ART. VIII.—JEAN LAILLIER, THE FICKLE REFORMER -A CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY OF THE FRENCH REFORMATION. ULLMANN, in the Preface to his Reformers before the Reformation, says: Is it possible that Luther and his confederates, or that Zwingli and his, or that the men whom we see taking the field for the pure evangelical doctrine on the banks of the Rhine downward to the Netherlands should have dropped as reformers from heaven or received their impulse and insight from a foreign land? No, certainly. Even the law of historical continuity would require us to suppose corresponding intermediate links -laborers who prepared this particular soil.* This is also the truth in regard to the beginning of the French Reformation. We generally speak of the Reformation in France in a slighting manner, for the reason that to-day France is not Protestant. We forget the fact that France, in its refugees, contributed much to the stability of England and America and gave Calvin and his system to the world. Many have studied the beginnings of this Reformation, and much interesting information has been collected regarding its period. Men who were bold enough to stand alone and differ from all their associates, and that, too, when toleration was not even a theory, inspire us with the spectacle of their zeal and their display of heroism in righting wrong. Jean Laillier, or Lellier, as the name is sometimes printed, seems to be either a forgotten or a slighted reformer. He is mentioned by Bernard Picard in connection with Huss, Wyclif, Calvin, and other reformers.† Mr. Henry C. Lea is the only writer in the English language, as far as is known at the present writing, who makes any reference to him. But the original source for what is known of Laillier is the Register of the University of Paris. This is copied almost entirely by Fleury in his Histoire Ecclésiastique. § Jean Laillier was a priest of Paris, a graduate of the univer * Vol. 1, p. xiii. + Histoire Générale des Cérémonies, Mœurs et Coutumes Religieuses de tous les Peuples du Monde. 8 vols., folio. Paris, 1741. Vol. iii, p. 338. A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, vol. í, p. 294; vol. ii, p. 143. § Vol. xxiv, pp. 23, ff., Brussels, 1726. This, of course, does not appear in the English abridgment. See also Dupin, Bibliothèque, tom. xii, p. 149. sity, and a licentiate in theology in the year 1484, the year following Luther's birth. In July, 1485, he presented ten radical propositions, some of which were aimed at the most vital doctrines of the Church: I. "St. Peter received from Christ neither power over the apostles nor primacy." II. "All those who compose the ecclesiastical hierarchy have received equal power from Jesus Christ, so that the priests are equal in power and jurisdiction in the government of the Church." III. "The pope cannot remit all punishment by plenary indulgence, even though granted justly and with reason.” IV. "Abbots and priors do not give absolution in virtue of the keys, but by custom only. Therefore confession is not a divine ordinance." V. "If you ask about the pope, the less said the better." VII. "Those who confess to mendicant monks, even by the prescribed rule, are not absolved, but must confess the same to their priest." VIII. "John XXIII did not have the power to enforce the decretal vas electionis." (This condemned Jean de Poilly.) IX. "The decretals and decrees of the pope are simply mockeries." X. "The Romish Church is not the chief of the other Churches." On the last day of the same month he was cited by the Faculty of the Sorbonne to appear before them. He laid before them his ten propositions, with others. The new propositions were nine in number, and were each answered in turn by the Faculty. I. 66 You must keep the commandments of God and the apostles; but as for the commandments of bishops, they are no more than straw. Such destroy the Church by their dreams." The Faculty agreed that the first part of the proposition was correct, but declared the second part to be scandalous, schismatic, contrary to good morals, to evangelical and apostolical doctrine. Consequently, it must be publicly recanted. II. "Some give praise to a saint, as if he were in the place from whence Lucifer fell, instead of which they are where 51-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. X. Lucifer is now. As long as such preachers are established the Church of God will never prosper." The doctors declared this proposition to be false, injurious, seditious, speaking evil of the saints, favorable to a condemned error. It must be recanted. III. "The rich saints are now canonized and the poor ones forgotten. Therefore I am not obliged to believe that there are saints. Even if the pope receives money or goes upon twenty scaffolds to canonize a saint I am not obliged to believe him such. If one does not believe it he is not thinking wrongly." The Faculty pronounced this to be false, offending to pious ears, injurious to the apostolic see, and contrary to the piety of the faithful. The last part was heretical. IV. "If a priest has been married and will come to me and confess I will not command him to do penance." This was objected to as implying a wrong idea, that a priest could marry after taking holy orders. V. "The priests of the Oriental Church do not sin if they marry. I think we would not if we did." To this it was replied that it was false that the priests of the Oriental Church married. This profession of faith made the author