in their belief that the church was subordinate to them. The dispute over Coolhaes’

324 Ten Boom,Rotterdam, 159,218-219. 325 Christine Kooi,Liberty and Religion: Church and State in Leiden’s Reformation 1572-1620 (Leiden, 2000), 54. 326 Kooi,Liberty and Religion, 55-57.

125 unorthodox opinions caused a schism in the church with the congregation tom between the discordant views of their two pastors. Again, just as in Rotterdam, it would take the

interference of William of Orange, and a compromise arrangement before the crisis

subsided.327

However, Coolhaes’ unorthodoxy continued to be a problem. He outlined some of his views in 1584 in his Christian Warning, to all Impartial Pastors. In it, he warns the clergy to be wary of Satan who, always seeking to turn people away from God, may appear as “an Angel of light” to the clergy to bring them back to the “darkness of

Popedom.”32* The clergy are certainly not exempt from Satan’s temptation, as is seen in the case of the Roman Church which, through “certain Articles, Laws, and Ordinances,” ignored Scripture that Christ was the sole head of the Church and consequently, its corruption spread over all of Europe.329 Now that the Dutch are free from the “Papal

Synagogues,” the new Church must be wary that it does not return to it with “new Laws,

Articles, and Rules...and with human wisdom.”330 This pamphlet certainly shows the extent to which people in the northern Netherlands saw Catholics as enemies, but it also reveals Coolhaes’ unorthodox Spiritualist views. Coolhaes is referring here to Reformed discipline, and makes this very clear in his refutation of the practice of excommunication,

327 Kooi,Liberty and Religion, 62-89. 328 Caspar Coolhaes,Een Chriselijcke vermaninghe, aen alle onpartydighe Predicanten: Om te waecken, ende by tijts te voorsien, dat die Sathan gheen nieu Pausdom, aen des ouden benaest ventallen plaets wederom oprechte (1584), 1. 329 Coolhaes,Chriselijcke vermaninghe, 4-5. 330 Coolhaes,Chriselijcke vermaninghe, 11.

126 a left-over from Popedom in his opinion.331 It was as a result of such questioning of

Reformed orthodoxy that controversy was re-ignited in Leiden in the early 1580s over the

issue of discipline. Coolhaes had already declared in 1580 that all Christians, whether they were members of the Reformed Church or not, should be allowed to take

Communion. For such unorthodoxy the Reformed Church leaders eventually excommunicated him. Although the magistrates sought to protect him, the Church ultimately won, and Coolhaes was dismissed as a Reformed minister.332 Over the course of the rest of the sixteenth century, and into the seventeenth century, this story repeated itself as the more stringent Calvinists defined orthodoxy ever more narrowly, becoming increasingly intolerant towards differing opinions in their ranks, culminating in the

Remonstrant and Contra-Remonstrant controversy between 1609 and 1619.

Moreover, every step that Calvinists took on the path of confessionalisation led to opposition on the part of the magistrates. Since the Reformed Church lacked any legal status, Calvinists turned to pamphlet literature to express their distaste, or their recommendations, for the magistracy.333 It was this situation which was partly responsible for bringing about a unique situation in the Netherlands, in which even in times of peace the publication of pamphlet literature expanded.334 In cases in which the magistrates worked against Reformed orthodoxy, Calvinists could certainly be virulent in

331 Coolhaes,Chriselijcke vermaninghe, 15. 332 Kooi, 91,200. 333 Craig E. Harline, Pamphlets, Printing, and Political Culture in the Early Dutch Republic (Dordrecht, 1987), 141,146-153. 334 Harline, Pamphlets, 228-230.

127 their criticism. In Leiden in 1580, Coolhaes responded to Calvinist criticism that because the magistrates treated the Reformed with such disdain, they were all “Atheists, free-

spirits and Papists.”335 Again we see evidence of the confessionalisation described by

Kaplan with Calvinists arguing that opposition to the expansion of their church must mean that their opponents must not be true Christians.

Nevertheless, Calvinist pamphlets on the subject of magistrates reveal not just pure virulence, but also how orthodox Calvinists expected the magistrates to behave. The

Summary Discourse on the Way to Conserve, and Maintain the True Christian Religion, and Keep and Assure the United Provinces of 1581 is a good example. The author opens by explaining that God has given authority to magistrates not simply to care for the temporal well-being of those under their charge, but also to “seek (especially) the glory of God, and to establish his Church.” This involves protecting the true Christian religion, but also “destroying all abuse, heresies, and errors with such a diligence...as the duty of their office brings.”336 The problems which the United Provinces face are the result of poor leadership. This poor leadership stems from the “nonchalance” of those appointed to administrative positions who are “ill disposed towards the true Religion.” To remedy this problem, offices should no longer be given to “persons of double, or hidden

335 Caspar Coolhaes,Apologia Een Christelijcke ende billijcke verantwoordinghe Caspari Coolhaessen. Dienaer des Goodlijcken woorsts tot Leyden, daer in hy hem nootsaklijcke sonder ennighe blamatie, met der waerheyt ontschuldicht, teghen eenighe quaetwillinghe ende onverstandighe, die hem van valscher Leer, ende onchristelijcken leven beschuldighen, ghestelt in forme eens Dailogi van twee personen (1580), 18. 336 Sommaire Discours svr le moyen de conserver, et maintenir la vraye religion christiene, & garder & assurer les prouinces vnies, contre toutes apparentes entreprinses, traihisons, & inuasions, de I'Ermemy de laPatrie. Etc. (1581), n.p.

128 faith...dissimulators and indifferent” and that all people in the Republic should be of “one law, faith, and Christian Religion.” Those who argue that imposing one religion on the whole country is a violation of particularist privileges, should know that such privileges have been obtained and maintained by ambitious and self-serving men. The country will surely flourish, through God’s grace, if die government follows this course. If the magistrates continue in their nonchalance towards the true religion, worse things will happen. Such was the case in Eastern Europe where Christians were overrun by the

“cruel nation of Turks.”337

The Brotherly Warning to all Christian Brothers, who are Ordained by God, to the Election o f the Rulers and the Magistrates follows a similar argument as the Summary

Discourse. The author states that people across the Netherlands are fighting for

Fatherland and liberty, but also for freedom of Christian belief “under the standard of the reformed Religion” against “the violence, force, tyranny, captivity and deception of the

Roman Anti-Christ or Babylonian whore.”338 The enemy is thus made clear. To overcome this foe, the United Provinces need good leaders. The strength of the country will stand on “virtuous and good Laws” grounded upon two foundations: the fear of God

337 Sommaire Discours, n.p. 338 Broederlijcke waerschowinghe: aen alien Christen broeders, die van Godt veroordent sijn, tot de verkiesinghe der Ouerricheyt ende Magistrates inde Steden der ghevnieerde Prouincien, daer het Heylich Euangelium vercondickt, ende de ghereformeerde Religie gheexerceert wort (Antwerp, 1581), Aii. “Maer oock een ten besondesten, voor de verbreydinghe des Christelijcken gheloofs, onder den standaerdt der gereformeerde Religie, die welcke te bozen onderdruct een in dese onse Nederlande by naer verinecht is gheweest, door het ghewalt, foztse, tyrannie, gheveynstheyt een bedriegerie vande Roomschen Ante-Christ oft Babelsche hoere, in het faueur vaan bloetgierigen Spaenschen honden een alle heure adherenten.”

129 and justice.339 The author then gives some more specific advice on how to deal in

religious affairs. Everything should be done to ensure that all can access the Gospel, but

also, the government should “exterminate the foundation of Roman heresy, such as

Altars, images, Masses, invented Sacraments” and so forth. No tolerance should be given to Catholics, for to do so would amount to only a partial commitment to God and his

commandments. In fact, the author makes it clear that no one “other than the reformed

Religion” should be allowed by the government to exercise his or her religion. “Because the reformed Religion is good, or it is evil, there is no middle position in divine

affairs.”340 The magistrates, in order to truly be considered supporters of the true Religion must support the Reformed Church wholeheartedly and drive out all other beliefs or else displease God.

Such rhetoric implies that the Reformed were very hostile to rival religious groups. In print this certainly seems to have been the case. However, the actions of the

Reformed seem to indicate continued divisions within the Reformed Church over how to treat religious minorities. This is illustrated in the 1601 Conversation o f Three Persons over the Rigorous Placard o f Groningen, a pamphlet written against a new Reformed- inspired placard in the city of Groningen. The pamphlet begins with a conversation between Hollander and Emdener over the new placard in Groningen. Emdener presents a copy of the placard which declares “that all Exercise of Religion other than the Reformed

339 Broederlijcke waerschowinghe, Bii. 340 Broederlijcke waerschowinghe, Bii-Biii.

130 shall be henceforth forbidden here.” If “Anabaptists, Papists or others against the State

Church” are found preaching or gathering they shall “each time be fined ten dalders” and

the third time, the case will be brought before the town council.341 Reformed then comes

along and is interested in seeing this copy of the placard he heard had been published in

Groningen. Hollander asks him “how does it please you?” Reformed replies that he

agrees with the contents of the placard since the purpose of the government is not simply

to deal with laws, but also mainly to promote the true religion. Reformed goes so far as to

say that he would like to see all false religion banned by the government “like that of

Groningen in this aforesaid Mandate.”342 In Groningen, the magistrates seem to be of the

sort that Reformed pamphleteers had desired.

This opinion then starts a debate. Hollander replies that “you were not singing this

Song hiding under the tyranny of Popedom.” Emdener uses Christ’s statement from

Matthew 22:21 “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto

God the things that are God's” to demonstrate that the soul is God’s domain, and not the magistrate’s.343 Reformed asks then what of the case when the magistrate is “a just Christ believing man like the Magistrates of the Reformed lands are now...may they not make

341 Tsamenspreeckinghe van drie persoonen over het regireus Placcaet van Groninghen/ghecondicht 7. den September/oude stijl. Anno sesthien-hondert ende een. Hollander. Embder. Ghereformeert. Door welcke tsamensprekinge naecktelick verthoont wort, dat die van Groningen doort selfde soecken nieuw consciencijs dwangh in te voeren/tot ondervruckinghe ende verdryvinghe van vele vromen/tot berovinghe den dueren gecochten Landts middelen (1601), B. “Ende noch/so wie bevonden wort/zijn huys ofte plaetse den Wederdoperen/Papisten/ofte anderen teghens deser Stats Kercken ordeminghe tho (?) ghestu(a?)den/oin ghepredighet ofte vergaderinghe ghehouden te worden/sal elck mael verbeuren thien daelders...ende ten derden mael also te predighen bevonden, sullen der stadt ende der selver Jurisdictie verwijser worden.” 342 Tsamenspreeckinghe van drie persoonen, Bii. 343 Tsamenspreeckinghe van drie persoonen, Bii.

131 good Christian laws?” Emdener argues that although the country may be Reformed, it

does not necessarily follow that the leaders are also Reformed.344 Reformed is persistent,

however, noting that both Calvin and Beza have argued that it is the magistrate’s duty to

use the power of the sword to support the Church. Emdener takes issue with this view by

citing a “Reformed speaker” who disagrees with this argument. This other Reformed

speaker argues that from the very foundation of the Gospel, the apostles had no other tools outside of “sincere and simple doctrine of truth and salvationGodsalicheyt).” ( If

one seeks to use other means to support Christianity, one must rely on “human wisdom”

and that which is built upon human wisdom “becomes broken again through human wisdom” hence Christ’s words to one of his disciples in Matthew 26:52 “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”345 It is thus outside the magistrate’s authority to use the power of the sword in religious affairs, and other Calvinists agree upon this point.

The placard of Groningen was targeted at the Mennonites. It was just one episode

in the long confessional competition between Reformed and Mennonites in the

Netherlands. Already some of the rhetoric against the Mennonites, or Anabaptists, has been noted. Calvin and Aldegonde berated them for sabotaging the Reformation with their extremism. In the 1570s, Dutch Calvinists in the southern Netherlands were writing against the threat Anabaptists posed to civic order because of their refusal to swear oaths of loyalty and their practice of community of goods. However, the conflict went much

344 Tsamenspreeckinghe van drie persoonen, n.p. 345 Tsamenspreeckinghe van drie persoonen, n.p.; Matthew 26:52, King James Version.

132 deeper than that. As Waite has noted, Mennonites shared much in common with the

Reformed. They both considered Catholic and Lutheran approaches to the Lord’s Supper

to be false or at least corrupted. They also shared a common commitment to church

discipline, even if Calvin refused to acknowledge the contribution of Anabaptists to the

Reformed emphasis on discipline.346 Samme Zijlstra has noted that the concerns of the

Anabaptists and the concerns of the Calvinist proponents of further reformation were

similar. Both sought a more godly society. In fact, the Calvinists pushing for further

reform were accused by their co-religionists of having Anabaptist sympathies, a charge which the further reformers fiercely denied.347

One might think because of these similarities that the Reformed and Mennonites would get along well. In fact, they became fierce rivals. Certainly they held some similar beliefs, but in other areas such as baptism, relations with secular authorities, and

Christology they had irreconcilable differences. The result was that in the context of the relatively free choice in religion brought about by the tacit toleration of the magistrates, competition for converts became the norm, and the similarities between Reformed and

Mennonites made the Mennonites the “most important opponent” of the Calvinists.348

Zijlstra has noted the strong presence of Mennonites in East Frisia and Friesland, with possibly up to a quarter of the population of Friesland being Mennonite even as late as

346 Waite, Devil's Minions, 59-60; Kenneth R. Davis, “No Discipline, No Church: An Anabaptist Contribution to the Reformed Tradition,”Sixteenth Century Journal 13:4 (Winter, 1982), 56. 347 Samme Zijlstra, Om de ware gemeente en de oude gronden: Geschiedenis van de dopersen in de Nederlanden 1531-1675 (Hilversum & Leeuwarden, 2000), 357. 348 Christine Kooi, “Converts and Apostates: The Competition for Souls in Early Modem Holland,”Archiv fllr Reformationsgeschichte 92 (2001), 203; Zijlstra, ware gemeente, 341.

133 1615.349 In East Frisia, where political conditions were similar to the United Provinces,

documents from Reformed consistories and synods reveal that many Reformed converted

to Anabaptism because they respected the harshness of Mennonite discipline over the

leniency of Reformed discipline. Consistory records also reveal that even over doctrinal

issues such as baptism and the incarnation of Christ, laypeople freely chose to leave the

Reformed for the Mennonites or vice-versa.350 Additionally, Alastair Duke argues that the Reformed acknowledged the importance of this competition in their confession,

which in contrast to the confessions of the French and Scottish Reformed, specifically

refutes Anabaptist doctrines.351 Duke further notes that while the Reformed compromised

on some issues such as allowing traditional simple hymns, rather than the metrical

Calvinist ones to be sung in order to gain support, they categorically refused to tone down their discipline. This exposed them to criticism from many who accused them of bringing a “Genevan Inquisition” but they insisted on it nonetheless.352 Although Duke does not mention it, the insistence on this discipline likely had much to do with the intense confessional competition with Anabaptists.

The Reformed were not idle in this competition. Early on they developed methods to try and counteract conversions of their adherents to Anabaptism. The competition between the two sects was present even while they struggled to survive in exile. When

349 Zijlstra, ware gemeente, 358. 350 Samme Zijlstra, “Anabaptists, Spiritualists, and the Reformed Church in East Frisia,”Mennonite Quarterly Review 75:1 (January, 2001), 62-65. 1 Alastair Duke, “The Ambivalent Face of Calvinism in the Netherlands, 1561-1618,” inReformation and Revolt in the Low Countries (London & Ronceverte, 1990), 276-277. 352 Duke, “Ambivalent Face,” 290-292.

134 Dutch Reformed refugees arrived in the German city of Wismar in December 1553,

freezing from the journey across the Baltic from Denmark, they were promptly aided by

Dutch Mennonite refugees. Although relations between the two groups began on friendly

terms, the Anabaptists began proselytising, angering the Reformed leadership. The

Reformed demanded a debate so that they might clearly demonstrate the differences

between Mennonites and Reformed. On February 6th, 1554 the Reformed pastor Martin

Micron and none other than Menno Simons himself engaged each other in debate.

Although they debated non-stop for eleven hours they separated on friendly terms.

However, because this debate covered little more than Christology, the Reformed pressed

for a second debate on other contentious topics such as baptism and the taking of oaths.

The Mennonites reluctantly agreed, but when the debate began Menno insisted on

discussing Christology again. Both sides refused to budge on the issue, and becoming

increasingly frustrated, the debate ended when the Reformed were literally pushed out the

door by the Mennonites.353

According to the modem editor of Micron’s account of the debates, W.F.

Dankbaar, the debates were destined to be a failure from the outset. The good faith of the opponent was always in question in the minds of both the Reformed and Mennonites, but above all the debates could only be a failure because they were founded in “deep and earnest” convictions about salvation. Menno could not accept Christ being partly human

3,3 W.F. Dankbaar, ed., Documenta Anabaptistica Neerlandica, vol.3 Marten Mikron,Een Waerachtigh Verhaalder T’zamensprekinghen tusshen Memo Simons ende Matinus Mikron der Menschwerdinghe lesu Christi (1556) (Leiden, 1989), XV-XXVI.

135 for that would mean he was tainted by sin and an unworthy saviour while Micron could

not accept Christ being fully divine because then he would be unable to suffer and die.

These two positions were irreconcilable.354 Nevertheless, Micron’s account was reprinted

in 1563, 1582, and 1603, suggesting that the Reformed found the book useful in

countering Anabaptists into the seventeenth century.355 Indeed, Reformed synods

continually called for disputes, or larger national “general disputes” between Reformed

and Mennonites so that “pure doctrine” would become known and the Mennonites would

see their errors. The Mennonites were, not suiprisingly, unenthusiastic about the idea, and

a general discussion was never held.356 There are several recorded instances of local

debates being held across the Netherlands, especially in regions where there were a large number of Mennonites, but the results of these debates were minimal, with no observable gains for the Reformed.357

However, the Reformed had other options which they could use in their competition with the Anabaptists. Because of their favoured position in the Dutch

Republic, the Reformed Church in its synods supplicated magistrates to take action against the Anabaptists, emphasising their refusal to bear arms and swear oaths. Thus, in

1586 the national synod of the Hague called the Reformed churches to organise a

“friendly dispute” with the Mennonites, while also declaring that it was the task of the

354 Dankbaar, Documenta, XXVIII-XXIX. 355 Dankbaar, Documenta, XIII. 356 Zijlstra, ware gemeente, 352. 357 Zijlstra, ware gemeente, 354-355.

136 government to take action against Anabaptist “abuses.”358 The government generally took

limited or no action against the large number of Mennonites, leaving the Reformed to

engage in roughly equal confessional competition with them. Zijlstra concludes that the

Calvinists basically accepted this situation and many of their synods suggest peaceful

methods of competition with Mennonites such as explaining differences between

Reformed and Mennonites in sermons and print literature, and encouraging debates.359

Christine Kooi has also pointed out in Leiden that the Reformed, although joining with their co-religionists in decrying the persistence of Mennonite heresy, did very little to promote the suppression of their worship. In fact, they took very little notice of them at

all unless an issue with them arose in their congregation such as charges of apostasy and mixed marriages.360 The relationship between Reformed and Mennonites demonstrated both instances of peaceful co-existence, but also a desire on part of the Reformed to suppress such a close rival. Similarly, there were varied reactions to the growing Dutch

Jewish community by the Reformed in the early seventeenth century.

Portuguese comersos (Jews who were forced to convert to Catholicism) began to immigrate to Amsterdam around 1580, seeking to escape the Inquisition in their homeland and find economic opportunity elsewhere. Daniel Swetschinski argues that the chief motive for Jews moving to the United Provinces was economic, but once they arrived, they found that the government cared very little about their religious beliefs.

358 Zijlstra, ware gemeente, 344. 359 Zijlstra, ware gemeente, 373,344. 360 Kooi,Liberty and Religion, 167-168.

137 With relative religious freedom, and the general anti-Catholic atmosphere, many Jews

began to return to their old religion, setting up synagogues on private property using the

freedom of conscience provision of the Union of Utrecht as justification.361

Swetschinski also makes observations on the Calvinist reaction to these Jews,

identifying two major Calvinist views on the existence of a Jewish community in the

Netherlands. The first view was a very critical one which saw the Jews as blasphemers

and people generally of ill repute. The second view was often associated with proponents

of further reformation. They not only saw the sinfulness of Roman Catholicism, but also

the imperfections within the Reformed Church and continually sought to purify the

church and society. As a result, they placed greater emphasis on Calvin’s early sermons

which likened all of humanity to the Jews, taking away the blame of the Jews as “Christ-

killers” and recognising that it was the sin of all humankind which was the cause of

Christ’s death.362 Calvinists could thus have contrasting views on the Jews and this is

evidenced in the writings of two Calvinist pastors: Abraham Costerus’History o f the

Jews and Hugh Broughton’s Ovr Lorde Familie which records a public debate he held with an Amsterdam Rabbi.