guilty of error; and if he held to it with stubbornness he was a heretic. VI. "For four hundred years it has been forbidden the priests to marry. It may have been by a pope or a dwarf pope [butterfly]. I do not know that he could prevent it." The professors denied the assertion that priests were allowed to marry previous to the time indicated, and pronounced the last part of the proposition a mockery, derogatory to the apostolic see and the authority of a general council. They further declared that it must be recanted. VII. "I will give two pieces of silver to anyone who will find for me a passage of Scripture which commands to fast in Lent." To this it was objected that we are not only to obey the Scripture, but other authority, and that the author of the proposition was heretical on this point. As to the assertion of there being no obligation to fast in Lent, the proposition was false, derogatory to the custom and to good morals, and contrary to the determination of saints. VIII. "Since the time of St. Silvester the Roman Church is no more the Church of Jesus Christ, but the Church of Cæsar and of money." This proposition was declared to be injurious to the Church and to the apostolic see, blasphemous, heretical, and long ago condemned. IX. "One is no more obliged to believe in the legends of the saints than in the chronicles of the kings of France." The Faculty declared this to be false, offending to pious ears, derogatory to the authority of the Church, and heretical if interpreted universally. This judgment was rendered in a general assembly of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Paris, at the Church of the Mathurins on the fifth day of June, in the year 1486. Soon after Laillier applied to the university for his degree of doctor. At this time the theological faculty brought forward a new proposition, extracted from former writings of Laillier. This proposition stated that a simple priest could consecrate the holy cil and could ordain as well as the pope or bishop. Further, all priests were equal in power and jurisdiction. St. Thomas had as much authority among the Indians as St. Peter among the Romans. It was decided that this must be publicly recanted, and also that Laillier could not have his degree. Nothing daunted, he immediately appealed to Parliament. By them the case was sent back to Louis, Bishop of Paris, for investigation. This the bishop began in connection with Jean Cossart, the inquisitor, and four doctors selected by the theological faculty. Laillier presented four propositions reaffirming his position on the following points: 1. The uselessness of fasting in Lent. 2. The limitation of the authority and power of the Church (quoting Gerson and D'Ailly in support of his position). 3. The denial of the Romish position concerning the history of celibacy. 4. He also stated that Gerson, in his treatise, Of the Spiritual Life of the Soul, had presented propositions more radical than his own. The theological faculty immediataly condemned these propositions. They especially denied the statements respecting GerThe bishop and inquisitor agreed to proceed separately. son. While these investigations were going on the Faculty was not idle. They presented the case to Arnoul Alouf, “ Promoter of the Officialty" of Paris. They informed him that the propositions of Laillier had been preached in several places to the scandal of the faithful, and that they had already been condemned by the Faculty of Theology as scandalous, schismatic, damaging to the doctrine of the Church, aiming at rebellion against superiors, blasphematory against the saints who had been canonized by the pope and the apostolic see, suspected of heresy, pernicious, rash, presumptuous, and contrary to good manners. Alouf ordered Laillier to retract publicly after this manner: "I, Jean Laillier, priest, master of arts, licentiate in theology— noted, suspected, and accused of having published and preached to the people of Paris several scandalous propositions, erroneous, heretical-for my justification, and to make satisfaction to the people who might have been scandalized by it, promise and swear by the holy orders that I do not believe what I have said. I hereby revoke the propositions. I have abjured them, and do now abjure them, without wishing to be obstinate or defend them. I reduce myself to the very truth." Then followed a recantation of each proposition in detail. The recantation took place June 23, 1486, at the command of Alouf and at the added request of the bishop. The inquisitor had communicated the facts he had gathered to the bishop; but the bishop kept his own counsel and, without consulting the inquisitor, summarily judged the process. After recantation he relieved Laillier of the sentence of excommunication, reestablished him in all his rights, gave him the right to be promoted to other degrees, and also abolished all note of infamy. Laillier applied several times for his degree, but the Faculty persistently refused him. The bishop, after having given him the right to the doctorate, now tried to compel the Faculty to grant it. November 6 the Faculty made an appeal to the general public and to Pope Innocent VIII. He immediately issued two bulls. The first was to Jean Cossart, the inquisitor, in which he forbade Laillier the right of preaching, and submitted the affair for further action to the inquisitor, to the Bishop of Sens, and the Bishop of Meaux. The second bull was addressed to the Faculty, praising their zeal, approving |