Costerus is representative of the first view outlined by Swetschinski. Costerus writes that the reason he decided to write hisHistory o f the Jews was that he heard that the Jews of the Netherlands were making efforts to establish a “public Synagogue” where

361 Daniel M. Swetschinski, “From the Middle Ages to the Golden Age, 1516-1621,” in J.C.H Blom, R.G. Fuks-Mansfeld, & Ivo SchOffer,The History o fthe Jews in the Netherlands (Oxford, 2002), 65-70. 362 Swetschinski, “From the Middle Ages,” 72-73.

138 they could practice their “foolish and stupid Ceremonies” and their ’‘terrible blasphemy

against Christ and his Holy Gospel.” The government has fortunately refused this request.

The purpose of the work is to bring to light the falsehood of the Jewish religion, showing

why the magistrates’ decision was a good one.363 Costerus does this through an

examination of Jewish beliefs, ceremonies, and daily living, showing their blasphemy all

along the way. For example, chapter XIII discusses what the Jews believe about the

Christian saviour, Jesus Christ. Costerus argues that the Jews always speak shamefully of

Jesus’ birth, mother, and father. Their words are godless blasphemy, enough to cause the earth to shake. Indeed, the Jews go so far to say that all of Christ’s miracles were done through sorcery which he had learned while in Egypt. Consequently they say that he was justly condemned to death.364 For a seventeenth-century Calvinist, such blasphemy would certainly warrant a degree of intolerance towards such a God-angering religion.

Nevertheless, Costerus does not call for the expulsion of the Jews already present within the Republic, or even restrictions on the immigration of more Jews.365 His intolerance does seem to have some limits. Although his book does attack the Jewish religion for its blasphemy, it does not resort to demonising the Jews. In discussing

Passover, Costerus makes no reference to the common traditional accusation that during

363 Abraham de Coster, Historie der Joden, Die t 'sedert de verstooringe Jerusalems in alle landen verstroyt zijn: in dry deelen beschreven. Het I. Handelt van haer geloove, ‘t welck sy kebben van God, vande Saligheyt, vanden Messia, mitsgaders de wederlegginge van haer principaeiste dwalingen. Het II van hare Godts-dienst, Ceremonien, en maniere van Leven, o phaer Sabbath, Paesch-, en ander Feest-dagen. Het III van haer daeghlijcx leven, anieren en gewoonten, die sy in eten, drincken, gaen, staen, kleedinge, trouwen, &c. ghebruycken. Uyt verscheyden Autheuren vergadert/ende beschreven door Abrahamum Costerum, 2nd. Publication (Amsterdam, 1650), A2r. The orignal publication was in 1608. 364 De Coster, Historie der Joden, 107-108. 365 Swetschinski, “From the Middle Ages,” 72.

139 this time Jews committed ritual murder against Christian boys.366 The Jews are certainly

blasphemous, but perhaps not diabolical. In fact, Costerus argues that the sinful religion

of the Jews helps demonstrate the truth of the Christian religion.367 Even within the

thought of one Calvinist pastor, an ambivalent relationship between Jews and Reformed

is observable.

The English immigrant pastor Hugh Broughton witnessed the division of

Calvinists on the toleration of the Jews first hand. He writes to Prince Maurice of Nassau,

successor of William of Orange, that upon his very arrival in the Netherlands he was

challenged by one of the Prince’s theologians on the matter of some of his interpretations

in certain Hebrew books he had written. Furthermore, Broughton complains that while

the Rabbi Dr. David Farar openly challenged Broughton to debate with him on several

disputed points, the Prince’s learned theologians condemned Broughton’s “Ebrew

bookes” behind his back.368 Further divisions between Calvinists are revealed in

Broughton’s descriptions of the debate he held with Dr. Farar. In discussing the four

kingdoms prophecy in Daniel 8, Farar challenges Broughton that if the fourth kingdom be the Romans and the Messiah was supposed to come after the fourth kingdom, then the

Messiah must be mistaken. Broughton replies that the fourth kingdom is not the Romans,

344 De Coster, H istorie der Joden, 153-166. Gary Waite has noted a similar tendency in Calvinists to avoid demonising Anabaptists as Catholics and Lutherans often did. Instead they disapproved of their beliefs and practices upon the basis of Scripture. See Gary K. Waite,Eradicating the Devil's Minions: Anabaptists and Witches in Reformation Europe (Toronto, 2007), 59-60. 347 De Coster, Historie der Joden, A4r. 341 Hugh Broughton, Ovr Lorde Famile and many other poinctes depending vpon it: opened against a lew, Rabbi David Farar: who disputed many houres, with hope to overthrow the Gospl, opened in Ebrew explication o f Christianitie (Amsterdam, 1608), n.p.

140 but the “parted Macedonianes.” Farar retorts that “None but you and D. Iunius make the

parted Macedonianes the fourth Kingdome. M. Plancius & the Preachers of this towne

are against you for Salomons howse, for Daniels Chronicle, for the Crede, & for the

fourth Kingdome, & hold not the new T. to be pure in text.”369 The Reformed preachers

of the town thus side with the Jews against their own co-religionist, and in fact admitted to someone in the Jewish community that there were textual errors in the New

Testament.370 This implies that at least in some cases, Dutch Reformed and Jews co­

existed peacefully with one another, and were even on friendly enough terms to agree on

some religious matters.

Moreover, even Broughton does not seem to have been overly hostile towards the

Jewish community. He writes in his epistle to English King James I that after Broughton published several books upon the lineage of Christ in the Hebrew Bible, the Jews “were greued to see their hope of victorie gone. And one lew (Dr. Farar) of Amsterdam made request, that I wold in an open solemne audience, aunswer him one after none, to such argumentes, as by which lews gathered, that our cospel, could not be of God.” Broughton agreed to this request, and they disputed one afternoon in Amsterdam, the Jew “vainlie hoping to prove” the errors of the lineage of Christ and other inaccuracies of the New

Testament. Broughton believes that he was the victor in the disputation and publishes the debate “for the vse of the Kinges nationes. And j wold go foreward with writinges, to be

369 Broughton, Ovr Lorde Fam ile, G2. 370 Gary Waite, “Spiritualism, the Occult Sciences, Jews and Religious Tolerance in the Dutch Republic,” unpublished paper presented at theSixteenth Century Studies Conference (Montreal, October 15th,2010), 7- 8.

141 turned by other into all Europe tongues, for the light of Christendom...”371 In these

passages Broughton demonstrates the same confidence as his co-religionists in the power of debate to convince others of the truth of the Reformed religion. This same confidence convinced the Calvinists of France and the southern Netherlands in the late 1570s to advocate for the toleration of Catholics on the basis that once peace was established, a free council would allow them to prove through the Bible that the Reformed religion was the purest form of Christianity. Perhaps Broughton hoped to do the same with the Jews of the Netherlands. Indeed, perhaps even a hard-line Calvinist like Broughton could see some merits in a multi-confessional society.

Conclusion

Judith Pollmann, in her study of Dutch lawyer and humanist Amoldus Buchelius, notes that when Buchelius joined the Reformed Church in the 1590s he did so in the belief that a Christian society needed unity so as to avoid God’s anger and to prevent the proliferation of an infinite number of religious sects, and, consequently, a turn away from

God.372 It was around this same time that Buchelius’ writings show an increased tendency to portray other faiths in a negative light. For Buchelius in 1595, Catholicism was a tool of Satan to lead people astray from the true faith.373 However, while he held these beliefs, he maintained friendships with Catholics, Mennonites, and Arminians. In a letter to his

371 Broughton, Ovr Lorde Famile, n.p. 372 Judith Pollman, Religious Choice in the Dutch Republic: The Reformation o f Amoldus Buchelius, 1565- 1641 (New York, 1999), 87-88. 373 Pollman, Religious Choice, 92.

142 Arminian friend Caspar Bariaeus he even recognised salvation outside of the Reformed

Church in assuring his friend that he would be saved.374 This dichotomy between public

disgust and private friendship with other faiths is reflective of the Republic as a whole.

Because of the multiplicity of faiths, individuals were forced to find ways “to heal the

wounds of confessional division.” They did this through focusing on the civic bonds of

unity, while accepting that other forms of religious belief could be practiced in private.375

Other Calvinists in the United Provinces also seem to have adapted to this unique

situation. As the case of the Jews demonstrates, some Calvinists accepted the existence of

other faiths, and could even be on friendly terms with them. Peaceful co-existence could

be an opportunity to show others the light through reason and debate. Nevertheless, many

Calvinists also saw the Republic as a Reformed country, and, accordingly, the

government should use its God-given authority to root out heresy. Thus, there was division over the issue of tolerance in the Reformed camp, and as the case of Amoldus

Buchelius illustrates, this division even existed in the opinions of an individual Calvinist.

However, this situation developed over almost half a century, and the result of a

Reformed Church in a relatively tolerant society was by no means apparent in 1566. In the Wonderyear, Calvinists were insisting on their loyalty to local magistrates and the legitimacy of their doctrine with the goal of receiving toleration of their views. They were a persecuted minority seeking to stop the violence perpetrated against them.

374 Pollman, Religious Choice, 168-169. 375 Pollman, Religious Choice, 175-176.

143 Nevertheless, while they emphasised their deference to legitimate authorities, they saw

the established Roman Catholic Church as incredibly corrupt. A number of the Reformed

pastors seem to have stressed peaceful relations with the corrupt church, in spite of its

idolatry, at least until the magistrates could be convinced to do away with the idols.

However, many of the Reformed simply could not tolerate the persistence of Roman

idolatry and the result was expansive iconoclasm across the Low-Countries. With this mass iconoclasm, the Calvinist dreams of toleration were also smashed as Spanish

soldiers arrived to restore order.

After years of war the Calvinists returned and took over many churches in the northern Netherlands. However, the rebel cause needed the support of the many remaining Catholics, especially in the south. For this reason, Dutch Calvinists borrowed

ideas from their French co-religionists and advocated tolerance for both Catholic and

Reformed until the Estates General and a free council could decide their religious differences. It was indeed a limited toleration for they expected it to only be temporary as they convinced the unfaithful of the truth of the Reformed religion. It also should not be extended to everyone. The Anabaptists were simply too extreme to tolerate. This was not because of their views on baptism, but more so because of their lack of recognition of magisterial authority. Atheists were also not to be tolerated because their lack of belief would only result in problems. First, because Atheists were not regulated by Christian morality and second, because their presence would provoke the wrath of God.

Just as in 1566 however, radical Calvinists ruined the efforts of the proponents of toleration to maintain peace. The result was the complete severing of ties with Spain by the northern Netherlands. Calvinists in the immediate aftermath of the failure of 144 toleration to unite all of the Netherlands took their anger out on Spanish treachery and

tyranny, and the corruption and schemes of the Catholic clergy. The enemies of the

Gospel were clearly identified as confessionalisation increased.

In spite of an identifiable enemy, the Calvinists in the northern Netherlands were

focused on other issues. They found themselves in the unique situation of being the

politically dominant faith in a society numerically dominated by other religious groups

including Spiritualists, Mennonites, Lutherans, and Catholics. In the relatively peaceful

atmosphere of the northern provinces, the Calvinists also realised the need to continue

reformation within their own church. As they sought to strengthen their political position,

and more clearly define their doctrinal positions, the Calvinists created enemies with their

former allies in the church and in the government. The Spiritualist sympathies of many of

the clergy, and especially the supposedly Reformed magistrates, were a serious obstacle

in the way of the further reformation which needed to be overcome. Within the church

this seemed easy enough; the unorthodox clergy could be removed from office and

excommunicated if necessary. But the magistrates used their powers to support many

unorthodox clerics since they supported magisterial control over church affairs and a more inclusive Reformed church. The results were schisms and religious controversy in many of the cities of the Republic as the Reformed quarrelled among themselves and with the magistrates. Out of this situation came a number of Calvinist pamphlets calling for a purer government in which the magistrates would be more supportive of orthodox

Calvinism.

In general, this last objective was never quite reached. When it was, however, the

Calvinists often sought to have other religious groups suppressed. Nevertheless, even in 145 this objective the Reformed pastors and magistrates could not agree. Thus, throughout the development of the Reformed Church in the Netherlands a great diversity of opinion is observable. This diversity of opinion was never resolved and Calvinist discourse on the desirability of toleration always depended greatly on the particular political circumstances of the time it was written.

146 Chapter 4: Calvinism and Religious Toleration in Comparative

Perspective

“I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”376 This is certainly not one of the Biblical passages most associated with Calvinism. However, it was Calvinism’s application of this principle of adaptability which allowed it to spread across all of Europe, in contrast to Lutheranism which remained largely confined to

German and Scandinavian territories. Alastair Duke inCalvinism in Europe, 1540-1620 has claimed that although Calvinists across Europe were not as united as their Catholic and Lutheran opponents feared, there certainly was an internationalist attitude which started with Calvin himself who sought to unite other Swiss Protestants under one confessional banner.377 However, Calvinism was also too extreme to attract widespread support, especially in the countryside where Calvinist pastors insisted on abandoning superstition and any semblance of the traditional Catholic mass. Duke argues that where

Calvinism did take hold, it did so by adapting to local circumstances.378

The other essays in this volume provide examples of Calvinism’s adaptability.

Jane Dawson notes that in Scotland, Calvinism adapted itself to both the Scottish

Lowlands and the Gaelic Highlands. Despite the great amount of illiteracy and the apparently superstitious practices of the Gaels, Calvinist pastors exploited the traditions

376 1 Corinthians 9:22b (King James Version). 377 Alastair Duke, “Perspectives on International Calvinism,” Calvinismin in Europe, 1540-1620, eds., Pettegree et al. (Cambridge, 1994), 1-9. 37* Duke, “International Calvinism,” 18-19.

147 of “oral literacy” to spread Calvinist reformation in this region with Calvinism already

becoming the dominant religion in Scotland in the 1560s. Dawson argues that this trend

is reflective of the “flexibility of the Calvinist movement” in the early-modern era. The

religion was able to adapt to indigenous cultures while “retaining a sufficiently coherent

core for it to remain a recognisable international movement.”379 Bodo Nischan notes that

in German Brandenburg the Calvinists were equally adaptable. When the absolutist

elector John Sigismund converted to Calvinism in 1613, the Calvinist pastors in the

country supported his rule and justified his resistance to the Emperor, while arguing that the lesser nobles in the realm did not have a right to resist the elector since he was not

forcing their consciences.380 By 1613, the formerly suppressed Calvinists had gained the favour of the monarch and sought to support their new ally. Nischan concludes that the

Calvinists of Brandenburg were able to be proponents of absolutism while, by contrast,

Calvinists in East Friesland allied themselves with traditional Frisian constitutionalism.

What united the Calvinists was their apocalyptic vision, and their perceived role in the struggle of good and evil leading up to Judgement Day. The Calvinists believed that whoever allied with them, allied with good, whoever was against them worked for the

379 Jane Dawson, “Calvinism and the Gaidheaitachd in Scotland,” inCalvinism in Europe, 1540-1620, eds., Pettegree et al., (Cambridge, 1994), 252-253. 3,0 Bodo Nischan, “Confessionalism and Absolutism: the case of Brandenburg,” Calvinismin in Europe, 1540-1620, eds., Pettegree et al., (Cambridge, 1994), 197-202.

148 forces of evil.381 Consequently their political views changed depending on who was

supporting them.

It was the same adaptable thinking which characterised Calvinist discourse on

toleration in France and the Netherlands. Between 1560 and 1609 the political situations

in both countries changed radically. All the while, Calvinists maintained their core goal

of complete reformation. However, to achieve this goal, to “save some,” their views

towards toleration changed with political circumstances. Adaptability is what defmed

Calvinist toleration discourse in both France and the Netherlands, and it was for this

reason that by 1600, their views on toleration were significantly different from one

another. This is readily apparent when comparing Calvinist writings in the two contexts.

The early years of the Calvinist Reformation were similar in both France and the

Low Countries. In both countries Calvinists sought to portray themselves as an unjustly

persecuted group of true Christians and loyal subjects. Hence, the preface of the French

Confession of Faith sent to Francis II insists on the loyalty of the French Reformed

Church, and the Just Complaint o f the Faithful ofFrance supplicates any magistrate to

tolerate them since their words and actions clearly show loyalty. In a way, the French

Calvinists conformed to Calvin’s insistence in the prefatory address to Francis I in his

Institutes o f the Christian Religion of the loyalty of the king’s Protestant subjects, and his

refusal to support the Conspiracy of Amboise unless it was led by a Prince of the Blood.

381 Nischan, “Confessionalism and Absolutism,” 204. A similar theme has been noted in this thesis in the Netherlands following the failure of the Pacification of Ghent.

149 There appears to be a similar conformity to Calvin’s views in the Netherlands as well.

The argument put forward by Calvin in the Prefatory AddressInstitutes and that of

Philips Mamix van St. Aldegonde in hisTrue Narration and Apology o f the Things that

have Passed in the Netherlands are very similar. Calvin begins by arguing that the King

has been misled by “certain bad men” to persecute the Protestants in the realm, and

explains that the purpose of this address is to demonstrate that the doctrine his councillors

insist must be destroyed is, in fact, not dangerous. He then attacks the corruption of the

Catholic Church and doctrine, refuting their arguments against Protestantism. He also

argues that apart from the Inquisition, the “Catabaptists” are a tool of Satan to turn people

away from the Gospel.382 Aldegonde also begins by arguing that the persecution of

Protestants is unjust, since they are in fact loyal to the King, even if they are loyal to God

first. The corrupt Catholic Church which seeks to maintain their dominance lies to the king in order to maintain their debauchery. The Anabaptists as well are the enemies of the

Gospel, since they take Christian freedom too far, and forget to respect the authority of the government.383 Thus, there are several apparent similarities between Calvin’s opinions on the political situation and that of his followers in the early years of the movement.

382 John Calvin,Institutes o f the Christian Religion, trans. Heniy Beveridge (Peabody, Mass., 2008), xx- xxxiii. 3,3 Philips Mamix van Sint Aldegonde,Vraye Narration et Apologie des choses passes au Pays-bas, touchant le Fait de la Relion enl'An 1566par cevs qvi font profession de la Religion reformie audit Pays (1567), A2-A6.

150 However, in the context of massive proliferation of the movement, the Reformed

became confident of victory in the near future. In both France and the Netherlands this

led the Calvinists to become increasingly militant. While they continued to insist on their

deference to authorities, both their actions and writings reveal a different picture.

Tolerance of Catholicism did not appear to be a necessity because it would only be a

short period of time before the Reformed were completely victorious. For this reason the

Just Complaint also advocates the seizure of Catholic Churches and public preaching to

proclaim the truth to everyone.384 Likewise, Christianthe Response justifies the

Conspiracy of Amboise by stating that subjects have the right to rebellion when their

natural monarch is “oppressed” by tyrannical advisors such as the Guises.385 Also in the

Netherlands, Aldegonde’s justification of iconoclasm as the work of God is reflective of early confidence in the impending triumph of Calvinism.386 The Roman Catholic Church was a weak enemy, and Calvinism was rapidly expanding. Tolerance did not seem to be necessary.

By the 1570s it had become clear to the Calvinists that tolerance was indeed necessary, at least for Roman Catholics. In France this realisation came as continuing civil war and the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres weakened the Reformed movement.

384Juste Complainte des fideles de France. Contre lews adursaires Papistes, & autres. Sur I’qfflication & faux crimes, dont on les charge a grand tort. Ensemble les inconueniens, qui en pourrqyent finalement auenir d ceux, qui lew font la guerre (Avignon, 1560), 18-21. 385 Response Chrestienne & diffensrve sus aucuns poincts calomnieux contenus en certains Lettres envqyies aux Bailiffs, Sineschaux, & Lieutenans du (1560?), Roy in M. De Thou, Mimoires de Condi, servants d ’iclaircissement de Preuves a I'Histoire Vol. (Paris: 1 1743), 365-366. 386 St. Aldegonde, Vraye Narration, G5-G6.

151 The Huguenots no longer had the numbers to bring about a full Calvinist reformation in

the immediate future. Civil war was destroying the country, and the Calvinists needed

allies to survive. In the context of violent civil war, Calvinists put a new emphasis on the

fact that while Catholicism was certainly corrupted, Roman Catholics were at least

Christians and thus it was most un-Christian behaviour to continue fighting when both

sides agreed on the basic points. Hence, Philippe Duplessis-Momay and Innocent

Gentillet continued their critique of Catholic doctrine and practices while also

emphasising common beliefs in an effort to encourage toleration of both sides.387 The

Dutch meanwhile, needed allies against Spanish tyranny. The Calvinists in the

Wonderyear had already estranged many people in the southern Netherlands from their

brand of reformation, and the southern Netherlanders remained largely Catholic. To

defeat Governor Don Juan and end the civil war, William of Orange sought to promote

toleration in order to unite both Calvinist and Catholic under the rebel banner. The result

was the publication of a number of Dutch pamphlets supporting toleration of

Catholicism.

The 1570s therefore brought a dilemma for Calvinists. Their ultimate goal was

complete reformation of their respective countries. They wanted religious unity, or

387 See Philippe Duplessis-Momay,Traicte d'eglise ququel sont disputees les principalles questions, qui esti meues sus ce point en nostre temps (Londres, 1578); Momay,Remonstance aux estats pour la Paix (1576); Innocent Gentillet, An Apology or defence for the Christians o fFrounce which are o fthe Euangelicall or reformed religion, for the satisfiing o f such as wil not Hue in peace and concord with them... Written to the king o fNauarre and translated out o f French into English by Sir Jherom Bowes Knight (London, 1579); Gentillet,A Dbcovrse vpon the Meanesw oel f governing and maintaining in good peace, a kingdome, or other principalitie. Divided into three parts, namely, the Counsell, the Religion, and the Police which a Prince ought to hold and follow. Against Nicholas Machiavell the Florentine (London, 1602), trans. Simon Patericke.

152 concord. The result of this continuing goal was to argue that toleration was a temporary

solution until a “free council” could solve the religious differences. Following the

argument of Mario Turchetti, the Calvinists of the 1570s went from the first moderate

opinion of concord without recourse to toleration, to the second opinion, temporary

toleration with the purpose of bringing concord. Not until the mid-seventeenth century

would some Calvinists accept the third moderate opinion of tolerance as a matter of

principle.388 The advocacy of a council to bring about Calvinist reformation seems to

have been a French idea originating in the early 1560s. Almost all of the pamphlets read

for this thesis from 1559-1561 promoted the calling of a free council where the

Protestants might demonstrate how closely their faith aligned with the Bible and the early

Church. Despite their apparent militancy, Calvinist rhetoric of the early 1560s advocated for a peaceful council to solve the country’s problems, not a violent rebellion or conspiracy. OnlyThe Manner to Allay the Troubles, that are Now in France goes into detail as to what it hoped to achieve afterwards: the complete dismantlement of Roman

Catholicism, and the expulsion of its corrupt clergy, revealing how intolerant Calvinist goals actually were.389

What changed from the 1560s to the 1570s was the increased emphasis placed on the need for toleration of the two opposing religious groups before any council could be

3M Mario Turchetti, “Middle Parties in France during the Wars of Religion” in Reformation, Revolt, and Civil War in France and the Netherlands 1555-1585, eds. Philip Benedict, Guido Mamef, Henk van Nierop, Marc Venard (Amsterdam, 1999), 171-172. 389La Maniere d'appasier les troubles, qvi sont maintenant en France, & y pourront estre cy apres. Auec une Harengue d ’vn Prince Chrestien, sur lespoincts de la Religion. A la Royne, Mere (1561), du Roy 20- 22.

153 called. Since the political situations were so similar the Dutch seem to have

wholeheartedly accepted the French advocacy of toleration until a council could be

convened.A Friendly Warning to all Lovers o fFreedom and the Religions-vreden

explains the Calvinist position towards toleration most clearly. The author makes several

points that he believes all “men of good standing” need to remember. The first point is

that the current toleration istemporary until a council can resolve the religious

differences. The toleration allows the peace necessary for an impartial Bible-based

deliberation on the subject of religious discord. The second point is that the “intention of

all Christians must be to establish true religion and chase out the false.”390 The Calvinists

were advocates of toleration on the basis of political necessity. Their guiding principle

remained complete reformation of the realm and restoration of Christian unity.

While Catholics were considered tolerable as a matter of political necessity, the

Calvinists usually maintained in the 1570s that other minority groups should not be tolerated. In their quest for complete reformation, atheists, Anabaptists, and witches were

dangerous enemies which served no purpose but to provoke God’s ire and spread

irreligion. Not only was their removal necessary for further reformation, persecution of these deviant groups could serve a secondary purpose as a means of uniting Catholics and

Protestants against a single common enemy.

In both France and the Netherlands, atheists were a common target. But, just what was an atheist in early-modern Europe? Earlier historians argued that atheism was

390 Een Vriendlijcke vermaninghe tot alien Liejhbbers der vryheyt ende des Religions-vreden (1579), Av.

154 impossible in the early-modern world, since the religious world view of early-modems

did not allow for doubt of the existence of God. Lucien Febvre argued as much inLe his probUme d'incroyance au XVI si&cle. In his words “to speak of rationalism and free

thought, when we are dealing with an age when the most intelligent men, the most

learned, and the most daring were truly incapable of finding any support either in

philosophy or science against a religion whose domination was universal is to speak of an

illusion.”391 However, more recently historians have argued that a form of atheism did

indeed exist in the early-modern period. David Wootton notes that whereas atheists were

simply termed “heretics” in the Middle Ages, the sixteenth century saw a proliferation of terms such as atheist, deist, and epicurean to describe unbelievers.392 However, as Perez

Zagorin has pointed out, it was very unlikely that many people denied the existence of

some sort of God. Instead, atheism was more so defined as rejection of accepted Christian doctrines such as the incarnation, the immortality of the soul, providence, the divine

inspiration of Scripture, and the existence of the Devil, or as Wootton puts it, “beliefs which made God’s existence irrelevant.”393

Calvin was one of the first to speak out against unbelief after learning of several former Protestant humanists in Paris who had began to spread ideas that the New

Testament was written by a mere wise philosopher similar to Plato, and the Old

391 Perez Zagorin, Ways o f Lying: Dissimulation, Persecution, and Conformity in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge Mass., 1990), 289-291. 392 David Wootton, “New Histories of Atheism,”Atheism in. from the Reformation to the Enlightenment, eds., Michael Hunter, David Wootton (Oxford, 1992), 24. 393 Zagorin, Ways o f Lying, 291-292; Wootton, “New Histories,” 25.

155 Testament was completely false with its portrayal of a vengeful God. Calvin spoke out against these beliefs in his 1550 Concerning Scandals. Calvin defined them as critiques of the simplicity of Scripture and doubters of salvation in the afterlife.394 Elsewhere,

Calvin is recorded to have been “far more worried” about the “Epicureans” who seek to extinguish all fear of God than the corrupt Papists.395

The Calvinists of France seem to have incorporated Calvin’s opinions in their goal of complete reformation.The Manner in 1560 argues that to facilitate the restoration of order in the realm and save it from God’s anger, all irreverent opinions must be exterminated.396 Gentillet makes a similar point in his 1576 Discourse on the Means o f

Well Governing in which he argues atheists who lack any sense of morality are one of the chief causes of the turmoil and civil wars in France.397 In the Netherlands, similar arguments can be seen. In I fEveryone Must be Allowed Liberty to Serve God according to Their Way and Fantasy the author declares that atheists are to receive absolutely no toleration as they are “public enemies of the human race.”398 TheFriendly Warning likewise considers “Epicureans” enemies of the true religion, and necessary to

3,4 Zagorin, Ways o fLying, 296-298. 395 William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait (New York & Oxford, 1988), 64-65. 396 La Maniere d 'appasier les troubles, qvi sont maintenant en France, & ypourront estre cy apres. Auec une Harengue d ’vn Prince Chrestien, sur lespoincts de la Religion. A la Rqyne, Mere (1561), du Ray 22. 397 Innocent Gentillet,A Discavrse vpon the Meanes woel f governing and maintaining in good peace, a kingdome, or other principalitie. Divided into three parts, namely, the Counsell, the Religion, and the Police which a Prince ought to hold and follow. Against Nicholas Machiavell the Florentine (London, 1602), trans. Simon Palericke, 92-94. 391 “Si Ton doit laisser a vn chdcun la libertd de seruir Dieu selon sa manifcre & phantaise”Discours in svr la Permission (1579), 54.

156 persecute.399 However, the authors of these pamphlets do not identify any specific views

of the so-called atheists. Their focus is instead on the lack of morality of the irreligious

which will lead society into decay. “Epicurean” is thus probably the more accurate term

as it emphasises the philosophy that one should seek one’s own pleasure and comfort

above all else. This individualism was unacceptable in a true Christian society. As part of the Calvinist reformation program, it was necessary to exterminate such behaviour.

However, in the 1570s, persecution of atheism would serve a secondary purpose

of uniting Catholic and Calvinist against a common foe. Henry Heller argues that

Gentillet’s emphasis on the atheism of Italian Machiavellians was an effort to unite

French Catholics and Protestants against a foreign enemy whose lack of religion made them self-serving abusers of the honest God-fearing people of France.400 It seems probable that the Calvinists sought to convince moderate Catholics to side with them by demonstrating animosity to a common foe. In this way, Calvinists diverted attention away from their disagreements with Catholicism towards a common enemy. Anti-Anabaptist and anti-witchcraft rhetoric served a similar purpose.

From the 1560s, witchcraft and demonology played an important role in the religious and political conflicts of France. Exorcisms were an especially common phenomenon in the confessional conflicts during the religious wars. Public exorcisms, argues Sarah Ferber, were a vital component in Catholic efforts to proselytise the

399 Vriendlijcke Vermaninghe, Avii. 400 Henry Heller,Anti-Italianism in Sixteenth-Century France (Toronto, 2003),134.

157 Huguenots. In the context of a strong belief in the power of the Devil, and his active role

in France’s ongoing religious strife, exorcisms were a means of “resolution of the

religious uncertainty” which was present throughout the kingdom.401 For example, the

famous 1566 exorcism of Nicole Obry in Laon saw the exorcising priest command the

demon to speak. The demon, Prince Beelzebuth, declared “I with my obstinate

Huguenots will do Him [Christ] more evil than the Jews ever did!”402 Through this

instance, the God-given power of the Roman Catholic Church over Satan was

demonstrated, as well as the close relationship between the Huguenots and the Devil.

This case brought about the beginnings of French demonology, in which “zealot”

Catholics sought to show the link between Protestant heresy and the workings of the

Devil, and inspire conservative Gallican magistrates to engage in the Counter-

Reformation and persecute Protestants and witches as demonic agents.403

The Huguenots meanwhile shared the view of their Catholic opponents that Satan was actively seeking to harm Christians in this world. The Huguenot response to the

Obry exorcisms was not necessarily to denounce them as false, but to argue that the Devil

could have orchestrated the whole thing so as to lead ignorant people astray, and what better agents than self-serving or ignorant priests?404 Indeed,The Manner, along with encouraging the persecution of atheists also maintained that “Magicians and fortune

401 Sarah Ferber, Demonic Possession and Exorcism in Early Modern France (London & New York, 2004), 2-4. 402 Jonathan L. Pearl, The Crime o fCrimes: Demonology and Politics in France 1560-1620 (Waterloo Ont., 1999), 43-44. 403 Pearl, Crime o f Crimes, 21; 44-46. 404 Ferber, Demonic Possession, 6.

158 tellers” were among the people that God wanted “exterminated.”405 Just like their

Counter-Reformation opponents, the Calvinists saw the eradication of witchcraft as a

necessity in the battle against the Devil.

Another interpretation is possible however. The Huguenots, aware of the

enthusiasm for witch hunting of their Catholic opponents, could also seek to emphasise

their common struggle against the Devil in an effort to ensure toleration of the two main

faiths in the kingdom. The first Discourse in Francois de la Noue’sPolitical and Military

Discourses does suggest that this may have been the case. La Noue argues that it is folly

for two groups of Christians to kill one another, while atheists, blasphemers, and

sorcerers run amok angering the Lord. Published in 1586 as Protestant Henri de Navarre was in the process of trying to establish himself as the legitimate King of France against the opposition of the Catholic League, la Noue’s arguments certainly would have been welcomed by the supporters of Navarre who sought to unite Catholic and Protestant under one royalist banner.

Interestingly, witchcraft does not figure prominently in the writings of Dutch

Calvinists. In fact, witchcraft was not as important of an issue in the northern Netherlands as elsewhere in western and northern Europe. Out of one million people in the northern

Netherlands, just 150 were executed for witchcraft, proportionally far fewer than in

405 La M aniere, 22.

159 France.406 It appears that in the Netherlands there existed a certain degree of scepticism

regarding the role of the Devil in the world. Some Spiritualists such as the Anabaptist

David Joris went so far as to deny the physical existence of the Devil. Opinions such as

this one countered the fear of diabolical pacts between witches and devils which were

common elsewhere in Europe.407 This is not to say witchcraft played no role. Church

councils reveal that while Calvinists were not active in persecuting witches, they were

active in discouraging the use of “counter-magic” by members of the church. They also

encouraged magistrates to put a stop to witch doctors. Nevertheless, they also encouraged

restraint in prosecuting “injurious witchcraft,” or the use of harmful spells.408 The

Calvinists of the Netherlands evidently did not see witchcraft as a threat to public order

as it was perceived by the Huguenots.

In the 1560s and 70s, the attention of the Dutch Calvinists was directed elsewhere. Gary Waite has noted that in many places in Europe, persecution of

Anabaptists and witches was related. Catholics and Lutherans engaged in demonising polemic against Anabaptists, attempting to portray them as a witch-sect, and at the very

least as agents of the Devil. In regions where Anabaptism was exterminated, this rhetoric

406 Marijke Gijswijt-Hofstra, “Six Centuries of Witchcraft in the Netherlands: Themes, Outlines, and Interpretations” in Marijke Gijswijt-Hofstra and Willem Frijhoff eds.,Witchcraft in the Netherlands from the fourteenth to the twentieth century, trans. Rachel M.J. van der Wilden-Fall (Rotterdam, 1991), 29-30. 407 Gary K. Waite, ‘“Man is a Devil to Himself: David Joris and the Rise of a Sceptical Tradition towards the Devil in the Early Modem Netherlands, 1540-1600,”Nederlands archiefvoor kerkgeschiedenis/Dutch Review o f Church History 75 (1995), 29. Despite Joris’ unorthodox opinions his writings appear to have been influential in the Netherlands. Even Reformed pastors such as Herman Herberts argued that there were some profitable arguments in Joris’ work. Waite, “Man is a Devil to Himself,” 24-25. 401 Gijswijt-Hofstra, “Witchcraft in the Netherlands,” 22-23.

160 laid the foundations for the persecution of the new enemy of witches.409 In regions, such

as the northern Netherlands, where Anabaptism was never exterminated, witch hunting

was forestalled, or even abandoned410 Additionally, while Catholics and Lutherans

demonised Anabaptists for their unorthodox views, Calvinists generally engaged them on

more scriptural grounds. Indeed, Calvinists and Anabaptists shared many views on the

superstition of Catholicism and the need for a disciplined church community.411

However, in the 1570s, criticism of the Anabaptists on the part of the Calvinists of

the southern Netherlands was frequent. They did not go as far as Calvin in calling them

agents of the Devil, but did indeed consider their presence dangerous to public order.A

Friendly Warning and I fEveryone Must be Allowed both lump Anabaptists in with

atheists as intolerable disturbers of public order. The Anabaptists seem to be more

tolerable than atheists since they do accept Christ as their saviour after all. But Anabaptist

views, especially on the community of goods and their refusal to swear oaths, were

interpreted as a rejection of all secular authority, and as a result, the Anabaptists were

portrayed as disturbers of the peace. In the context of seeking Catholic allies,

emphasising the common struggle against Anabaptist heresy could serve the same purpose as anti-witchcraft sentiment in Huguenot writings.

Up to this point Calvinist toleration discourse developed similarly in the two countries. Although French Calvinists emphasised the need for a free council to

409 Gary K. Waite,Eradicating the Devil's Minions: Anabaptists and Witches in Reformation Europe (Toronto, 2007), 199-200. - Waite, Devil's Minions, 201-202. 4,1 Waite, Devil’s Minions, 59-60.

161 peacefully solve religious differences more quickly, the change from the militancy of the

1560s to the support of toleration of Catholics in 1570s in recognition of their diminished

prospect of a quick reformation and their need for allies played out in the same way

across the border. However, the Dutch Calvinists did not have their confidence

diminished by an event such as the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre and this would soon

result in a divergence in French and Dutch views on toleration. Militant Dutch Calvinists

alienated Catholic rebels, and the Catholics soon began to support the Spanish. In this

context, Calvinist writings of the early 1580s demonstrate a complete break with Spain

and the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, the Huguenots still needed Catholic support. They turned to emphasising common foreign enemies. Gentillet vilified the Italians and la

Noue advocated a crusade against the Turks. The Huguenots’ continued emphasis on a national struggle was reflected in the behaviour of Henri de Navarre who, according to

Heller, was the most “self-consciously national monarch France had ever seen” and this nationalism also entailed “rejection of foreign so-called others.”412 Henri, like his

Huguenot supporters, sought to put religious differences aside and focus instead on foreign threats.

By contrast, the rebel success in the northern Netherlands allowed for relative peace. In this peace, Calvinists could begin the process of further reformation. The first casualties of their reformation were many of their own clergy. The French also briefly attempted to press for further reformation between the first and second civil wars in

412 Heller, Anti-Italianism, 227.

162 ensuring that all the French churches followed the presbyterian church order. There was a brief period of controversy, but it was stifled in the resumption of war. The northern

Netherlands was relatively safe from the mid-1570s on and this resulted in more extensive controversies. In both Rotterdam and Leiden at least, major controversies erupted over the issues of presbyterian church order and discipline. The Calvinists were willing to endure these periods of turmoil since they were not preoccupied with simply surviving in a country that was largely hostile to them, as in France.

However, it was not simply peace that spawned the controversies which engulfed the Dutch Reformed Church. The earlier Reformation context and especially the strength of Spiritualism in the country posed a significant obstacle to further reformation. The

Spiritualist depreciation of external ceremonies and confessions were a particular obstacle to Calvinist discipline. Calvin himself showed his disgust for Spiritualism in his reply to Dirck Volkertsz. Coomert’sApology for the Roman Idolatry which argued that externals such as confessions were remnants of the Old Testament over which no one should die. Calvin’s response,Response to a certain Hollander, was virulent, even resorting to name-calling. He refuted each of Coomhert’s points with references from the

Bible, and claimed that because of Coomhert’s impiety, he had misinterpreted much of

Paul’s writing. Both body and soul belonged to God, and it was his desire that people worship him with both.413 Libertinism, as Calvin called Spiritualism, was just another

413 Marjam van Veen, ‘Verschooninghe van de roomsche afgoderye De Polemiek van Calvijn met nicodemieten, in het bijzonder met Coornhert (Houten, 2001), 207-209.

163 idea which “separated comportment from belief so as to justify conformity to idolatry” which fit in with his extensive writing against Nicodemism.414

The Calvinists of the Dutch Republic shared their founder’s distaste for

Spiritualism and Nicodemism. Spiritualist sympathisers such as Caspar Coolhaes caused much dissention in the church when they criticised the practices such as that of excommunication. But the situation became controversial because the magistrates were also greatly influenced by Spiritualism and supported the dissenting pastors. The

Calvinists responded with many pamphlets referring the supposedly Reformed magistrates as dissimulators, Spiritualists or even Catholics posing as Reformed. When the magistrates took the side of unorthodox pastors, it was only a matter of time before extra-local authorities such as church councils or the Stadholder were forced to get involved. Controversies of such a nature did not develop in France because of the lesser

Spiritualist influence on the magistrates, and especially upon die largely Geneva-trained and fiercely orthodox pastors. In the United Provinces however, Spiritualism was an idea that needed to be eradicated if reformation was to continue.

The way the story has played out thus far it would appear that the Huguenots turned out to be more tolerant than their Dutch co-religionists. In comparing their writing in the late 1570s and 80s one does get this impression. However, this impression is misleading as is demonstrated by the situation of Calvinists in southern France. Although prominent Calvinists from the north expressed their desire to live in peace with Catholics,

414 Zagorin, Ways o fLying, 78-79.

164 the actions of Calvinists in the south showed that complete reformation remained the

goal, and Catholicism had no place in a Reformed land. Philip Conner’s study of the

French city of Montauban is a good example. Conner remarks that while the Huguenots

developed tight-knit minority groups in northern cities, the Huguenots in Montauban

were a majority and used their status to force reformation on the town, forbidding

Catholics to hold office from 1567 to 1632.415 By 1565, the Lieutenant General of

Guyenne was receiving frequent complaints from the remaining Catholics of Montauban

that the consuls and judges were not administering the law fairly for Catholics and that

meat was being sold on fast days, all against the recent Edict of Pacification.416

According to Conner, the unity of church and government leadership resulted in a “rare

example” of a Calvinist town that was largely successful in its attempts to create a godly

society. Games, theatre, dancing, and dress codes were all exceptionally successfully regulated 417 When the Calvinists were in power, the toleration of Catholics and deviant behaviour soon went by the wayside.

What made the Dutch Calvinist relationship with toleration so unique was that they became the dominant church in a multi-confessional society. Because of the

stringency of Reformed discipline, and the unwillingness of magistrates to persecute dissenters as a result of memories of the Spanish Inquisition (and through Spiritualist

4,5 Philip Conner,Huguenot Heartland: Montauban and Southern French Calvinism during the Wars o f Religion (Aldershot, 2002), 5. 416 Conner, Huguenot Heartland, 54-55. 417 Conner, Huguenot Heartland, 74. Conner relates an interesting story of the Montauban consistory initiating proceedings against the visiting wife of Philippe Duplessis-Momay for her extravagant attire.

165 influences), the Reformed Church remained just another religious group (albeit with

official backing) competing for the support of Dutch men and women.418 Christine Kooi

has argued that the result of the Dutch Reformation was not Protestantism but pluralism

and there was a great degree of “fluidity among confessions” as ordinary people chose for

themselves to what religious group they would adhere419 Although the Reformed

occasionally sought to use their influence in government to produce edicts against their

main competitors, the Mennonites and Catholics, as was the case in Groningen in 1601,

on the level of “the mundane and quotidian, confessional coexistence was the norm.”420

The result was many pamphlets in which the Reformed sought to demonstrate the

falsehood of the beliefs of their competition, while on a personal level, many Calvinists

learned to peacefully co-exist with other religious groups, even non-Christians such as the Jews.421 The acceptance of this situation on the part of Calvinists is clearly seen in their relationship with the Anabaptists. Certainly the Calvinists sought to influence the magistrates to suppress Anabaptism. However, when the magistrates took little action, the

Calvinists basically accepted the situation and engaged in an intense confessional competition with Anabaptists in print and organised debates in an effort to strengthen the

411 Christine Kooi, “Converts and Apostates: The Competitions for Souls in Early Modem Holland,”Archtv fiar Reformationsgeschichte 92 (2001), 196; Waite, Devil's Minions, 6. Waite argues that a combination of Spiritualist influence and a realisation that Anabaptists posed no real threat to public order led them to abandon persecution of Anabaptists, and doubt the danger of a “demonic witch sect” as well. 419 Kooi, “Converts and Apostates,” 203,212-214. 420 Kooi, “Converts and Apostates,” 201. 421 Christine Kooi,Liberty and Religion: Church and State in Leiden's Reformation IS72-1620 (Leiden, 2000), 167-168; Judith Pollman, Religious Choice in the Dutch Republic: The Reformation o f Amoldus Buchelius, 1565-1641 (New York, 1999), 92,168-169; Samme Zijlstra, “Anabaptists, Spiritualists and the Reformed Church in East Frisia,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 75:1 (January 2001), 57-73.

166 faith of their own congregations, but also to convince the Anabaptists of their errors.422

On some level at least, the Calvinists of the United Provinces accepted the tolerance for

which the country was famous.

This description of events seems to imply that the Calvinist view of toleration was

completely determined by the political circumstances. Was toleration for the Calvinists,

as Andrew Pettegree put it when describing the Dutch regents’ practice of toleration, “a weapon” that could be used just as ruthlessly as intolerance to achieve political

objectives?423 The simple answer is yes. Toleration in the minds of French and Dutch

Calvinists was indeed a means to an end. Complete reformation of the realm was the objective, and to reach it tolerance became necessary as civil wars divided the realm along religious lines. Was toleration for the Calvinists then, as Benjamin Kaplan wrote in his assessment of Pettegree’s view “a stratagem requiring no conviction?”424 Not quite.

The Reformed advocacy for toleration was not just the product of their political circumstances. It was also the result of their desire of a peaceful reformation. Naturally the actions of many militant Calvinists show that at least part of the movement was committed to reformation regardless of the cost. But, the discourse of the Calvinists studied in this thesis shows a constant concern with finding a peaceful means to bringing about a purification of religious affairs. The early and consistent advocacy of a religious

422 Samme Zijlstra, Om de ware gemeente en de oude gronden: Geschiedenis van de dopersen in de Nederianden 1531-1675 (Hilversum & Leeuwarden, 2000), 373,344. 423 Andrew Pettegree, “The Politics of Toleration in the Free Netherlands, 1572-1620,” in Ole Peter Grell & Bob Scribner eds. Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation (Cambridge, 1996), 183. 424 Benjamin Kaplan, “Dutch Religious Tolerance: Celebration and Revision,” in Ronnie Po-Chia Hsia & Henk van Nierop,Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden (Cambridge, Age 2002), 24.

167 council and the emphasis placed on debates with Mennonites and Jews are reflective of

the Calvinist desire to bring about reformation through peaceful rather than violent

means. The advocacy of toleration was thus partly a tool for the goal of complete

reformation, but also a consequence of the desire of many (but not all) Calvinists to avoid

violence.

As mentioned in the introduction, Julian Woltjer has pointed out that “tolerant and

intolerant are by no means absolute categories...The tolerant did not oppose the

intolerant; instead there were varying degrees of tolerance and intolerance.”425 This

certainly is the case when examining French and Dutch Calvinist views on toleration. In

both cases, opinions were diverse and changeable. It appears that although Calvin’s ideas

influenced the doctrines of the Reformed, their political opinions conformed to Calvin’s only coincidently. What remained unchangeable throughout the period was the goal of

spreading the truth of the Gospel embodied in the Reformed religion. Ultimately,

Calvinists sought to bring about concord, i.e., Christian unity under Reformed principles.

To achieve this goal they sometimes were tolerant, sometimes intolerant. For most

Calvinists, religious toleration was a means to an end, not something desirable in and of itself. What this comparative study of Calvinism and religious toleration has demonstrated is that Calvinism’s success was closely tied to its adaptability to changing

423 Juliaan Woltjer, “Political Moderates and Religious Moderates in the Revolt of the Netherlands,” in Reformation, Revolt, and Civil War in France and the Netherlands 1555-1585, eds. Benedict et al., (Amsterdam, 1999), 185-186.

168 political circumstances. It was this, rather than the purity of their doctrine or its revolutionary ideas which allowed it to become the dominant voice of Protestantism.

169 Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Advertenc a tovs les inhabitans des Prouinces du Pays bas, estantz vniz & confederez pour la defence de la liberty de leur Religion, personnes, Priuleges, & anciennes coustumes, contre la tyrannie des Espaignolz, & leurs adherens, N.p, 1583.

L 'Advertissement et Response des Estats de Haynault sur la requeste faicte pour la liberte de la Religion, e tl’exercice d ’icelle. N.p., 1578.

T ’ Boecxken van de dry Pausen/met een warachtighe verklaringe van de menichsuldighe loosepractijcken/zoo van d'Inquisitie/als van het onderhouden der Placcaten ende anderssins/by den Cardinael Granvelle met syned adherenten gheinventeert...: Buyten Roomen. N.p, 1580.

Broederlijcke waerschouwinghe : aen alien Christen broeders, die van Godt veroordent sijn, tot de verkiesinghe der Ouerricheyt ende Magistrates inde Steden der ghevnieerde Prouincien, daer het Heylich Euangelium vercondicht, ende de ghereformeerde Religie gheexerceert wort. Antwerp, 1581.

Discours svr la Permission de liberte de religion, dicte religions-vrede, au Pats N.p, bas. 1579.

La Maniere d ’appasier les troubles, qyi sont maintenant en France, & y pourront estre cy apres. Auec une Harengue d ’vn Prince Chrestien, sur lespoincts de la Religion. A la Royne, Mere du Roy. N.p., 1561.

Juste Complainte des fideles de France. Contre leurs aduersaires Papistes, & autres. Sur I 'affliction & faux crimes, dont on les charge a grand tort. Ensemble les inconueniens, qui en pourroyentfinalement auenir & ceux, qui leur font la guerre. Avignon, Trophime des Riues: 1560.

Remonstrance a la Maieste dv Roy Catholique faite par ses suiets des pays bas, sur les inconueniens qui sepresentent, par I'establisement de Vinquisition d ’Espagne esditspays. N.p., 1566.

Reqveste Presentee a son Alteze & messeigneurs du Conseil d ’Estatpar les habitans des pals Bas, Protestans vouloir vitire selon la Reformation de VEuangile, le 2 ? lour de Iuin. N.p., 1578.

Responce d ’vn bon patriot & bourgeois de la ville de Gand au libelle fameux. N.p., 1583.

Sommaire Discours svr le moyen de conserver, et maintenir la vraye religion christiene, & garder & assurer les prouinces vnies, contre toutes apparentes entreprinsesm traihisons, & inuasions, de VEnnemyde la Patrie. N.p., Etc. 1581. Tsamenspreeckinghe van drie persoonen over het regireus Placcaet van Gronighen/ghecondicht den7. September/oude stijl. Anno sesthien-hondert ende een. Hollander. Embder. Ghereformeert. Door welcke tsamensprekinge naecktelick verthoont wort, dat die van Groningen doort selfde soecken nieuw consciencijs dwangh in te voeren/tot ondervruckinghe ende verdryvinghe van vele vromen/ tot berovinghe den dueren gecochten Landts middelen. N.p., 1601.

Vindiciae contra tyrannos, a defence o f liberty against tyrants, or, O f the lawful power o f the Prince over the people, and o f the people over the Prince. London: Matthew Simmons and Robert Ibbitson, 1648.

Een Vriendlijcke vermaninghe tot alien Liefhbbers der vryheyt ende des Religions- vreden. N.p., 1579.

Broughton, Hugh. Ovr Lorde Famile and many other poinctes depending vpon it: opened against a lew, Rabbi David Farar: who disputed many houres, with hope to overthrow the Gospl, opened in Ebrew explication o f Christianitie. Amsterdam: n.p., 1608.

Castellio, Sebastian. Concerning Heretics: Whether they are to be persecuted and how they are to be treated. A collection o f the opinions o f learned men both ancient and modern. Trans. Roland H. Bainton. New York: Octagon Books, Inc. 1965.

Chandieu, Antoine de. La confirmation de la discipline ecclesiatique, obseruee es eglises reformees du royaume de France, avec la response aux objections proposies a I ’encontre. N.p., 1566.

Coolhaes, Caspar.Apologia. Een Christelijcke ende billijcke verantwoordinghe Caspari Coolhaessen. Dienaer des Goodlijcken woorts tot Leyden, daer in hy hem nootsakelijck sonder ennighe blamatie, met der waerheyt ontschuldicht, teghen eenighe quaetwillinghe ende onverstandighe, die hem van valscher Leer, ende onchristelijcken leuen beschuldighen, ghestelt in forme eens Dailogi van twee personen. N.p., 1580.

Coolhaes, Caspar.Een Chriselijcke vermaninghe, aen alle onpartydighe Predicanten: Om te waecken, ende by tijts te voorsien, dat die Sathan gheen nieu Pausdom, aen des ouden benaest veruallen plaets wederom oprechte. N.p., 1584.

Costerus, Abraham. Historie der Joden, Die t ’sedert de verstooringe Jerusalems in alle landen verstroyt zijn: in dry deelen beschreven. Het I. Handelt van haer geloove, ‘t welck sy hebben van God, vande Saligheyt, vanden Messia, mitsgaders de wederlegginge van haer principaelste dwalingen. Het II van hare Godts-dienst, Ceremonien, en maniere van Leven, o phaer Sabbath, Paesch-, en ander Feest- dagen. Het III van haer daeghlijcx leven, anieren en gewoonten, die sy in eten, drincken, gaen, staen, kleedinge, trouwen, &c. ghebruycken. Uyt verscheyden Autheuren vergadert/ende beschreven door Abrahamum Costerum. 2nd publication. Amsterdam, n.p., 1650. Dankbaar, W.F. Documenta Anabaptistica Neerlandica. Vol. 3,Marten Mikron, Een Waerachtigh Verhaal der T ’zamensprekinghen tusshen Menno Simons nde Matinus Mikron van der Menschwerdinghe Iesu Christi (1556). Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989.

Gentillet, Innocent.An Apology or defence for the Christians ofFraunce which are o f the Euangelicall or reformed religion, for the satisfiing o fsuch as wil not liue in peace and concord with them... Written to the king ofNauarre and translated out o f french into English by Sir Jherom Bowes Knight. London: John Day, 1579.

Gentillet, Innocent.A Discovrse vpon the Meanes w oel f governing and maintaining in good peace, a kingdome, or other principalitie. Divided into three parts, namely, the Counsell, the Religion, and the Police which a Prince ought to hold and follow. Against Nicholas Machiavell the Florentine. Trans. Simon Patericke. London: Adam Flip, 1602.

Mamix van St. Aldegonde, Philips.Response a vn petit livret n ’agveres pvblii, et intitvli, Declaration de Vintention du Seigneur Don Jehan d ’Austrice...En laquelle la vraye intention dudit Sr. Don Jehan est manifestement descouuerte... Antwerp: » Christophle Plantin, 1578.

Mamix van St. Aldegonde, Philips.Vraye Narration etApologie des choses passes au Pays-bas, touchant le Fait de la Religion en VAn 1566par cevs qvi font profession de la Religion reformie audit Pays. 1567.

Momay, Philippe de.Remonstrance aux estats pour la Paix. Au Souget: Jean Torgue, 1576.

Momay, Philippe de.Traicte de I'eglise auquel sont disputees les principalles questions, qui ont esti meues sus ce point en nostre London: temps. Thomas Vautrollier, 1578.

La Noue, Francis de. Discours politiques et militaires. Publics avec une introduction et des notes par F.E. Sutcliffe. Droz, Geneva: Libraire Droz, 1967.

De Thou, M. Mimoires de Condi, servant d ’iclaircissement de de Preuves a I ’Histoire. Vol. I. Paris: Rollin,1743.

Wesembeek, Jan. La Description de VEstat Succes et Occurrences, advenues au Pais bas du faictde la Religion. Premier Livre. N.p., 1569.

Secondary Sources:

Barker, Sara. Protestantism, Poetry and Protest: The Vernacular Writings o fAntoine de Chandieu (c. 1534-1591.) Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2009. Benedict, Philip. Mamef, Guido. Van Nierop, Henk. Venard, Marc. Eds.Reformation, Revolt and Civil War in France and the Netherlands 1555-1585. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. 1999.

Benedict, Philip. Rouen during the Wars o fReligion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Berkvens-Stevelinck, C., Israel J., Posthumus Meyjes G.H.M. Eds.The Emergence o f Tolerance in the Dutch Republic. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 1997.

Blanks, David R. & Frassetto, Michael. Eds.Western Views o f Islam in Medieval and Early Modem Europe: Perception o f Other. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.

Blom, J. C. H., R. G. Fuks-Mansfeld, and Ivo SchofFer.The History o f the Jews in the Netherlands. Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2002.

Ten Boom, H.De Reformatie in Rotterdam 1530-1585. De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1987.

Bouwsma, William J. John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Conner, Philip.Huguenot Heartland: Montauban and Southern French Calvinism During the Wars o f Religion. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002.

Crew, Phyllis Mack. Calvinist Preaching and Iconoclasm in the Netherlands 1544-1569. London: Cambridge University Press, 1978.

Darby, Graham. Ed. The Origins and Development o f the Dutch Revolt. London and New York: Routledge, 2001.

Daussy, Hugues. Les huguenots et le ro i: le combat politique de Philippe Duplessis- Momay (1572-1600), Gendve, Droz, 2002.

Davis, Kenneth R. “No Discipline, No Church: An Anabaptist Contribution to the Reformed Tradition.”Sixteenth Century Journal 13:4 (Winter, 1982), 43-58.

Davis, Natalie Zemon.Society and Culture in Early-Modern France: Eight Essays. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1975.

Deursen, Arie Theodoras van.Plain Lives in a Golden Age: Popular Culture, Religion, and Society in Seventeenth-Century Holland. Trans. Marteen Ultee. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Duke, Alastair. Reformation and Revolt in the Low Countries. London & Ronceverte: The Hambleton Press, 1990. Van Engen, John. Sisters and Brothers o f the Common Life: The Devotio Modema and the World of the Later Middle Ages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.

Ferber, Sarah. Demonic Possession and Exorcism in Early Modem France. London & New York: Routledge, 2004.

Gijswijt-Hofstra, Marijke. Frijhoff, Willem. Eds.Witchcraft in the Netherlands from the fourteenth to the twentieth century. Trans. Rachel M.J. van der Wilden-Fall. Rotterdam: Universitaire Pers Rotterdam, 1991.

Graham, W. Fred. Later Calvinism: International Perspectives. Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994.

Grell, Ole Peter & Scribner, Bob. Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Guggisberg, Hans R. “The Defence of Religious Toleration and Religious Liberty in Early Modem Europe: Arguments, Pressures, and Some Consequences.”History o f European Ideas 4:1 (1983). 35-50.

Harline, Craig E. Pamphlets, Printing, and Political Culture in the Early Dutch Republic. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1987.

Heller, Henry.Anti-Italianism in Sixteenth-Century France. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003.

Holt, Mack P. The French Wars o f Religion, 1562-1629. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Hsia, Ronnie Po-Chia & van Nierop, Henk, eds.Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Hunter, Michael; Wootton, David. Eds.Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.

Huseman, William H. “The Expression of the Idea of Toleration in French During the Sixteenth Century.”Sixteenth Century Journal 15:3 (Fall 1984). 293-310.

Kaplan, Benjamin J. Calvinists and Libertines: Confession and Community in Utrecht 1578-1620. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

Kaplan, Benjamin.Divided By Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice o f Toleration in Early Modem Europe. Cambridge Mass. & London: Harvard University Press, 2007.

Kaplan, Benjamin. “Remnants of the Papal Yoke: Apathy and Opposition in the Dutch Reformation.”Sixteenth Century Journal 25 (1994). 653-669. Kingdon, Robert M.Geneva and the Coming o f the Wars ofReligion in France, 1555- 1563. Gen6ve: Librairie E. Droz, 1956.

Kingdon, Robert M.Geneva and the Consolidation o f the French Protestant Movement, 1564-1572: A Contribution to the History o f Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, and Calvinist Resistance Theory. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967.

Kooi, Christine. “Converts and Apostates: The Competition for Souls in Early Modem Holland.”Archivfilr Reformationsgeschichte 92(2001), 195-214

Kooi, Christine.Liberty and Religion: Church and State in Leiden’s Reformation 1572- 1620. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

Kooi, Christine. “Popish Imprudence: The Perseverance of the Roman Catholic Faithful in Calvinist Holland, 1572-1620.” Sixteenth Century Journal 26 (1995). 75-85.

Mamef, Guido. Antwerp in the Age o fReformation: Underground Protestantism in a Commercial Metropolis, 1550-1577. Trans. J.C. Grayson. Baltimore & London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.

McGrath, Alister E. A Life o fJohn Calvin: A Study in the Shaping o f Western Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: Basil Blackwell, 1990.

Parker, Charles H. “Two Generations of Discipline: Moral Reform in Delft Before and After the Synod of Dort.” Archiv filr Reformationsgeschichte 92 (2001): 215-231

Pearl, Jonathan L. The Crime o f Crimes: Demonology and Politics in France 1560-1620. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfred Laurier Press, 1999.

Pollman, Judith. Religious Choice in the Dutch Republic: The Reformation o fArnoldus Buchelius (1565-1641). Manchester & New York: Manchester University Press, 1999.

Pettegree, Andrew. Calvinism in Europe, 1540-1620. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Sutherland, N.M. The Huguenot Struggle for Recognition. Yale University Press, 1980.

Thorp, Malcolm R., Salvin Arthur J. Eds.Politics, Religion & Diplomacy in Early Modern Europe. Kirksville, Missouri, 1994.

Tracy, James D.Holland under Habsburg Rule, 1506-1566: The Formation o f a Body Politic. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.

Turchetti, Mario. “Religious Concord and Political Tolerance in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Cenury France.”Sixteenth Century Journal 22:1 (Spring 1991): 15- 25. Van Veen, Maijam. ‘ Verschooninghe van de roomsche afgoderye ’. De Polemiek van Calvijn met nicodemieten, in het bijzonder met Coornhert. Houten, 2001.

Waite, Gary K.Eradicating the Devil’s Minions: Anabaptists and Witches in Reformation Europe. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007.

Waite, Gary K. “Man is a Devil to Himself’: David Joris and the Rise of a Sceptical Tradition Towards the Devil in the Early Modem Netherlands, 1540-1600.” Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis/Dutch Review o f Church History, 75 (1995). 1-30

Waite, Gary.Reformers on Stage: Popular Drama and Religious Propaganda in the Low Countries o f Charles V, 1515-1556. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000.

Waite, Gary K. “Rhetoricians and Religions Compromise during the Early Reformation (c.1520-1555).” Urban Theatre in the Low Countries, 1400-1625. Eds. Peter Happd and Elsa Strietman. Tumhout, Netherlands: Brepols Publishers, 2006. 79- 102.

Wedgewood, C.V. William the Silent: William o fNassau, Prince o f Orange 1533-1584. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1944.

Zagorin, Perez. Ways o fLying: Dissimulation, Persecution, and Conformity in Early M odem Europe. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990.

Zijlstra, Samme. “Anabaptists, Spiritualists and the Reformed Church in East Frisia.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 75:1 (January 2001), 57-73.

Zijlstra, Samme. Om de ware gemeente en de oude gronden: Geschiedenis van de dopersen in de Nederlanden 1531-1675. Hilversum & Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy & Uitgeverij Verloren, 2000. Curriculum Vitae

Candidate’s full name: David Lome Robinson

Universities attended: Memorial University of Newfoundland (Sir Wilfred Grenfell

College), Bachelor of Arts, 2009.

Publications: None

Conference Presentations: Forthcoming presentation at the Congress of the Social

Sciences and Humanities in Fredericton, New Brunswick, 28-30 May, 2011.